HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHB95-44 Preliminary Listing of Evidence Materials - SHX Letters / Memos - 11/13/1995 1 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD
2 STATE OF WASHINGTON
3 DOUGLAS J. NEYHART, NO. SHB 95-44
4 a single man, TRBO's PRELIMINARY LISTING OF
5 Appellant EVIDENCE MATERIALS
6 V.
7 STATE OF WASHINGTON,
8 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY,
9 and
10 THE TAHUYA RIVER BASIN
11 ORGANIZATION,
12 Respondents
13
14 1. Please find attached, the TAHUYA RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION's (TRBO) preliminary
15 evidence listing in the above matter. I have faxed a copy of this memorandum and the
16 attached listing to the parties. I will separately mail the evidence indicated.
17
18 2. TRBO requests guidance with regard to forwarding of video evidence (RT-5). Both
19 Ecology and Mr. Neyhart are known to be in possession of a complete copy of the video
20 listed as taken by Key. TRBO intends to excerpt the video taken by Key into representative
21 portions and combine it with Ecology video so as to shorten the time needed for review and
22 facilitate presentation. Video taken by Ecology could more readily be provided by Ecology. 1
23 await your guidance.
Evidence List - 1 of 4
1
2 3. 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the
3 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
4 TAHU R BASIN ORGANIZATION
5 By: l� 51gr
6 Vernon L. Rutter
7 Registered Agent
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Evidence List - 2 of 4
PRELIMINARY LIST OF EVIDENCE MATERIALs
RT-1: Affidavit by Alene Macomber
RT-2: DNR Aerials: RT-2-1, 1981; RT-2-2, 1985; RT-2-3, 1989
RT-3: Aerial photos current condition: RT-3-1, RT-3-2, RT-3-3; 1 October 1995
RT-4: Ground photos pre-Neyhart: RT-4-1, Fall 1977; RT-4-2, Winter 1979/80; RT-4-3,
Summer 1980
RT-5: Aerial video taken by Ecology in December 94/January 95 showing Neyhart flooding;
Video taken by Key over December 94 and January 95 of Neyhart flooding, illegal
repairs to dikes, illegal filling and leveling.
RT-6: Letter from Ecology (Craig) to Neyhart outlining violations and warning enforcement of
Order - 6 March 95
RT-7: Letter to TRBO from Ecology listing contents of Ecology file and soliciting input to the
Neyhart situation - 15 April-94
RT-8: Letter from Ecology (Mark/Sohnerone) Mason County and Neyhart noting violations
and warning enforcement within 30 days - 7 June 1993
RT-9: Letter from Don Brush to Ecology - listing of recorded site inspections and
observations - 30 July 1993
RT-10: Neyhart SCS Farm Plan - 10 June 1993.
RT-11: Plans etc. prepared by Dean Renner (SCS) for manure storage building - 30
October 92.
RT-12: Letter signed by Gary Yando to Bill Hunter and Doug Neyhart with attached
listing of violation history and listing of contents of Mason County file - 13 Feb
1992.
RT-13: Letter by Steve Nichols, Mason County Planner to Gary Yando detailing
Neyhart noncompliance - 10 Feb 1992.
RT-14: Letter by State Rep Peggy Johnson to Mason County Commissioner Bill Hunter
- 4 February 1992.
RT-15: Letter from state DOH to Belinda Freemont citing elevated Hood Canal water
quality testing findings and concern that Neyhart is the source - 24 October 91
RT-16: Note by Jim Anest documenting poor location of Manure Storage facility pointed
out by SCS designers asking for DOE support to move to better location - 14
Evidence List - 3 of 4
May 91
RT-17: Letter from Don Bales (Ecology) documenting so-called alternative channel is in
fact a part of the Tahuya River - 6 September 90
RT-18: Letter to Neyhart from Randy Neff Mason County documenting illegal fill of
channel - July 90 (can't read date)
RT-19: Letter from Mason Water Quality (Ann Remsberg) to Neyhart - report of
investigation - 24 May 1989
RT-20: Letter from Mason Water Quality (Ann Remsberg) to Mike Byrne - condition of
horse keeping areas - 15 May 1989
RT-21: Letter from Mason Water Quality (Ann Remsberg) to Mike Byrne - fecal coliform
- 14 Feb 1989
RT-22: Letter from Rick McNicholas to Mrs Joan Neyhart discussing horse offal on
beaches of Hood Canal - 14 April 1987
RT-23: Letter to Neyhart from Planner, Patti Miller Crowley - 13 July 1987.
RT-24: Flood Rate Insurance Map of Mason County showing Neyhart location to be
within floodway
RT-25: Letter from TRBO to Conservation District (Norcross) responding to disclaimer
by the Conservation District for any enforcement authority and citing areas of
non-compliance in Farm Plan - 22 February 1994
Evidence List - 4 of 4
za
r•2. � r - r
� � C ,s 4 ii�:• v
+s�•`t• _ ,r .., s. k ry •.•�a,..,.. ��et,.f�- -f :';,yy � 4 fir?,���¢T
�,��i;�S av`ti� S.•1 d. OYR�i�^ �}1, } W..�, - �" an ... * � "'.�1"Ii� 'C eJ'•
.,+'�h�nw�- � �C`�,1 a. a y`..:- �::•� .r R,T�aF7SR.�"�� ��, ft' .:
k�;e�yi n"�,y .}4{ "'�� "t .c�"�* ` ham'"'• � 3 �f W�,, 1'. } �^ 1� r., c 1q
' T
µ
b � n
Exhibit RT-1
STATEMENT OF FACT
To Whom It May Concern:
1. The following is a Statement of Fact regarding the condition of the property on the
Tahuya River now known as "Neyhart Farms" prior to its sale by the Macomber family to
Mr. Douglas Neyhart in April 1981.
2. Access to the property is via Tahuya River Road. The area of the property adjacent to
Tahuya River Road is approximately 1 acre and is situated on the north side of the river. A
bridge crosses the river from this portion of the property to a large wetland area. The area
of this southerly portion of the property is approximately 30 acres. This area routinely
flooded during the winter and spring.
3. Prior to sale of the property, the southerly wetland area was completely covered by trees
and vegetation except for approximately 6 acres which was in pasture.
4. While my family owned the property, no more than 4 horses were let onto the wetland
portion of the property at any time. Our horses were wintered on the upland northerly
portion of the property.
5. Prior to sale of the property, there was never any dike, berm, or any other man made
.river bank reinforcement.
Dated this d,3 d day of S 1992.
Alene Macomber
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
County of )ss
On this day personally appeared before me &P. h To me
known to be the individual described herein who executed the foregoing document for the
uses and purposes therein described.
J�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of A092.
r
NOTARY PUBLIC in and fo 'the'tat o
Washington. Residing at.
My commission expires:
i
g •S185 1'2- 24-IJ
av 'A I II.l. J � / 1 y y7..•
oK
Y6 r
vy� .��� .aft -e:�`tw � '^,i �.r - }?� .� (' c' � �-1 'r•,1
w?y .•ES! 4as`�.tq �"�'�5� t �..<- �� +yy� �r•J.• �Lsr': 1� .,T, �
°.'t'Ka�. _ .tS''• 'Q 1v1•'< 1+'is •y,'S1►. •
,...,�G •����` .lr's .� '4}. j� x ``Y66b$� •r'- 4s:y•~ w�''+.� _ .-
�t rt nt, -' � Y }r `�' '� t F-i''Wy+- �x ,+ Y�'y;�• :• , f ,'c.�,r
t. r
• sx % .
+ l�a
" ' A
Or
�. l• 60 �Z
.
�l��� �ft'i�- !.�11y�'1G l(} t^Tt^ �� 1•�S
� J
t WMV
yar •h r .a ♦ ,
fi• `. * .� �'i �..1.D�y1l��R[� / �..'��s�c�E�"gam_�"af.-
f'"+,•• f ��'io i { '�Fl�i- ,Yr�'1..2 , �`� `�4"S` .'��a'� 7'.r�'2� ..� r �" :i�.. o` •-
f�tr. ,�" -/��,al � x� �.5}�, ,y yr '�.°.��A w� �'+ '1 'I �°? +4Z :.}` ,♦
FF � T7
T� ,.�rl� w �i�`t�f'd;`h��`� - �, � ♦ ity"��•«. `�, y`.r}' �Mw_ � 1 � ,�.-� .�., ,�i'� ;
• ��`'� �. g, � � �♦ F '���" � � , Y „yea :,• � ��,z,
,_ 4�„Y�Z:. ,�. rt 1��'.� � .r vt rt �(_✓� �I _ '�l'MdWf � "' �r-+'w ���K
.fix.
;,+ ,ay, �� t T N �',/���11 �itp�� • ;I y���,4t � +1*, m �.. �. `�?"�'•,F, ^,�'t,- .,�a�:J��y-:..
�t! s'il��"�� Eq �h ;p .�"��4i''" �� X� � a :��,,. .a _ �- Y •v'4�..
'e 1•` .r�„ �'. ��`-.r?�Y sp r �,i 4. i� ����.5 rt '' _ � '" 4+ -1����x ,_ .�` ��,`U•
.�'.�4t
ui.��� J,'-� ♦�Jr� j'`iTd' � / 1a��,x� A•. +1 2 - W. +�. .r. '��'�• ! A'#y�� 'J.
se-
�'„w�av -Y� i{ y �leFf�d r f„ .�- 4+".Y'^ � .,Y,f t •' «� ,r�-i-.'� ��E.t� y. k.
p': 1 j t r` - �'Y � � r� -� � Jr( i .u,�� 7'�". � ��-`< y� A� ., "'c♦�. 'j��' `.+�.
d ` , �,o� f ?'- `; 19
.44
��,A'�•'"'f(��� J� ,i •�-� i r,. r•7 � '''A. #�saH_�.�i 1 Yf. ♦ ��w.._ .`�.
y
�R1.4. 1 q�77 ,+YrrS
jlkt ,
:r
,;�
+ 7.:
i y
r f� N' � ��rr•^.' � �i� .v�!°t IEA�� "ffdlfi� - •• • •
r } gg
• •�, 4�
J
��•• .� Jti �' ��It'
�• to R �� 1'f
iA]
3� •
vv y. ice' *- r. •
' .-�„ � ��� 'rye �`�� ..� � �,� ••
OIL%
�.rc
1 tik 4
WIT
.. to ti Mi"" §� •• •
Alm
-f.:.. • • • • •
so 0
NIPPON
5 �
-
_ � ��_,ter' .✓' J-� 'J KI��-}
'7 ar"Yam.:`�_ - o+> �.. • • • -
��, -• - • •
••• •
t"
T-6
o �
x
0
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (106)407.6300
March 6, 1995
Douglas Neyhart
315 Seneca Street
Seattle, WA 99101-2999
Dear Mr. Neyhart:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on January ii, 1995. As you
recall, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways that you can come into
compliance with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program (MCSMP) concerning certain activities on your horse-
rearing and training operation on the Tahuya River.
` At the meeting, we emphasized the importance of how the shoreline permit
process allows the public and agency personnel to comment on your project in`a
comprehensive and timely manner, something that has not been possible so far.
To the extent that your project comes into compliance with environmental
regulations through this process, you will be subject to far less criticism
than you are presently.
There are three issues, we believe, need Shorelines Permits before they comply
with the SMA and the MCSMP:
1. Flood Protection and o e ine S biliza ion
Sh r i to t
By your own admission, you have placed sandbags, riprap, soil, and rock along
several hundred feet of the main branch of the Tahuya River that flows through
your property. This work was done to prevent high river flows from inundating
your property. Such work requires an after-the-fact Substantial Development
Permit and apparently a Conditional Use Permit to be in compliance with the
MCSMP. Flood protection and shoreline stabilization is regulated under
Section 7.16.150 of the MCSMP.
2. Animal confinement buffer
Your practice of confining horses within. 100 feet of a water body is
inconsistent with the MCMP (see 7.16.010) . This is particularly important
given the large number of horses you have on your property, which is within
the floodplain of the Tahuya River. This practice must be reviewed by Mason
County officials to determine how your animal confinement activities can come
into compliance with the MCSMP.
3. Fill
It is our position that some of the recontourig activities you have undertaken
on your property constitutes "filling" as defined in the SMA. At the January
llth meeting, we discussed the training track in particular. The SMA states
Exhibit RT-6
Douglas Neyhart
March 6, 1995
Page 2
that: ". . .alteration
of th
e
contour of ing or filling
other than that which results from normal ecultivation,yshall lnot be considered
normal or necessary farming or ranching practices' (Chapter
90.58.030(3) (e) (iv)RCW.
We agree to forego issuing our Order provided you make the necessary
arrangements to get your property on the Tahuya River into compliance with the
SMA and the MCSMP. we have concluded that you must submit a complete
application to Mason County, including any required fees, within 30 days after
receiving this letter. Notify us in writing that you have done so. Failure
to do so will result in our issuing the order. You may, of course, appeal any
such Order to the Shorelines Hearing Board.
Since we believe it is important that you understand the specific nature of
our allegations, I have enclosed the most recent draft of the Order, which is
nearly identical to the one you saw earlier. This way you can see what
portions of the law apply to our allegations and we hope this will help
clarify our position.
We appreciate your interest in settling this matter without the necessity of
formal legal action. Further, we hope that this process will finally resolve
the issues that have surrounded your horse-rearing operation for too many
Years. Please contact me at 407-6784 if you have any questions about this
letter.
jerelye Craig
rvisorr and Shoreland
Resources Program
SC:cl
Enclosure
cc: Gary Yando, Mason County
Chuck Gale, Ecology, swRO
Jim Anest, Ecology, HQ
11TWetlands, in this context is defined as . . floodways and
contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such
floodways; and all marshes,bogs, swamps, and river deltas
associated with streams. . . °
sTa7, of
w: T
oy
STATE OF WASH NGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. BOX 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 • (206)459-6000
April 15, 1994
Mr. Vern Rutter, President
Tahuya River Basin Organization
P.O. Box 273
Tahuy a WA 98588
Dear Mr. Rutter:
Enclosed please find the information you requested, which consists of a
six page table of the file contents in the Neyhart situation. We will
be drawing upon the experience of your organization and of Mr. Neyhart
to accurately describe the extensive factual history of this
controversial shoreline activity.
If you have any questions please call me at (206) 407-6529.
Sinc rely,
�--
m Anest
Enforcement Coordinator
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
JA:j a
Enclosure
o a 1W
Neyhart File Contents
No. Date Document
001 8/25/82 HPA for debris removal and bank protection
002 8/15/84 Emergency HPA for bank protection/debris removal
003 1/29/86 Emergency HPA to rebuild farm bridge
004 9/8/86 Emergency HPA for bank protection/debris removal
004A 10/29/86 Ltr: Corps to Neyhart; wetlands on site; no violation
005 1 12/24/86 Emergency HPA to repair bank/setback berm
006 2/11/87 Ltr: Fisheries to Neyhart re 12/24/86 HPA extension
007 5/13/87 Ltr: Corps to Neyhart granting nationwide permit
008 9/13/87 Ltr: Co. to Neyhart; SDP required; violations
009 1 9/25/87 Emergency HPA for beaver dam removal
010 12/17/87 Emergency HPA for berm repair
011 12/28/87 Emergency HPA for berm repair
012 1/6/88 HPA extension for 12/17/87 HPA
013 1/22/88 Emergency HPA for bank protection
014 9/7/88 Emergency HPA for debris removal
015 9/18/88 Ltr: Fisheries to Neyhart; extension for 9/7 HPA
016 9/26/88 Ltr: Fisheries to Neyhart; modification of 9/7 HPA
017 10/7/88 Memo to J.Eager from P.Miller-Crowley re farm
018 11/14/88 Record by J.Sohneronne of inquiry from Skokomish
Tribe
019 11/15/88 Note by G.Miller to J.Sohneronne re 6/87 work
020 11/17/88 Note to file re possible violation
021 12/16/88 Ltr: Skokomish Tribe to Ecology; complaint
022 6/19/89 Mason Co. WQ investigation report
023 2/14/89 Ltr: Skokomish Tribe to County requesting investigation
for SMA violations
024 2/?/89 1 Shorelands Complaint 89-07 from Skokomish Tribe
I -7
Neyhart File Contents
No. Date Document
025 2/3/89 Ltr: Ecology to Neyhart Potential violation notice
026 2/14/89 Ltr: Skokomish Tribe to Mason Co.; ? SMA violation
027 7/11/89 Note to file: Remsberg; Corps confirmed nationwide
028 8/2/89 Ecology Notice of Violation
029 8/7/89 Note from B.Smith to D.Beery to contact Neyhart
030 8/25/89 Ltr: Neyhart to Ecology; response to N.O.V.
031 1/12/90 Ltr: Neyhart to Mason Co; notice he is replacing 50' of
sand bag wall
032 1/12/90 HPA application to riprap 175' of bank
033 1/24/90 Ltr: Fisheries to Neyhart; recommend increasing
floodway, restricting livestock use and managing animal
waste
034 1/25/90 HPA for bank protection; tree removal
035 2/15/90 HPA for bank protection
036 7/7-11/90 Mason Co notes to file re fill violation
037 7/10?/90 Note from Tom to Jim re phone call from Neyhart
038 7/11/90 Mason County stop work order
039 7/12/90 Memo: G.Mitchell to D.Gatlin; Wildlife concerns
040 7/12/90 Complaint from county to Anest
041 7/12/90 Anest's record of phone conversation with Neyhart
042 7/17/90 Ltr: Co. to Corps re 3 acre fill
043 7/19/90 Ltr: Neyhart to Ecology; copy of #30 (response to 1989
NOV
044 7/19/90 Ltr: Hoss to DOE etc. Response to violation notice
045 7/12-25/90 Anest's record of phone conversations re violation
046 7/26/90 Ltr: Co. to Wiltermood outlining SMP requirements
047 8/10/90 transmittal from Cindy James to Anest of 7/24/90
anonymous letter to Ecology
k ,r j2T
Neyhart File Contents
No. Date Document
048 8/13/90 HPA for channel restoration
049 8/20/90 Exemption for fill removal
050 9/6/90 Ecology site inspection report; FAX transmittal
051 9/10/90 Ltr: Bales to Co. establishing violation
052 9/10/90 Ltr: Anest to Co. asking what next
053 9/12/90 Ltr: Co. to Anest; copy of county's letter to Neyhart
054 undated sketch of Tahuya drainage system with fill indicated
055 9/14/90 Ltr: Neyhart to Co. notice of intent to construct bridge,
riprap; HPA application
056 9/26/90 Executive correspondence memo to Anest; copy of
correspondence from Gary Scott Key
057 9/26/90 HPA for bridge and channel restoration
058 10/22- Anest's phone record conversations with Neyhart and
23/90 Don Brush
059 10/23/90 Copy of letter to Neyhart from county
060 10/24/90 Draft letter to Key from Director
061 11/5/90 Farm Management Plan and WQ recommendations
062 11/16/90 Ltr: Neyhart to Co.; request exemption to riprap
063 11/20/90 Copy of Director's letter to Key
064 12/6/90 Ltr: Neyhart to Alpine Evergreen; road causing flooding
of his land
065 late 3/91 Photos
066 4/10/91 phone record of conversation between Anest and Key
067 4/18/90 Note to file setting site visit
068 mid 4/91 Photos
069 4/22/91 phone record arranging site inspection
070 4/26/91 phone record re site inspection
071 4/30/91 letter from Anest to Neyhart, Key, Small, Hoss, Brush
i r-
Neyhart File Contents
No. Date Document
072 5/7/91 Anest's field notes from site inspection
073 5/14/91 record of phone conversation between Anest & Brush
074 5/29/91 record of phone conversation between Anest & Neyhart
075 1/29/92 Stop Work Orders
076 1/31/92 record of phone conversation between Anest & Key
077 1/30/92 County's chronology from 8/25/82-1/30/92
078 2/4/92 Ltr:Rep. Johnson to Comm. Hunter + attachments
079 2/10/92 Draft Memo: S.Nichols to G. Yando - analysis
080 2/13/92 Memo: S.Nichols to G.Yando - SMA analysis
081 2/13/92 Memo: G.Yando to B.Hunter - SMA analysis
082 3/6/92 Ltr: Co. to Neyhart re agreement
083 8/14/92 Ltr: Olympic Engineering to Co.; dike plan
084 8/19/92 Ltr:Co. to Olympic Engineering; exempt most work; ask
for engineer's certification
085 8/21/92 Ltr: Olympic Engineering to Co; incorporates
suggestions; still refuses engineer's cert.
086 9/2/92 DNS and SEPA check list
087 9/02/92 Shoreline exemption
088 9/15/92 Ltr:TRBO to G.Yando;comments on DNS
089 9/15/92 Ltr:TRBO to G.Yando;annotated version of #088
090 9/16/92 Ltr:Skokomish Tribe to G.Yando;SEPA comments
091 9/18/92 Mason Co Complaint investigation report
092 9/24/92 HPA for tree removal (includes riprap)
093 9/22/92 Memo to M.Clift from Don Brush; Requesting legal
opinion on exemption as existing non-conforming use
094 9/23/92 Memo to D.Brush from M.Clift; dike is existing non-
conforming use
-�-( - -7
Neyhart File Contents
No. Date Document
095 9/23/92 Ltr(unsigned): D.Brush to TRBO; informing of DPA's
opinion
096 9/23/92 Affidavit from Macomber; no pre-existing dike
097 9/28/92 Note:A.Wald to J.Sohneronne; work is in floodway
098 undated material left at Ecology display at Oyster Fest
099 10/1/92 Memo:TRBO to Co.; Macomber statement
100 10/5/92 Ltr:Co. to Neyhart; determined farm to be existing non-
conforming use
101 10/15/92 Memo: TRBO to Co.; use not acceptable
102 10/15/92 Ltr: Fisheries to TRBO; supports #101
103 10/28/92 Ltr: Fisheries to Neyhart; hold on HPA application
104 11/3/92 Fax of draft letter: B.Young to TRBO
105 11/6/92 Ltr: B.Young to TRBO
106 11/6/92 Ltr: B.Young to URBPA
107 undated Newspaper article on meeting 10/8/92
108 12/28/92 Memo: B.Young to P.Lee
109 12/31/92 Draft Ltr: Neyhart to Co.; rejects Co's analysis
110 1/9/93 Ltr: TRBO to MCSCS; oppose mushroom project
111 1/29/93 Ltr: B.Young to URBPA; as long as Neyhart is making
SCS happy, he won't intervene
112 3/10/93 Ltr: Co. to Neyhart; Building permit exemptions
113 3/17/93 Ltr: Neyhart to Co.; notice of new construction
114 3/19/93 Ltr: Co. to Neyhart; building permits
115 4/7/93 Notes: mtg with Rutter & Keys
116 5/5/93 Fax: Description of mushroom project
117 5/11/93 Ltr: Co. to SCS; permit required for mushrooms
118 6/1/93 Fax: Sohneronne to Rutter: aerial photos
Neyhart File Contents
No. Date Document
119 6/2/93 Fax: Sohneronne to Barker; mushroom project & farm
plan
120 6/2/93 Memo: Barker to Sohneronne: DOH concerns
121 6/4/93 Draft 1tr:Ecology to Co. & Neyhart; get a permit
122 6/7/93 Ltr:Ecology to Co & Neyhart; get a permit
123 6/7/93 Fax routers for #122
124 6/8/93 Minutes: admin appeal decision to exempt mushroom
project
125 6/10/93 Newspaper article on mushroom decision
126 6/14/93 Notes: Anest mtg w/Key & Rutter
127 6/18/93 Exemption for mushroom project
128 6/25/93 Farm plan
129 6/28/93 Ltr:C.Gale to Laura Porter; heads up on disagreement
with exemption
130 6/28/93 Ltr: Ecology to Co.; disagree with exemption
131 7/21/93 Agenda: Mtg re action alternatives
132 7/21/93 Notes from 7/21 mtg (Anest & Sohneronne)
133 7/30/93 Ltr: D.Brush to J.Sohneronne; recorded site visits
Ex T-8
err!
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. BOX 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 • (206)459-6000
June 7 1993
Mason County Board of Commissioners
Mason County Courthouse, Building 9#1
411 North 5th
Shelton, WA 98584
--------Mr.__Dougl s Neyhart
Neyhart Farms — --- _
315 Seneca Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Neyhart Farm
Dear Commissioners and Mr. Neyhart:
We have reviewed the record of activities on the Neyhart Farm from the time of
its sale by the Macombers in 1981 to date. We have determined that shoreline
permits should have been obtained for some of the activities undertaken during
that period. Other activities that meet the criteria for exemption from
shoreline permitting requirements are nevertheless inconsistent with the Mason
County Shoreline Master Program (MCSMP) and the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA) . We are pleased that a Farm Management Plan is being implemented to
alleviate conditions on the farm that pose a threat to water quality.
However, it is still necessary to bring the farm into compliance with the
MCSMP and the SMA.
A shoreline conditional use permit must be obtained for the diking and filling
that has occurred on the farm. Alteration of the contour of the wetlands by
leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation is
not considered normal or necessary farming or ranching activities in the
exemption for agricultural activities in WAC 173-14-040(1)(e) . The exemption
for dikes in WAC 173-14-040(1)(k) only applies to those constructed prior to
1975. Aerial photographs from 1981 and a notarized statement from the
Macombers indicate that no dikes or berms existed on the property prior to its
purchase in 1981. The MCSMP requires a shoreline conditional use permit for
diking (Chapter 7.16.150) and for fill (Chapter 7.16.130) .
Other activities, including fencing, construction of manure storage
facilities, road construction, and siting of farm buildings may be exempt from
shoreline permitting requirements. However, they must still comply with the
policies and guidelines of the SMA and the MCSMP including the criteria for
Agriculture in Chapter 7.16.010 of the MCSMP. Some of the activities in the
current farm management plan do not comply with this chapter including
construction of the manure storage area within 200 feet of the Tahuya River
and riparian buffers less than 100 feet wide.
It also appears that the dikes do not comply with the policies for Flood
Protection and Shoreline Stabilization in Chapter 7.16.150. This includes the
need to evaluate the impact of the dike on the entire system or "sizable
stretches" of the river in order to protect the geohydraulic system, water
Exhibit RT-8
Mason County Board of Commissioners
and Mr. Douglas Neyhart
Page 2
June 7, 1993
quality, and aquatic resources. Information from the Flood Rate Insurance Map
and various Hydraulic Project Approvals issued over the years by the
Washington State Department of Fisheries indicate that the dikes are within
the floodway. This violates the provision of the MCSMP that requires dikes to
be set back to the edge of the floodway. There is also no evidence that a
flood control permit has ever been obtained.
At this time" the Neyhart Farm is in violation of the MCSMP and the SMA. An
application for a shoreline conditional use and substantial development permit
should be made to the County. This application should include all existing
and proposed development including activities that may qualify for exemption.
This is necessary to evaluate the Farm's overall compliance with the
applicable regulations_ Without a comprehensive plan the County cannot
adequately evaluate the proposal.
For more than six years, the county has been unsuccessful in its attempts to
obtain the information necessary to discharge its responsibilities for
administration of the SMA under RCW 90.58.050. Letters to Mr. Neyhart
informing him of the need to obtain shoreline permits were sent in 1987, 1990,
and 1992. The County has made exceptional efforts to obtain the necessary
documents to process a permit. Each time Mr. Neyhart has refused to comply on
the grounds that he believes his project is exempt under the agricultural
exemption. The authority for this determination lies with the County and the
state, not with the applicant.
Under RCW 90.58.050, Ecology is charged with the responsibility of ensuring
compliance with the policies and provisions of the SMA. In order to discharge
this duty and resolve this on-going controversy, we strongly recommend that an
application be submitted to the County within 30 days of receipt of this
letter. If an application is not filed, the Department will have little
choice but to initiate an enforcement action.
We hope this will not be necessary, and will provide all appropriate
assistance to facilitate the conclusion. of this matter. Please call me at
(206) 459-6764 or Jo Sohneronne of my staff at (206) 459-6771 with any
questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mark, AICP
Management Section Supervisor
Shorelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
JS:TM:by
•:otr1.X*yhert
cc: Don Brush, Mason County
Pat Lee, Department of Ecology
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
0N.STA
Exhibit RT-9
M
0 A U 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
i 0 T �i PLANNING -SOLID WASTE -UTILITIES
Y 4 BLDG. III • 426 W. CEDAR • P.O. BOX 578
Mesa SHELTON,WA 98584 • (206) 427-9670
July 30, 1993
Jo Sohnerone
DOE - Shorelands _ _;`
P.O. Box 47690
Olympia, Wa. 98504-7690
Re: Neyhart Farm
Dear Jo:
Attached is a list of recorded site inspections I have made and my
observations. I .pan expand on details to some extent if you need,
just let me know. Thanks !
Sincerely,
? tit
on Brush, Planner
Department of Community Development
.,H ►33 (3re)
Recycled
I
Neyhart Farm: Site inspections/Observations
7/24/90 Inspected farm (subsequent to placement of Stop-Work
order for fill in wetlands associated to Tahuya River - - posted by
Randy Neff) with Randy Neff, Mason County; Doris Small, WDF; an
enforcement officer with WDF; and Doug Neyhart.
Observed fill in back side channel of the main river encompassing
a several-hundred feet section of creekbed and thousands of square
feet of adjacent uplands/wetlands. Observed dike system along main
portion of river. Observed large manure pile adjacent to Tahuya
River. Observed animal containment areas in close proximity to the
river (closer than the required 100 feet with no buffers) .
8/2/90 Inspected farm with Francis Naglich, wetland consultant
with Wiltermood and Associates; and Doris Small . Observed same
fill in side channel . Observed large manure pile adjacent to
Tahuya River. Also observed intricate network of channels of the
Tahuya River above (beyond the boundaries of) the farm suggesting
a meandering river over floodplain.
9/6/90 Inspected farm with Al Wald and John Marshal, DOE.
Observed wetland hydrology in side channel area. Observed large
manure pile adjacent to Tahuya River.
9/11/90 Inspected site with Doris Small, WDF. Observed that
majority of side channel had been cleared of fill materials.
5/7/91 Interagency meeting at Gary Keys and Neyhart Farms .
Observed manure pile, animal containment sites, dikes. Observed
recently built road by Paul Reid to his property adjacent to farm
for purpose of accessing timber. Appeared road may have been built
too near the Tahuya River. Access to road occurs through Neyhart
farm.
1/29/92 Responded with Steve Nichols, Mason County to complaint.
Observed extremely high flood levels, particularly at lower end of
farm. Much standing water and some places where water appeared
knee deep. Observed D. Neyhart using dump truck and front end
loader to repair dike across from G. Keys property. Appeared that
dirt from across track road was being utilized. Observed manure in
transport through flood waters at lower end of farm. Posted Stop-
Work for violations to SMP Agriculture and Landfill chapters .
Observed manure pile adjacent to Tahuya River.
9/20/92 Inspected farm and observed manure storage building
footings laid. Observed approximately 15 truckloads of fill, 8
yards each piled on track near barn area. Was told the fill was
for normal track maintenance (1/2 mile track, 1 and 1/2 inches
deep) .
10/28/92 Inspected farm and observed manure storage building
under construction. Observed exempted dike repair work; noted that
height appeared constant and is the same as it was previously
(based on adjacent sections of dike) .
1/25/93 Inspected farm and observed manure storage building
nearing completion. Observed road build between the river and the
storage building to be used for depositing manure into the top of
the storage building which appears perilously close to the river.
Observed a second large manure storage pile near the barn and
track. Observed a sandbagged section adjacent to track which was
emplaced in case of flooding from P. Reid site. Observed wide,
graded area adjacent to track leading from this area built to
transport potential floodwaters.
' Exhibit RT-1 A
CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
between
MASON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT
and
IInug1 as Neyhart T,;hilya , WA
( Name) ( Address
I am interested in conserving the soil and water quality on my farm. I agree to
develop a farm plan in cooperation with the Mason County Conservation District.
I agree to follow the farm plan as developed by myself and the Conservation District
to the best of my ability to establish conservation practices on my land.
We, the supervisors of the Mason County Conservation District, agree to help you
develop a farm plan . The farm plan will assist you in achieving your economic goals
as well as provide for the conservation of soil and water quality.
This agreement will remain in effect until cancelled by either party, or until the farm is
sold.
/("// /�r-/ /P /
( n Doug Neyha t ( Date)
( Operator ) { Date)
9-'0- r � l
( District epresentat ) { Date)
Bill Taylor chair
FARM MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FOR
N E A RM
J
Doug Neyhart
BY
JOHN ESAREY AND BELINDA FREMONT
MASON COUNTY
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AND
KEN DRECKSEL AND SKIPPY MOORE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
JANUARY, 1993
TAHUYA, WASHINGTON
BACKGROUND
This 40 acre farm lies in Township 22N, Range 3W, and Section 13
of Mason County, Washington. It borders the Tahuya River and is in
the Lower Hood Canal Watershed. This site lies within the 100 year
flood plain and is considered environmentally sensitive.
The owner maintains approximately 50 standard breed horses
which he uses for cart racing. The management of this farm poses a '
serious threat to water quality.
FARM OBJECTIVES
Doug Neyhart wishes to maintain his horse operation while
improving the management of this site to reduce the potential to
negatively impact water quality. He realizes that this is a sensitive area
and requires extreme care in regards to management. He has already
implemented several BMPs as recommended by Jon Esarey & Skippy
Moore (Nov., 1990). He is willing to follow the suggestions made by
Ken Drecksel to improve his farm management.
RESOURCE INVENTORY.
SOILS
Definition - Site Index -- This is the height in feet that the best
trees can be expected to reach in 50 years. (See soils overlay for
location).
Potential Yields for Belfast soils:
Douglas-fir site index 120
corn silage 12 tons/acre
oats 85 Bu/acre
wheat 35 Bu/acre
barley 40 Bu/acre
oats & legume hay 4.0 tons
mixed grass & clover hay 4.0 tons
pasture 4.5 tons
potatoes 190 Bu
canning peas 2.8 tons
raspberries 4.5 tons
blackberries 4.5 tons
Belfast sandy loam (Ba) and Belfast silt loam (Bb), 0-3%
slopes
These very deep, moderately well drained soils formed in
material deposited by flood waters of the Tahuya and Union
Rivers. These soils are subject to brief periods of flooding
-2-
unless protected by dikes. Typically, the surface layer is
brown sandy loam, 8 inches thick (Ba) or brown silt loam about
11 inches thick (Bb). The underlying material to a depth of 5
feet is predominately dark, grayish, brown, silt loam and loam
or fine sandy loam. Below a depth of 40 inches, strata of loamy
sand or gravelly material may occur. These soils normally hold
enough moisture to mature crops. They have a moderate level
of native fertility. Yields are good for the main crops grown:
hay, small grains, and pasture grasses. Yields can be increased
by timely application of fertilizers. Vegetative cover on these
soils is important overwinter to minimize soil erosion. Streaks
of dried grass indicate areas where sand or gravel is fairly near
the surface.
Everett gravelly sandy loam 0-5% slopes (Eg)
5-15% slopes (Eh), and 15-30% slopes (Ek)
These very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils formed in
gravelly glacial outwash material on terraces and hills.
Typically these soils have a thin mat of organic material
overlying an upper subsoil layer of pale brown, gravelly loamy
sand about 14 inches thick. The substratum is mostly
yellowish brown, very gravelly sand to extremely gravelly
coarse sand. This soil is very droughty and has a low level of
native fertility. For these reasons, it is best suited for growing
trees for timber or Christmas market.
WATER
The Tahuya River runs through the property, a main channel
and an old channel. [See plan map for locations]
BUILDINGS
house (trailer)
manure storage shed/shop/stall barn
hay barn
barn
stall shed
tack room building
-3-
EQUIPMENT
tractor with front end loader
bailer
disc
harrow
LIVESTOCK
+/-50 horses (740# average weight)
CURRENT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The farm is currently divided into paddocks, and a heavy
use area designated as Native Pasture (field 6) on the
Conservation Plan Map. Paddocks are devoid of significant
vegetation. Hay is raised (off site) as well as purchased; no
hay is raised on the home place. The only area that could be
considered pasture is field #4. This bentgrass, bluegrass area
has a current production level of about 1 ton/acre. It is
severly overgrazed. Under optimal conditions this field could
produce about 4.5 tons of air dry forage/acre, as could all
bottomland fields. Existing grass stands inside the track are
being prepared for reseeding. Livestock are allowed to
trample sod stands prior to reseeding.
Topography and surface compaction of the lower paddocks,
fields 2 and 3 on the Conservation Plan Map, causes severe
ponding. Ditches surround most of the paddocks and
buildings. These ditches help drain water from the
bottomland but they do empty directly into the creek with
little or no filtration. The area inside of the racetrack has
been cross fenced.
Areas around buildings are heavily trampled. Woodland
area (field 6) closest to buildings are trampled. Vegetation is
brush and trees, no significant forage. Heavy brush imposes
limited access. Doug plans to open this up over time.
About 20 animals are kept in buildings most of the time
overwinter; about 25 animals are kept outside on bottomland
paddocks overwinter, and about 5 animals are kept in field 6
overwinter. During the dry season most animals are kept
outside. In short, livestock are allowed year-round access to
all paddock areas and the heavy use area at present.
4-
Animal wastes collected from barn and stall barn are
stored in the new waste storage facility. This facility is
designed to hold manure + bedding accumulated Nov.- April
for 20-500# animals. Wastes deposited in paddocks are left
where dropped. Wastes have been accumulated in paddock
7b (during construction of waste storage facility). This pile
was about 5 feet deep at time of inventory in December,
1992. There was also a significant pile in barnyard area. This
pile is adjacent to a ditch which runs directly into the creek
(the pile is approx. 100 feet from the creek).
Wastes are presently spread onto fields when -worked up
for seeding. Waste is applied for fertilizer and soil building,
but with little regard to avoid excessive application of
nitrogen. With current low forage yields on this farm
overapplication of nitrogen is occuring.
There is significant natural erosion occurring on the
riverbank near field #4 and 7a&b. There has also been
considerable diking to control flooding of bottomland. These
dikes were designed and installed by landowner.
-5-
RECORD OF COOPERATOR'S DECISIONS AND PROGRESS IN APPLICATION
PLANNED APPLIED
FIELD AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT DATE LAND USE AND TREATMENT
NO.
PADDOCK&FILTER STRIP MANAGEMENT
Filter Strips
4, 1 acre win/93 Filter Strips(393)Between pastures and creek,Elwidth of ungrazed
5 1 acre fall/95 vegetation will be maintained. A.)O 7',
4 1000 ft fall/93 Fencing(382)Livestock to be permanently excluded from creek&filter by
5 1000 ft fall/95 installation of permanent fencing;about 2000'of fencing will be needed.
�/lfs/s�teo4-p 1
7a&7b 1 acre spring/ Filter Strip(393) TRIAL BASIS -The+/- 25 width of grassy vegetation
93 between pasture 7b and paddock 7a and the creek will be managed as a filter
strip. Existing ditches will be filled. Due to limited width for filtering runoff
from paddock 7a during rainy season,this will be on trial basis only. Paddock
2 7a will be surfaced with coarse woody material. If pollutants are detected by
• water quality monitoring,winter use of 7a will be discontinued. Vegetation in
I)C. ' filter strip shall be allowed to grow to an even height of 4" prior to winter.
6 1 acre spr/93 Filter Strip(393)The filter strip shall be widened to 100 feet of ungrazed
on- vegetation along Tahuya River,below heavy use area
going
6 1 acre spr/93 Planting(512)Area to be broadcast seeded in early spring at the rate of 25#/ac
to Tall fescue(or orchard grass)and 3#/ac white clover.200#/ac of 10-20-10 to
be broadcast at time of seeding to aid establishment.
6 200' spr/93 Fencing(382)Livestock to be permanently excluded(472)from the area by
intalling about 200'of permanent fencing.
Paste Filter Strip(393)In the fall allow 100'width of vegetation in pasture fields
Fields immediately downslope of winter use paddocks to grow to an average height of
below at least 4" prior to winter to allow for filtering runoff. Livestock to be
Pdks restricted to paddocks during the rainy season.See Conservation Plan Map for
la-c, 3.6 acres falM locations of respective fields.
la-d, 7.8 acres fall/94
2c,3a,
3b, 4
above+ 10.8 acres fall/95
Past 5 &after
Pasture 300 feet spring/ Cross-fencing (382)About 300 feet of permanent fencing will be installed to
2d&2e 94 separate the respective fields to facilitate rotational grazing.
all 18.2 acres spring/ Livestock Exclusion(472)Livestock will be removed from pastureland fields
Pasture 93 & by October 15th of each year.Animals will not be put into pasture until
fields after plants are 6-8"tall in reseeded fields and 4 inches tall in field 4,or when soils
are dry(about April 15th)on fields not yet reseeded.
all 18.2 acres Irrigation Water Mangment(449)If fields are irrigated to increase production,
Pasture sprinkler settings and timing of application will be in accordance with SCS
fields 449 specifications to minimize leaching of nutrients.
RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT
8&9 6.4 acres winter cK' Livstock Exclusion(472)Livestock are to permanently excluded from stream
/93 & � ' ) corridors.Exception would be though to accommodate livestock watering from
after \VJ` field 4.Livestock have access to the"creek"on a gravel bar east of pasture 7c
by means of a narrowly fenced lath.Livestock will have similar type otaccess
for watering from ro asture pose 5
4 1 acre win/93 Filter Strip(393)A 25'filter of natural vegetation will be established and
&after manitained between pasture fields 4 and 5 and top of the bank of streams.
5 1 acre fal/95 Livestock will be permanently excluded from this filter area.Permanent
&after fencing will be installed to accomplish this.
4 25 feet su/93 Stock Trails&Walkways(575)It will be necessary to install bridges or
( culverts across streams to allow livestock access to fields 4 and 5,without
25 feet su/96 �` �� entering the stream.Will need to obtain necessary permits to do this.
8 & 9 1 ac win/93 Tree Planting(612)Willow cuttings 2-3 feet long will be stuck 1/2 into the
&after soil on an 18 inch spacing.This will be done on all streamside high erosion
areas on an on-going basis each winter.
NOTE: ALL PRACTICES WIL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SCS
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS,OR AT LEAST BE DEEMED TO
BE FUNCTIONAL BY FIELD TECHMCIAN.
COOPERATOR Doug Ne hart ASSISTED BY DATE
2a,2b& I acre spr/93- Filter Strip Swales(393)TRIAL BASIS - Trapezoidal channels to be
3a,3b fall/94 established to drain fields 2a&b and 3a&b.Channels will be on grade and will
have an 8'bottom width with 3:1 sideslopes and 1'average depth.Each
channel will be filled with hardwood chips for a length of about 60'. Keep
chips moist.One pile of chips will be inoculated with mushroom spawn.
Water samples to be taken above and below piles periodically to evaluate
effectiveness for removing pollutants.Livestock to be excluded from swales
with temporary electric fencing.Each of fields 2a&b and 3a&b to be used year-
round by at least 1 horse.
2a.2b& 1 acre fall/94 Filter Strip Swales(393) PERMANENT BASIS -If shavings prove to be
3a,3b ineffective as filters,swales will be broadcast seeded at the rate of 25#/acre of
tall fescue+3#/acre white clover-after removing shavings.Clean channels
and reseed as necessary in subsequent years.
2a,2b& 800 ft& 1 acre falIN4 Fencing(382)About 800 feet of permanent fencing is to be installed around
3a,3b &after swales to allow for only limited summer grazing as detailed in Pasture
Management(510)specifications.Exclude livestock if hoof damage to grasses
results. Allow grass to grow to 4" height prior to winter.
la-h, 13.5 acres sp&su Land Smoothing(466)Fields shall be smoothed and sloped to allow for surface
2a-e, /93 drainage.Will be accomplished prior toany seeding activities.
3a-c
4&5 4.3 acres su/95
Paddocks
Pdks 2.1 acres sp&su Heavy Use Area Protection(561)create paddocks as shown on the Conservation
lA-D, /93& Plan Map. Surface paddocks with at least 1 foot of coarse woody material to
2,3,4, after improve footing for livestock and to lessen the potential for polluted runoff.
7A Clean the manure solids from paddock surfaces at least twice each week during
su/95 the rainy season,and haul to covered storage areas.Likewise,rake and refill
Pdk 5 0.2 acre &after any"holes" in the woody layer at least twice each week during the rainy season
-this will prevent"breaking through"by livestock.Add thin layers of new
woody material to the surface as needed.May need to clean woody material
frompaddocks every few years if excessive breakdown occurs.Spread onto
fields as per Waste Utilization(633)specifications.Paddock 7A is to be used
on a trial basis only.If polluted runoff occurs below the downslope filter strip,
this paddock will be converted to a summer use pasture.Keep no more than
10-12 horses in paddocks lA-D overwinter.Keep no more than 25 horses total
on bottomland paddocks overwinter.
Pasture 2.5 acres sp/93- Fields will be used as paddocks during mushroom experiment,without woody
2a&b, falu94 surfacing.At least 1 horse/field year-round will be kept.Fields to be seeded in
3a&b fal 4 and managed as pastures thereafter..
COOPERATOR Doug Ne hart ASSISTED BY
RECORD OF COOPERATOR'S DECISIONS AND PROGRESS IN APPLICATION
PLANNED APPLIED
FIELD AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT DATE LAND USE AND TREATMENT
NO.
` PASTURE MANAGMENT SYSTEM
Planting
Pasture Pasture Planting(512)fields to be reseeded to endophyte free tall fescue at the
Fileds rate of 25#/acre with 3#/acre New Zealand white clover.Broadcast seeding
la,b,c 3.6 acres spring/ should take place in April or early May for spring seeding,and September for
93 fall seeding.Broadcast 200#/acre of 10-20-20 at time of seeding to aid
Id-h,3c, 4.3 acres fall/93 establishment,or work manure into seedbed and mulch as per Waste
7b Utilization(633)specifications.The use of a cleanup crop is encouraged to kill
off sod forming grasses and better a alternative would be to
2c,d,e 3.3 acres spring/ 1G oundu herbicide recommended by
94 WSU Cooperative Extension Service.Spraying should be done at least a week
2a&b, 2.7 acres faIW4 before working up seedbed.As a minimum,the seedbed should be prepared by
3a&b, � either rototilling,harrowing and floating,or plowing,disking,harrowing and
7c floating.Do not graze until seedlings are well established and at least 6" tall.
^��lJ• Clip to control weeds.
4&5 4.3 acres faM5
Roads& 1.0 acres on- Critical Area Planting(342)After cleaning ditches,broadcast seed in April or
Track going September with 25#/acre of bentgrass,and leave ungrazed.
ditches
Management
Pasture Pasture Managment(510)Once pastures are reseeded and plants are well
Fields established(pass the"pull"test),pastures will be grazed according to plant
la,b,c 3.6 acres su/93 height during the dry season only.Forage is not to be grazed below 3 inches.
&after Between grazing periods,forage will be allowed to recover to a height of at
ld-h, 4.3 acres spr/94 least 6-8 inches.A rotational grazing systemwill be established and animals
3c,7b &after will be confined to paddocks if they get ahead of plant growth.It is best to
graze a pasture down in 7-10 days and then allow 3 weeks for regrowth.Apply
2c,de 3.3 acres su/94 manure and commercial fertilizer after grazing periods in accordance with SCS
&after specifiation 633.Drag to spread droppings,and clip to uniform plant height as
2a&b, 2.7 acres spr/95 necessary after grazings.A plant height of 4" is necessary going into winter to
3a&b, &after allow for filtering of runoff from paddocks. See"Forage Production and Plant
7c Composition by Field"table for projected yields with Pasture Planting and
this high level of managment.
4&5 4.3 acres spr/96
&after
COOPERATOR Doug Ne hart ASSISTED BY DATE
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE st MASON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Pasture Waste Utilization
fields- Waste Utilization(633)- Wastes should be applied to fields during the
follow- growing season between April 1 and October 1 of each year. Landowner may
ing re- apply wastes outside this time frame,during March and during October 1.-15,
seeding during dry periods*only,when dry period is at least one week or longer in
& past. duration.In addition,consult with CD/SCS technician prior to any application
Mngmt made during the periods March 1-15 and October 1-15.Also,a soil test should
&/or document that less that 90#/acre of nitrate nitrogen is present in the surface 2
at re- feet of soil of"similar fields",prior to spreading wastes during early October.
wing Wastes are to be applied to reseeded,"managed"pasture fields,and to fields
soon to be reseeded.Prior to reseeding wastes may be tilled into the soil,or
la-h, 7.9 acres grow- after reseeding spread as mulch,at application rates listed below.During
3c,7b ing subsequent years,wastes are to be broadcast evenly onto fields,not exceeding
season the maximum rate.A light harrowing could follow applications.The
/93 maximum application rate in any year for wastes stored overwinter is 23 cubic
yards/am(about 1/5").Wastes generated and stored overwinter should be
la-h, 13.9 acres grow- sufficient to cover all pasture fields(18.2 acres),evenly,at the maximum
2a-e, ing application rate.Wastes generated during summer should be applied evenly to
3a-c, season all reseeded,"managed"pasture fields.Pasture fields should be harrowed several
7b,7c /94 times during the growing season to scatter droppings.At recommended
application rates,it is estimated that nutrient needs of pastures would be met
all 18.2 acres grow- for a projected yield of 2.5 T air dry forage/ac/yr- ie.about 75#N/acre/yr
pasture ing required.If all waste is applied evenly to all pasture fields(18.2ac)during 1995
fields season and thereafter,approximately 73#total N/ac would be applied.No commercial
/95 & fertilizer should be necessary to acheive projected yields.Wastes should not be
after applied when soils are wet.It is best to apply after a grazing period,well in
advance of livestock re-entering field.Spread manure by"hand"only,within
25 feet of ditches and exercise special care to keep manure out of ditches.Also
do not spread onto ponded areas.
*Dry period is defined as being a week or longer in duration,without
measureable precipitation occuring on any day.
Note:Nutrients from droppings of livestock in native pasture field 6 have
potential to leach into the soil overwinter.Runoff into surface waters will be
minimized by the 100'filter strip along the river.
COOPERATOR Doug Ne hart ASSISTED BY DATE
U.S.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE MASON COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT
RECORD OF COOPERATOR'S DECISIONS AND PROGRESS IN APPLICATION
PLANNED APPLIED
FIELD AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT DATE LAND USE AND TREATMENT
NO.
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Storage
F 1 spring/ 1 faIO2 Waste storage Structure(313)Construct a covered waste storage structure
91 facility with capacity to store 3 months waste(6 months waste from "housed"
animals) .Floor of structure to be above the 100 year flood plain.Roof
presently has gutters,but landowner needs to complete underground outlet
pipeline-see detail sheet for location and length.Waste to be applied in
accordance with SCS Waste Utilization specifications(633). Structure should
be empty as of October 1 of each year going into the rainy season.
F 1 Feb/'93 1 Feb/93 Manure pile adjacent to stall barn-pile will be moved to field 1 and covered
until it can be spread in spring.Spread in accordance with SCS specification
633.Till into the soil prior to seeding.
7b 1 spring/ Manure pile in pastureland field 7b-pile to be removed and spread in
93 accordance with SCS specification 633.Till into the soil prior to seeding.
5 1 spring/ Temporary manure storage pile- wastes to be stacked at old grav,Lpit above
93 & the flood plain,and covered.This wilrUFZone in late winter of each year after
after waste storage structure is full.It is estimated that about 196 cubic.yards of
• manure+shavings will be stored here.In spring,these wasteswill be spread
onto fields before other stored wastes.
F Feb/93 Feb/93 Remove manure from exercise ring area after each use.*
&after &after
Roof Runoff
F, 7A 1 spring/ Roof Runoff Managment(558)and Underground Outlet pipelines(620)-A
350'buried 3"CPT pipelines 93 complete and operational set of gutters,downspouts and drains will be installed
55'additional gutters for tack room building,barn,stall shed,manure storage area,stall barn,hay
barn,and run-in shed in paddock 7A-see Detail Sheets.Shall be installed and
maintained according to SCS plans and specifications.
COOPERATOR Doug Ne hart ASSISTED BY DATE
•310 `luawaiiBum 1a1LInn UOIJOi.ui `1aIulMlano 31001sanil �uipnlaxa `2uiB2ujp `duiddija `2umplia3
`�il�iaq lut'Id Ol 2uiploaan 2umi2 luuoi�mo.i `popaau su 2uipaasal :ai-paquawaldwi si unld uai{M Z/
•uuld soopo;ld ivawaguum 1ua.una ui pouillno sd I/
1,�/.L8'9t, I OJL .IBC/suol9'£I Idol
I i I Fo iooj ssrli ?juag/ssudDnlg 0'£I 9
S'St, IUIO L £'Z 1 IUIo,L
S' S'Z Z'0 OI looj ., Z'0 D-L
9'0 S'Z I'0 9'0 food ,. Z'0 g-L
S'L S'Z 9'0 Z'0 food Is 0'£ S
SZ'£ S'Z £'1 0'1 food is v
SZ'Z S'Z V'0 9'0 100d 44 6'0 D-£
0'I S'Z Z'0 9'0 100d is t'0 g-£
SL'I S'Z £'0 9'0 100d is L'0 V-£
SL'£ S'Z 8'0 9'0 food is 9,1 g-Z
0'£ S'Z 9'0 9'0 food at Z'I Q-Z
S'I S'Z £'0 9'0 100d is 9'0 D-Z
S'1 S'Z £'0 9'0 100d 66 9'0 g-Z
07 S'Z V'0 9'0 100d is 8'0 d-Z
0'i S'Z t,'0 0'I food 46 t,'0 H-I
0'I S'Z f0 0'1 100d is fi'0 0-I
SL'I S'Z L'0 0'I 100d is L'0 3-I
SZ'I S'Z 9'0 0'I 100d 9'0 g-1
0'£ S'Z Z'I 0'I 100d ,. Z'I Q-I
0'£ S'Z Z'I 0'I 100d 64 Z'I D-I
WE S'Z Z'i 0'I 100d 44 Z'I g-I
0'£ S'Z Z'l 0'l lood ssej2juag/ssw2onlg Z'I d-1
1 plai3 'L 1 a72 Z 1 plai3 Z Man/1 puo UM'd
uoponpold uoilanpold saiaa s Xq PuUI UH
Z/Pluaaod I/2upsixg uolisodwoD Weld ad PPIA
WSVA IHVHAgN
U IMA Ala PIOI.LISOdwO3 J,Nv'Id UNV NI0I13fluoud 219VHOA
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Existing livestock approximately equal to 37 1000# animal units
Future livestock appoximately equal to 37 1000# animal units
Given: Each animal unit utilizes 900# pasture / mo.
(air dry forage equivalent) and 600# hay / mo.
NEYHART FARM FORAGE NEEDS TABLE
Existing Future
Animal Units 37 AU 37 AU C}
Hay Needs (6 Mo.) 67 T/yr 67 T/yr N
Pasture Needs (6 Mo.) 100 T/yr 100 T/yr
CONCLUSIONS:
When plan is implemented- ie: reseeding as needed, rotational grazing according to plant height during
g ,h
dry season; fertilization with manure according to 633 specifications; clipping and dragging; winter
exclusion of livestock; irrigation water management, etc. pastures can Zotentially support about 17-1000/
pound animals (24-740 pound animals)during the growing season.
t tJt►s T E U T/L/Z-A 7-4 T/}77ONS
/►N�t�/E�/7-5 X 7E�
a Lv S
A w�M
TACiLE q-/
( 5-6 l 7 410
A �v Fist
cy Div rE/P /VuT�'l—/VT` SG eIV'4 105
D 02Q a vt ,'w+a l$
0 Z S' a lit i Lit a S .G c, S�'o�r SlJ % % o v cv
� , s a 1s Qu_ s���C �v��l'� ,'v+a,. /y yr4v- v� l � ,�/l� e"
TN S f0 rl�t GlJ sh-S 0 Cr JeWl"TG k—
y 0 L
cUFiy A. N
/?G -�,e�ovs usrel 'lays A w l
!3 ze4� #Al Zo 3bl #N
� <
Cz ? 11 # p is Z93#P
3:.F _ 6 q-g A K
K 74AG SO l o f u>a s�e exo yr S 1`0 6C GoeQ Z X,/,,
40 wo s�c o r eoaeveoe 5;/c , A sst4 r ND
e,cfra Loss o� au��, is �o dr loc.srrvo �u� ,
/v 4!S- T Gulf S TE
S�OrPE•� LU�1srES OUE pcJ/N7E '�
,�f A +B = To TA &
A-- S/ g f
RFDA/N fir_ ert've-, o l }/d s /ZU tiYQd _ AssN�G va �.'a
AA PC- Lro1A foIi 7`+C
4 U i a,.n/5 o ff �G O!J(-S/orelelo&^
AwFh
Tr,Or -!41 +`t
/00O /� N
U
TD T4 L l/U�U��E �� S7 -t- ,D/•yG- NC E D T Flo/u r o v p w iN rEk
�, J /S 2 s�4, l g lie,
3
WaSTE — . � O �Z �Sf/ , tea/5 /S
rd�,•H / d s 6 yS-e4Niw4r/s l K2, S'i/.esJS — �� •� �3 , S 1 � y _�
ZaS, 3yd3
TOTAL = s-
�S/i1Mrt E TiP/ANTS t 4S AG,;w+.. /S o� 16 wev �Dgs4r45 foer✓<!
t�DsS �ti`'/PaddOCK tlJOSIC fo/ro c/ �ri'i�c�F A& t S�rra� e k f
,�.� �� �' `�' •�V`' f/t�i�S � r'C!G/ate u.�.�.+�tt� I"�t
,410FP N (2Z) �I.o) (•75) =C•D 9 S*N/�;�r../l
waFrcY G ey
/D ,o 9
y-8'-s3 � /, D l l •83 = ((SB�K�AH;,,..,1� � " � � ' � �
31r� �wds 1-V 5 -al
a 9mo7 -77V �/ -;f2aZ573/Jr7 7d -z J
F�LV Zti,! .f A O,7/760f;//✓ = G�{3U
- 3d'�i✓f�Gr 0��q_1S �O �1 d� /✓P�/dJ/�?�;/ G,��I1,i/X b'G>` ::f�l!/;��l�Q
'/-j .-Ygmo 7
3 ✓!>N6'!-/ pal f�'C/1N6' /t/� IV
71J
Q'3r7 r� �i✓i�� N V ss
-7d.1oL
o d � d101
39�r�LS cY�1�Vi�� l ✓O�� W--yL►'tly"s -9ivr arh(I
o N �ai0�
7-7_�i�I
ov) (L1) >(
7z-1 = (�l"'"'VS �) (�9�CsB� (8�" ) C�'l� �Zz/ /,/ w>rnV
ya� 'V1!�' ilrF)J�1 5�.1s11 ��tS
cw -/Ocy-(YV / ) s1n19icYl11?M t'--?cYY
17 Si✓v�11/1 �/d!✓off /V P/1 t��/ 7/�YI �1 S ��'l
IVA
UT//-12A7/0,A/ P/+TATIo,A- y L4
Z.4 7,!!�-- e,,pM oDcou�E
MAN & O/'1
F/bL DS
3Z A,-L- COuL D BE 461Z/Ep
GRD/? STD,PED A-1ANlIX'E
Ar /-/A x SPATE
/E
C /ya'3 l Gv11Y7-,E � ,��7et'EP
/O , �t7/ �f 3x �
Z7F?3 /
, , X PA/L /y/Y�
`32-* = 23 3/ H.4X A PPL, kATE
7 - Ak
/ �
�3s�p'�'a� �
o a jA X/M4"I1 f`' ,o Z-I A T/On/ X��
v //Y N PAL E� p/� YA ����EI� Gc/�i s�SN7S
S
DIVTG LOtt)E�' /ELDS
/(/ Sl/�PG/ED S� #/y //!y ttJ�it?E� S7o,c'ED MA 2U2, .
7�f1/G�CNESS Of Af�G/L� T/D/Y = /
/A6_ /U 7/ ' 3WINTE)Lo STox-ED /7A
-'f3-c Z,D
�NGI-H 5 /oN ,d /V 5�1,°�L/E� //V /"IANti�E /f �►P�'/�.[� �v��G�'
D/VTD GDttJ,---k X/i'-JA T,L }�
/V PAs7u,4c
/'j/yGMT SYST /`1 OF 16LAN jS 1/-1pLE14E/v7-E.O
Exhibit RT-11Evergreen Plaza Building
f—'E United States Soil 711 Capitol Way, Room 502
Department of Conservation Olympia, WA 98501
Agriculture Service
Subject: ENG-Conservation Practices ate: October 30, 1992
Waste Storage Structure
Neyhart - Mason County
To: Ken Drecksel File Co": 210-11
SCS Shelton FO
Enclosed is a copy of the information I have in my files on
the Neyhart Waste Storage Structure.
Since this proposed structure is located in a flood plain we
specified the minimum floor elevation.
Initially we were going to use the flood profiles in the Mason
County Flood Insurance Study to determine the minimum floor
elevation, but we were not able to find any reference bench
marks that could be used to determine elevations at the site.
So the minimum floor elevation was set from a high water mark
from the November 1990 flood. This flood was a significant
event on most rivers in western Washington.
DEAN M RENNER
Area Engineer
Enclosures
cc: (w/o enclosures)
Ron Shavlik, SCS Olympia AO
O
�unl�n2l1S �%+�cUas.S+ �'4nd'd'd
�G✓O
S/ QtiS Y7t2 t:::; LZ :oz)4.n s.rpc7?9
h.w 0
Sx,C la-w oz = nW
t�y 1310
571 z OW !-h 3�ti1 L
w0
�t-drrin�/ �tv•�nr/ �i/o^n�/
L = S/pof dam/ 5/ OS = d4
SO 4
L.n—
D 07
K
/,'o �z t
-z 9'd _-,:p '4>l
rl J w n? ::,A
L'lot '�l
9stoo'o
11 i Ss
h l
g 'o s
Zr� S,s�-�.•
��sd c9 Z c 6v 2//os.
i
a�rnlj�
CLVC-7 d
rJ -an 1-7
3 /3
/7.rL �Cn�G.,) 3
FT LL-
Al
i
2 rn�sscs Pcre iLsr
/2Pr
19 Fr - -
Fr
!
,tea--�-y
' 3 i
w
I .I_
to t' en
771
pi/ 7 W
Lk
i
1 I i r
l._ 1
. r
i
1�Jri::
�y9,f�^� �wG�n1rU1S
i>N 270!' .i 1.✓l?j it dl
p.7
ter:+l lI I.:,.._ .. i _.•YJ/�.�CJV_J.IJ .• �t I �f.�w / I J..�..:.'._ • _
ZT--
771-Y e-x
p: �iZvTx,Lvr)(�rd�)
4Lj R.P+ R.nU,-Sl Z,o G tyr-
7Xvs�CS � /• O
4
,Vj•►T/J wit L
Anc L
d ss a
' S>u.-ce No 2, /}G`�•Pt12 5r T�•a.�'3Er�S
774fa L cs yA-
l3
TNTPI-KCC$Art- Gn- WnO'
If
L
13,760
t,.L
�J
AV
'i,,,.n �rf / t1 r'f/ Z ?G� 3Ll�n t44x_
h t-'✓ SihKl d/ 17•bl �fl7 �1O'I' �" "S► ?ate
w3-I/ p n�✓1� C1J�J
14
1/ 1
/b/nvf� Z�'wG7
� Ss�ul
V
NJ�3!/-t-LW ^'>Ifp� iu-Y'ti'+�S.rt�/ �,.w�J '1Z•w`') .9Sf'I
1
SIN WwCli,lsonul'I.,JO w,—1 P.IPoal Ww se Pa.—J.'j"t, -7n(l
l�I N011�3S V'Palalop ay ALw wo15As.)<iuue,p a41 atoN '/V --.a 9 Ij�O
--r
ro
lclloI?w Pa-PIP Ya.n ww 9
{..� -..0.yf— �lll
i
MSS to
f \\\� iall!1 weep i
aoetrs pays!u)woq 6uuano7,Z �
a►eoe PaDeja ajanW3 aO ODUaw3_£
-.aney Yeys awey 'Z
uouoas la,:,a-j u o gem pao Z/'t Cxew.9)aiyeueA
Y 1 eld L®h
,anon tact$043wµnay t F>
4
acts ayt OW L4 ap
.GNI ayl array Y¢yl,ayt 4eN]
0 U04etost 10 U093n45u03 Yy .
-7'7 b VPW9
L _ I
-7
e�F i
9bZ
G01 _,--r-
Sz'r�r
S F3� Cf(1rA
S Z
t wvtL4s' ro,d
t 11�� it
llJ� WN,�MAN 3+3
f
15
.-. .�- _.___..---•�- - -•�-----•-----�— lay ----.+.---.�-•---
I I ;. .FaunNc,
I
C2055 % T1Q N;
. I
-t-
5irn(JCTU;RAL DESIGN - C:ANTILEVER RETAINING WALLStG-
I
ASSUMPTICNS LEVEL BACYFILL
STEEL YIELD STRESS=40,000 psi
CONCRETE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH= 3500 psi
DESIGN MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING:
1) SAFE AGAINST UVE.,TUSNING
SAFE AGAINST SLIDING
;) L",CATIGN OF RESULTANT ON BASE MUST LIE IN MIDDLE
OF FOOTING :WIDTH
4) MAXIMUM PRESSURE UNDER FOOTING MUST NOT EXCEED
BEARING CAPACITY OF SOIL
t NOTE: IF FOOTING IS FLUSH AGAINST SLAB, SIDING
IS NOT CONSIDERED
----------------------------------------------------
ENTER 1) WEIGHT CIF RETAINED MATERIAL (PCF)= 62.40
2) EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (PCF)
(FOR E:AWILL) = 62.40
.) EW
IVA'LENT FLUID PRESSURE (PCF)
(FOR FOUNDATION MATERIAL) = 65.00
4) HEIGHT OF WALL, H (FT) = 4•00
5) HEIGHT OF FILL (FT) - 4.00
6) WALL THICKNESS (IN) = $•00
7) FOOTING THICKNESS (IN) = 12.00
3) TOTAL FOOTING WIDTH, B (FT) - 3.67
9) HEEL LENGTH (FT) = 1.50
10) TOE LENGTH (FT) = 1.50
11) DEPTH OF KEY (IN) = 0.00
(ENTER 0 IF NO KEY)
12) MULT. FACTOR FOR FOUNDATION MAT'L.lf1= 0.40
(0.4 sand; 0.5 dry clay; 0.33 vet clay; 0.6 gravel)
13) SURCHARGE LOAD (PSF) = 0
--------------------------------------------------------------
VERTICAL STEEL IN WALL (A BARS)
-----------------------
d (f,r stem) 4.25 in.
DESIGN; MOrENT = 1035.33 ft.-IGs.
AREA OF STEEL REQ'D. = 0.07 sq. in.f
FOR STRENGTH
AREA OF STEEL CANNOT BE < 0.14 sq. in./ft. #q op— I
MOMENT AL0',G STEM I
------------------
MOMENT AREA OF STEEL REQ'D.
DIST. F/ TOP tft.)
436.30 0.03
129.42 0.01
1 16.18 0.00
0 0.00 0.00
-1 -16.13 0.00
-2 -129.42 -0.01
-3 -436.30 -0.03
FOR MAIN STEEL IN HEEL OF FOOTING (C BARS)
---------------------------------------------
d (footir'y) = 9.75 in.
DES:G." 6r).30 ft.-Ibs.
AREA OF STEEL REQ'D.= 0.02 sq. in.*{
FOR SLRZNGTH
(FOR FACTOR OF SAFETY
AGAINST OVERTURNING AND SLIDING,
SEE BELOW)
*+� AREA CF STEEL CANNOT BE < 0.29 sq. in./ft.
F�JR H,RIZONTAL STEEL IN STEM (B BARS)
--------------------------------------
AREA OF STEEL REQUIRED/FT= 0.24 sq. in./ft. usc- #4 C)
(BY ACI 1112-83 14.3.3)
FOR hu"RIZONTAL STEEL IN FOOTING (D EARS)
-----------------------------------------
AREA OF STEEL REQUIRED/FT= 0.29 sq. in./ft. uc,6 -w -Q 16"
i
FS AGAINST OVERTURNING= Mo= Mr=
^.43 (IF >=1.5 OK) 1164.30 2333.6T
1F � 1.5 THEN INCREASE
LENGTH OF HEEL
FS AGAINST SLI➢ING= 0� c,�rJC6 rY+� WILL
6F 5f� oN
1.12 (IF >=1.5 OK)
IF 1.5 THEN PROVIDE
SHEAR KEY OR INCREASE
LENGTH OF P'JOTING
-3-
LOCATION OF RESULTANT ON EASE
------------------------------
TOTAL LENGTH OF BASE (FT) = 3.67 SUM OF VERTICAL FORCES =
Mr - Mo = 1668.87 1324.40
'"CATION OF REST;TANT = 1.26 FEET FROM TOE
MIDDLE 1/3 IS FROM 1.22 TO 2.44 FEET FROM TOE
RESULTANT SHOULD LIE IN MIDDLE 1/3
IF RESULTANT IS OUTSIDE MIDDLE 1/3, THEN INCREASE LENGTH OF HEEL
BEARING PRESSURE
----------------
?1A;;, PRESSURE UiDER FOOTING= 700.02 psF
CHECK AGAINST SOIL BEARI,N'G CAPACITY (MIN. FS = 3)
i
—Y Ew0 AT 10.,
WY S..2 Ar 7 riZ r.0 P.✓�,
d4F.K3 AT /O..✓
Lf�+TM ur WRL6 SFr r,J✓
G Pi" -
y EK S A-r /Z ry
ycr -
Puze Srre•v rvw t�c.e nr
w�u. 6 ec rr e.w 1 1
14 fSAR Ar
e Z1 T
/1 rn
• I "Y
ZR-Or✓� � ,BOTH WRYS
fJ iN
!'BALL DETAIL SLAB DETAIL WALL DETAIL
NOTES:
]. This project shall be constructed using SCS Construction
SykCificaticns ettsched.
2. Concrete mix shall be approved ty SCS prior to pours and
shall have the following properties:
a. 2E day compressive strkngth Sreattr than 3500 psi
b. Air Entrained
C. Maximum coarse aggregate size shall not —cted 1 1/2
inches.
3. Feinf or<ing steel shall be Grade 40.
CONCRETE DETAILS
<. If walls are pourte :tparatkly from the base, provide WASTE STORAGE STRUCTURE
construction joint. NEYHART FARMS MASON COUNTY C.D.
r. If bars ark to be spliced, make laps at
least 12 inches �U.S.DEPARTMENT OFAGRICULTURE
long. Ears should be spliced every 20 ft at.9g.red. SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
o...
-- rv.wrar.---------
__________.....
.................................. y o-._.v .
c...........----........._... .._._7Mr-
oN.S TA
c °44 Exhibit RT-12
o �O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
u =
N
OT z
N 0
J
o'' Planning - Landfill - Utilities
1864
February 13 , 1992
Bill Hunter - Board of Commissioners
Gary Yando - Director of Community Development
Douglas Neyhart, Tahuya River Floodway
The Department of Community Development has received a copy of the
letter, recently sent to you by Peggy Johnson, regarding the
issuance of a stop work order at the Neyhart Farm property on
January 30, 1992 . With all due respect to Ms . Johnson and her
concerns it is felt that with further investigation of the ongoing
violations, portions of her concerns may not have been applicable.
I offer the following:
1 . After discussing the issuance of the stop work order with
with staff and Mr. Neyhart I feel that an alternative
approach to rectify the concerns may have been more
appropriate at that time. It may have been to our
advantage to have Mr. Neyhart contacted and to review
concerns directly with him.
However the fact remains that there are existing
violations which need to be corrected. As you can see by
the attached there appears to be a considerable amount of
documentation reflecting issues satisfied and not
, satisfied. The stop work order was posted on the basis of
the on-going violations. Again I agree issuance at that
time should have been given additional thought and
explanation. The reason I say the stop work order was
issued for on-going violations is that I talked with
staff, by car phone, prior to arriving at the Neyhart
farm. Staff (those who issued the stop work) did not have
a problem with Mr. Neyhart using rip rap to repair the
broken dike in the areas in question. They were however
concerned with using manure for diking material.
When Mr. Young and myself arrived at the Neyhart farm we
reviewed the situation with Mr. Neyhart. I noticed that
manure was being used as diking material. This would lead
one to believe that a considerable amount of contamination
may have entered the floodway and river.
Gary Yando,Director of Community Development • Erik Fairchild,Planning Director
Mason County Bldg. III * 426 W. Cedar • P. O. Box 578 • Shelton, WA 98584 • (206) 427-9670
Page 2
I informed Mr. Neyhart that I had discussed the situation
with my staff and would allow for him to repair, using
rip-rap, those three areas currently being worked on.
Manure was not to be used for diking and that steps needed
to be taken to remove that which had already been used
down between the horse storage barn and what appeared to
be an equipment storage building.
I feel that Ms . Johnson' s statement that staff is now
saying that the stop work order was for "something else
is not accurate for the reason previously described and
described on the attached.
2 . Mr. Neyhart has contacted this department at my request,
regarding the scheduling of a meeting whereby possible
solutions to the existing concerns may be arrived at and
the permit procedure begun. He is to get back to us with
a date.
I feel that this letter along with the attached clarifies some of
the concerns and issues being questioned. we are available to
discuss this project further at your convenience.
Gary Yando, Director of Community Development
Neyhart Farms
Violation Activity
Violations Posted:
1) Landfill Ch. 7. 16 . 130
-Use regulations :
3 . Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can
be clearly demonsrated that the geohydraulic and floodplain
storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard
or other damage to life or property.
4 . Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water
drainage.
-Policies :
3 . In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas
appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface
reduction, naviagation restriction, impediment of water flow
and circulation, reduction of water quality and destruction of
habitat should be considered.
2) Agriculture Ch. 7 . 16 .010
-Use regulations :
1. The use of tanks and troughs for animal watering is
encouraged; allowing animals direct, unrestricted access to
surface water is not permitted.
2 . Surface water drainage and runoff shall be diverted away
from animal confinement and waste storage sites.
3 . Animal confinement areas shall be graded to slope away
from surface water.
6. Confinement areas shall be located away from perennial
and intermittently flowing streams. A fenced buffer of
permanent vegetation at least 100 feet in width shall be
maintained between such areas and water bodies.
7. waste storage sites with the exception of manure lagoons
shall be covered and contained with impermeable material.
Manure lagoons shall be set back 200 feet from all surface
water and diked to withstand the 100-year base flood with
three feet of overboard.
9 . Commercial Feedlots where permitted within the shoreline
jurisdiction shall require a Condtional use Permit and shall
be set back a minimum of 100 feet from ordinary high water
mark.
(Commercial Feedlot definition: An enclosure or facility used
or capable of being used for feeding livestock hay, grain,
silage, or other livestock feed, but shall not include land
for growing crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and.or
grazing, nor shall it include normal livestock wintering
operations . Said enclosure/facility for commercial
livestock. )
Violations not posted:
3) Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization Ch. 7. 16. 150
(While not a component of this particular "Stop Work" , work
required to be performed as a result of the above violation would
be evaluated in terms of this chapter' s regulations also) .
-Use Regulations :
1. The County shall require and utilize the following
information during its review of shoreline stabilization and
flood protection procedures:
-River channel hydraulics and floodway characteristics up
and downstream from the project area;
-Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection
works within the area;
-Physical, geological and soil characteristics of the
area; and
-Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic
processes, adjacent properties and shoreline and water
uses .
3 . The County shall require professional design of
shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such
projects may cause interference with normal river geohydraulic
processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream
shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline
resources and uses .
5 . Diking may be permitted as a Conditional Use PROVIDED:
a. Diking is set back to the edge of the floodway;
b. Timing and construction shall be coordinated with WDF
and WDW;
c. Diking shall be designed and constructed to meet Soil
Conservation Service technical manual standards and
shall, at a minimum include (1) layered compaction, (2)
removal of debris, and (3) revegetation and maintenance
until ground cover is established.
6. Flood protection measures shall be planned and
constructed based on a state approved flood control management
plan, when available, and in accordance with the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Evaluations:
-The dike along the river was constructed in 1986. A W.D.F.
Hydraulic Project Approval was obtained but no shoreline permit.
A review of the old Mason County SMP does not indicate that a
shoreline permit would be exempted for such activity.
-Complaints have been received since 1987 regarding maintenance of
the dike.
-As far back as 1987 reports have noted the existence of too many
horses on the farm, containment areas slope toward the river, the
manure pile is right on the river bank and that the dike was
causing erosion to other properties along that section of the
river.
-In 1987 the S .C.S . developed the first Farm Management Plan with
recommendations and dates b which
y is particular work should be
accomplished.
-In 1990 Mason Co. required Neyhart to hire a consultant to develop
a Farm Plan which would address both Planning and Agricultural
concerns . This plan was never proffered.
-In 1990 a new Farm Plan was developed by Mason County Soil
Conservation Department . This plan included specific dates by
which work should be accomplished. The majority of this work is
not completed, though some (gutters, some fencing) has been.
-In 1992 Planning staff post a Stop Work on the site on the basis
of continuing violations . A meeting is proposed with Mason Co. and
Neyhart to discuss how to proceed.
Options :
1) Require a Shoreline Permit for the dike constructed in 1986.
Require that the services of a professional engineering firm be
obtained to evaluate the farm from a comprehensive perspective.
Incorporate their recommendations into the shoreline permit.
Possible recommendations would include:
A. Construction of a new dike 50-100 feet inside of (away from
the river) the existing dike. This dike would need to
encircle the farm in order to contain animal waste. The dike
would have to be strong enough and high enough to withstand a
' 100-year flood event.
B. Require the removal of all portions of the dike constructed
of manure.
C. Require that the manure pile be re-located away from the
floodplain.
D. Require immediate compliance with the most recent Farm
Plan.
E. Require that all containment areas be located 100 feet from
the Tahuya River.
F. Redirect all surface water runoff away from the river.
2) Formally exempt the existing dike. Require that an engineer
be hired as per above. Require a Shoreline Permit for the
construction of any new dike or sections of shoreline protection.
Exempt minor repair work.
- Also require B,C,D,E and F as per above.
3) Only require B, C,D, E and F as per above.
4) Only require C and E as per above and require compliance with
the Farm Plan as reasonably quickly as possible.
Neyhart Farm
File History
8/25/82 . H. P.A. Remove vegetation/logjam upstream.
12/21/83 . Building permit for Barn.
8/31/84 . Removal of debris upstream.
1/29/86 . H.P.A. Repair bridge.
8/8/86 . H.P.A. For construction of "setback berms" 200 fet long
upstream of bridge and for other maintenance.
9/8/86 . H. P.A. Allowing construction of berm. Stated project was
SEPA Exempt.
10/29/86 . Letter to Neyhart from USACOE stating that no Army
permit required for work completed to date.
12/24/86 . H.P.A. Repair dike.
3/3/87. Complaint received by Planning. Rock being pushed into
river to repair dike.
4/14/87 . Letter from Rick McNicholas, Mason Co. Water Quality, to
Neyhart noting: all of the pasture is in the floodplain, 32 horses
are too many for 40 acres, sacrifice area slopes and drains to
river.
Notes manure pile 10 ft. high on river bank
Notes that efforts to control river are impacting (eroding)
neighbors property.
5/13/87. USACOE notes that repair work is exempt under Nationwide
permit.
6/10/87. Interagency meeting at Farm including Mason Co, DOE, WDF,
COE.
7/10/87 . S.C.S. letter to Patti Miller-Crowley, Mason Co. noting
the need for gutters, 10 ft. buffer strip between buildings and
river, cross fencing, fencing off tributary to Tahuya River, plant
trees, plant buffer between corral and river.
Notes that the corral is too close to the river and is
overgrazed.
7/13/87 . Mason Co. letter (Crowley) to Neyhart summarizing
findings of meeting. DOE determined that SDP need for dike already
built. Crowley states it is inconclusive whether permit is needed
and asks for review of previous HPA's to determine. Noted
violations to the SMP Agriculture chapter. States that Neyhart
should comply with the SMP to the extent possible.
9/1/87. Letter from SCS to Neyhart noting same concerns as
previously (see 7/10/87) .
Alternatives: 1) Remove facilities.
2) Obtain higher ground, use floodplain only for
training of horses.
3) Outlines list of requirements if neither 1 nor
2 can be done.
9/25/87. H.P.A. Remove debris.
9/87. S.C.S. provides first Management Plan for the farm. Some
dates set for planting, fencing.
12/17/87. H.P.A. Repair dike.
1/6/88 . H.P.A. Repair dike.
1/22/88 . H. P.A. Allowing dike repair but pointing out water
F
quality impacts .
8/23/88 . Site plan from Neyhart indicating 2 areas needing rip-rap
repair.
9/7/88 . Repairs/repair of log jam.
10/7/88 . Memo from Crowley to Cmmr. Eager. Says Neyhart was told
it was okay to place some rip-rap in hole along bank.
2/3/89 . D.O.E. writes letter to Mason Co. noting there is a
possible violation but that local government is responsible.
2/14/89 . Point No Point Treaty Council writes letter to Mason Co.
pointing out likely SMP violations .
2/14/89 . Mason County Water Quality department summarizes findings
in Memo from A. Remsberg to M. Byrne.
2/20/89 . Written complaint from Gary Keys .
3/14/89 . Complaint . Rock being dumped along dike and in river.
5/15/89 . Complaint . Rock being dumped in back of sandbag wall .
5/15/89 . Memo from A. Remsbert to M. Byrne concerning update after
being on site. Notes horses near river below bridge on right hand
side, and that horses are too close to the river.
11/88-5/89 . Mason County Water Quality department evaluation
report from data collected. States that while farm is contributing
to contamination, it is difficult to say how much.
Notes that in 1987 there were 48 horses on site.
Notes that unpermitted diking may be leading to problems.
5/22/89 . Complaint.
5/24/89 . Water Quality report sent to Neyhart.
6/5/89 . Meeting takes place between Neyhart and Mason County.
8/7/89 . D.O.E. issues "Notice of Violation" to Neyhart regarding
work previously performed on the Tahuya River. Requests that he
submit information to them.
1/12/90 . Letter and call from Neyhart to Lenore Marken, Mason
County requesting emergency exemption to fix dike.
1/12/90 . H.P.A. Repair dike.
2/15/90 . H.P.A. General guidelines for future repair.
7/2/90 . D. Fawver and R. Neff inspect site after complaint
received. Denied access to property.
7/10/90 . R. Neff and Jack Huls from Mason County Soil Conservation
inspect site with Neyhart and observe stream channel fill.
7/11/90 . "Stop Work" posted by R. Neff, Mason Co. for filling with
debris a side channel of the Tahuya River. W.D.W. and W.D.F.
notified.
7/17/90 . USACOE notified of wetland fill.
7/19/90 . R. Hoss, lawyer for Neyhart writes Mason Co. , WDF, DOE,
and USACOE. States that a consultant will be hired to repair
damage and restore channel. Requests that citations be held.
7/26/90 . Wiltermood and Associates hired to develop plan for
restoration and for farm management overall . Letter sent outlining
County concerns and regulations.
8/13/90 . H.P.A. for removal of fill .
8/20/90 . Mason Co. issues Statement of Exemption to remove fill as
per W.D. F. requirements.
9/6/90 . D.O.E. letter to Mason County stating that the side
channel is an "associated wetland" to the Tahuya River and
therefore, under SMP jurisdiction.
`-F I Q_
9/10/90 . D.O.E. letter to Mason Co. acknowledging that complaints
had been received.
9/12/90 . Letter sent from mason Co. to Neyhart. Notes that if
"plan" Wiltermood develops fails to address concerns or Neyhart
fails to comply with its terms we will pursue further enforcement
action as necessary.
Note that more permanent solutions are necessary.
Note that diking is only allowed with a Conditional Use
Permit .
Note that diking is not "normal or necessary" for farming or
ranching and therefore is not exempt.
Note the SMP requires a permanent 100 foot buffer for animal
containment sites .
9/14/90 . Neyhart submits a plan for bridge to be built over side
channel and for its restoration.
9/24/90 . Mason Co. receives letter from Governors office regarding
complaints received by them.
9/26/90 . H.P.A. Bridge crossing.
10/23/90 . Mason Co. letter to Neyhart. Reminding him that the
Farm Plan developed by consultant should be submitted.
Note animal shaving pile should be relocated.
Note that no exemption will be issued for bridge and that a
Conditional Use permit is required.
Advise Neyhart to obtain C.U. P. for sand bag wall . Note that
emergency exemptions might be issued if shoreline permits are
applied for, but that otherwise it is unlikely that further
emergency exemptions will be issued on a last minute basis
11/2/90 . Letter to Alpine Evergreen (Paul Reid) regarding applying
for permits to cross side channel .
11/5/90 . Farm Plan with detailed completion dates and other on-
going work plus recommendations .
11/6/90 . Paul Reid responds to letter sent 11/2/90.
11/16/90 . Neyhart writes letter to Mason Co. regarding the repair
of the sand bag wall .
11/20/90. Letter from Neyhart with plan for sand bag wall.
11/29/90 . Neyhart called to state emergency work is needed on the
dike.
12/7/90. Dike broken
4/18/91. Letter to Alpine Evergreen regarding recent clearing of
road adjacent to Tahuya River.
5/7/91. Site Meeting with D.O.E. , W.D.F. , with first G. Keys and
then with Neyhart. Keys claims an attempt is being made to divert
river as a result of Alpine Evergreens clearing the vegetation when
they made their road.
-Complaints about on-going dike repair during flooding.
-Complaints about erosion rate of up to 8-10 feet in the last
year.
*Note: Response from D.O.E. several weeks after this meeting
was that they felt that no violation had occurred in the
clearing of vegetation to make the road on the Alpine
Evergreen property, and that the dike does not require an
"after-the-fact" shoreline permit.
8/19/91 . Mason Co. issues Statement of Exemption to Paul Reid for
r
the placement of earthen berm adjacent to the Tahuya River set back
a minimum of 5 ft . , 8-10 ft. wide, 3-4 ft . high, 80-100 ft. long to
stabilize bank. This was approved by a registered engineer as
required by the Flood Damage Prevention ordinance.
1/29/92 . Planning staff respond to complaint regarding the dumping
f rock into the river along the dike. Observed extremely high
o g Y g
flood levels wall to wall across valley. Watched Neyhart using
dump truck and front end loader to repair dike across from Keys .
Using dirt scraped from inside track.
-Posted "Stop Work" for violations to the SMP Agriculture and
Landfill chapters.
-Handed copy to Neyhart assistant as water too high to get out
to section of track Neyhart working on.
-Observed much manure being transported from the area by
floodwaters.
-Observed that the manure pile is now across the road adjacent
to the bridge. Did not see the cement pad Neyhart says he
installed, but there may have been vehicles and mud over it .
If that is the location, it is much too close to river.
1/30/92 . Spoke with W.D. F. , Doris Small who said no H.P.A. had
been issued and that one is always required, even for an
"emergency" situation.
Exhibit RT-1,45
MEMO
February 10, 1992
To: Gary Yando r
From: Steve Nichols x
Subject: Shoreline violation. Douglas Neyhart. Tahuya River
Floodway.
On January 30,. 1992 Don Brush and myself placed a "Stop Work" order
on the Neyhart Farm property. Several violations were apparent and
warranted the order, as well as follow-up enforcement.
Firstly, the diking activity and the ranching activity should be
addressed separately as the Mason County Shoreline Master Program
does not acknowledge diking as accessory to agricultural
activities .
* see definition of agriculture (page 3 of MCSMP) :
The farming or raising of livestock, crops, berries,
fruit, nursery stock on land, and may require development
such as buildings, feed lots, fences, ditches, bridges,.
ponds, wells, grading, as well as use of native pasture
and woodlots..
Secondly, we must recognize that at some point the Neyhart Farm
situation must be considered a "Nonconforming Use" and that all
applicable regulations and policies in regard to such a use should
be enforced.
* see Development Matrix (page 27 of MCSMP)
Commercial Feedlots are prohibited in an urban
residential shoreline environment.
* see also agriculture development chapter in original MCSMP
(page 15 of August 12, 1975 MCSMP)
(Within an Urban Residential Environment . . . ) Large-scale
animal feedlots, corrals, stockyards or facilities for
retention or storage of wastes from these areas are
prohibited.
Animal feedlots and stockyards will not be permitted
within floodways .
Since its illegal conception, the Farm has increased in size. New
barns have been constructed, the track has been enlarged, and the
number of paddocks have increased. In addition, it would not be a
stretch to say that a corresponding increase in the number of
Exhibit RT-1,4"3
animals on the Farm has also taken place.
* see applicability to nonconforming development (page 20 of
MCSMP) :
Expansion of a nonconforming development is prohibited.
Thirdly, we should recognize that the receiving water body of the
wastes generated at Neyhart Farms is Hood Canal, and that Hood
Canal is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and should be
afforded extra protection as mandated in our Program.
* see Environment Designations (page 83 of MCSMP)
Shorelines of Statewide Significance. In the
implementation of this policy the public' s opportunity to
enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the natural
shorelines of the state be preserved to the greatest
extent possible consistent with the overall best interest
of the state and the people generally. To this end uses
shall be preferred which are consistent with control of
pollution and prevention of damage to the natural
environment or are unique to or dependent upon use of the
state' s shoreline.
Fourthly, consider that Neyhart' s most recent activities violated
the State Hydraulic Code by not first obtaining any approvals from
the Washington State Department of Fisheries before doing work on
the dike.
I. DIKING ACTIVITY
The existing dike is a nonconforming development as per the
following master program requirements :
Diking may be permitted as a Conditional Use PROVIDED:
a. . Diking is set back to Lhe edge of the floodway;
b. Timing and construction shall be coordinated with
WDF and WDW;
C. Diking shall be designed and constructed to meet
Soil Conservation Service technical manual
standards and shall, at a minimum include (1)
layered compaction, (2) removal of debris (i. e. ,
tree stumps, tires , etc. ) , and (3) revegetation and
maintenance until ground cover is established.
It is apparent that Neyhart did not and does not meet any of these
standards for diking.
In regards to emergency exemptions for diking, our Program does not
Exhibit RT-10a
explicitly delegate to the administrator the authority to exempt
any kind of diking activity from first obtaining a Conditional Use
permit. Our Program only delegates authority to exempt certain
project from obtaining a Substantial Development Permit .
Even if an administrator decides to override the Program with an
administrative exemption, which you have done, there should be
conditions placed on the work to minimize " . . . any resultant damage
to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area" . (page 2 of
MCSMP and RCW 90 .58 . 020)
The following developments shall not require substantial
development permits :
(a-c)
(d) Emergency construction necessary to protect property
from damage by the elements . An "emergency" is an
unanticipated and imminent threat to public health,
safety, or the environment which requires immediate
action.
(e-1)
Exemptions shall be construed narrowly.
Exempted developments authorized by local government
shall be consistent with the policies and provisions of
the act and the applicable master program.
(WAC 173-14-040)
Per the definition of "emergency" , it is my belief that what
occurred could not be termed unanticipated. Anyone choosing to
inhabit a floodway that floods on a regular basis should be
prepared to evacuate during periods of high runoff (i.e. common
sense) .
In addition, the "emergency work" was not consistent with policies
or provisions of the Act or the Program.
At a minimum, Neyhart should have had flood protection measures
pre-approved by this department and at the ready. Example, if dike
failure was imminent then sandbags or rip-rap, or other suitable
material pre-approved by this department, WDOE, and WDF could have
been at the ready; and when circumstances warranted then could have
been implemented once a shoreline exemption were approved.
Without any control , the result was a chaotic attempt at solving,
what I would term, a "foreseen" problem. The use of unconsolidated
dirt and rocks in a high velocity, flood stage river, as well as
the use of totally inappropriate manure dikes were both apart of
this attempt . Neyhart was not granted, nor did he pursue any kind
of prior approval for this work by our department or WDF.
Exhibit RT
Any "Stop Work" order exemption to do further work should have been
conditioned to use suitable materials as mentioned above. Using
those materials would not have posed a hardship on Neyhart and it
would have shown us whether he was willing to work with us .
II. RANCHING
A commercial feedlot in an Urban Residential Environment is not
only inappropriate but prohibited under the Program. Such a
feedlot discourages residential development in an area that has
been priorly designated to encourage such development. Not only is
the current use and siting of the Neyhart Farm degrading to the
environment but it is incompatible with the intended uses of
adjacent properties .
* see definition of commercial feedlot (page S of MCSMP)
An enclosure of facility used or capable of being used
for feeding livestock hay, grain, silage, or other
livestock feed, but shall not include land for growing
crops or vegetation for livestock feeding and/or grazing,
nor shall it include normal livestock wintering
operations . Said enclosure, facility for commercial
livestock.
Because the vegetation has disappeared from the paddocks and the
feeding areas, and the fact that the horses feed on imported hay
rather than grazing, it is apparent the operation does satisfy the
definition for a commercial feedlot.
Applicable policies from the Agriculture Chapter (page 29 of MCSMP)
When located in shoreline management areas, they should
be separated . from water bodies by vegetated buffer
strips .
Proper maintenance and runoff practices should be
employed to preclude contamination of surface water with
livestock waste, to prevent the transmission of
waterborne disease to both human and livestock
populations and to preserve vegetative cover and soil
absorptive capacity.
Siting practices which prevent contamination of water
courses and the destruction and erosion of vegetation and
soil should be encouraged.
Livestock waste should be disposed of in a manner that
will prevent surface or ground water contamination.
Commercial feedlots should be restricted from locating on
shorelines unless they can satisfactorily demonstrate
that they will cause no adverse environmental impacts .
Exhibit RT-10t
Maintaining vegetative cover in areas subject to flooding
should be encouraged.
Applicable regulations from the Agriculture Chapter (page 30 of
MCSMP)
Surface water drainage and runoff shall be diverted away
from animal confinement and waste storage sites .
Animal confinement areas shall be graded to slope away
from surface water.
Confinement areas shall be located away from perennial
and intermittently flowing streams . A fenced buffer of
permanent vegetation at least 100 feet in width shall be
maintained between such areas and water bodies .
Waste storage sites with the exception of manure lagoons
shall be covered and contained with impermeable material .
Manure lagoons shall be set back 200 feet from all
surface water and diked to withstand the 100-year base
flood with three feet of overboard.
Commercial Feedlots where permitted within the shoreline
jurisdiction shall require a Conditional Use Permit and
shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet from ordinary
high water mark.
Within this chapter alone, we have the authority to clean up the
Neyhart situation.
III. ENFORCEMENT
We should begin by. requiring Neyhart to re-dike the section near
the barn with a suitable material waterward of the existing manure
dike. After this dike is established Neyhart should be required to
remove the existing manure dikes and place the animal waste in a
suitable upland storage facility.
If cooperation breaks down during this process we will know that
the rest of requests will be similarly ignored and we can then turn
the case over immediately to the Prosecutor's.
If he does comply with this measure, then we should next draw up a
time line for submittal of applications for a shoreline conditional
use permit. A new system of dikes that will minimize problems
associated with flooding and resultant contaminated runoff from the
feedlots and stored animal waste will need to be reviewed under the
shoreline permit process .
I would recommend a dike that encircles the entire ranch lying
within the floodway of the Tahuya River (i.e. "manure lagoon" ) .
New dikes should withstand the 100-year base flood elevation with
Exhibit Rf-1��
three feet of overboard. The plans should also be engineer
certified to meet the conditions for fill in the floodway; per the
Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance; " . . . encroachments shall not
result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the
base flood discharge" (5 .3 , FDPO) . This may not be possible.
In addition, a suitable storage area for the animal waste at the
Neyhart Farm must be found in order to minimize surface and ground
water contamination. This means that the waste must be contained
with impermeable material .
All other activities associated with the Farm should also be
conditioned to comply with all applicable regulations found in the
agriculture and the flood protection/shoreline stabilization
chapters of the Program.
cc: Don Brush
Erik Fairchild
State of
/ washinkton
.t�IIt IJIS rHIC;T HOLLSC Of .155ISTA.rT H.1.1K1N(:>tt.NtSEftl
U)L'C.\TIO-N
PEGGY .JOHNSON Representatives rltlalx)I fr.Nno-N
OF P IVT'Y
UELIC WORD
UTILITIES DNfStON
February 4 1992
Commissioner Bill Hunter
Mason County Courthouse Bldg. 1
411 North 5
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Bill:
This correspondence is in regard to two issues that are
intex-twined. I would like to address a constituent problem and the
growth management document.
First, I want to relay what happened last week in our county. Wes
was delivering a load of hay to Doug Newhart in Tahuya and
discovered Doug's land covered with water that was going into his
hay storage area. The dike had sprung a leak. While Doug was
attempting to repair the dike, even stuffing bales of hay into the
opening, two of the Mason county planners arrived with a stop work
order! Fortunately for Doug, Wes was there. Wes called Eric
Fairchild and told him this would not hold up in any court in the
land, that there was an emergency and the dike needed to be
repaired to prevent property loss. Wes unloaded his hay and left.
Later in the day, Gary Yando and Marley Young arrived. They
declared an emergency and gave permission for the dike to be
repaired. I understand the two planners are now saying th t e I
stop wo k order was, Kr " omethin � ��� �'
10
I find this quite ludicrous! We certainly can't have knowledgeable F41;
private citizens stationed around our county to help protect other/)Ad J
private citizens from overzealous county planners. For several
years, we have struggled with this "letter of the law" attitude :
with DOE and Fisheries. We don't need it in our county office.
Please look into this situation and do what you can to prevent
similar situations from arising.
Wes read Mason County's 107 page document and made comments and
suggestions at the public hearing. I was able to attend the last
hearing. We believe Mason County should use the least restrictive
guidelines for growth management and particularly wetlands since we
are essentially a rural community.
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE: 4.18 JOHN L.O'BRIEN BUILDING.OLYMPIA.WA 985044)433 • 12040 7M6-7943(i
I IOT um:*I)t'I(I\(i I-MOO-5624i(xx) • -rDo: I-Mfx)-1i3�-f1<K)3
RESIDENCE: SKOKONIISI I VALLEN ROAD.SI IGITON. W\4)M.i81417ili
MUN"1T,.0 ON RECYCLED RAMA(
Exhibit RT-14
Also, the March deadline can be extended - the important thing is
that we end up with a document that is acceptable and reasonable.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter from an attorney hired by the
Washington State Farm Bureau addressing the wetlands and IMarch
deadline issue.
You are to be congratulated on the over one hundred participants in
this growth management process. We were pleased with the
participation in the hearings which were well organized and well
run. Please let us know how we can help.
Sincerely,
Peggy Johnson
State Representative
35th District
PJ:pa
cc: Doug Newhart
Commissioner Mike Gibson
Commissioner Laura Porter
Gary Burleson, Prosecuting Attorney
Marley Young, County Engineer
Gary Yando, Mason County Community Development
KRISTINE K GEsuEbft RT-15 Ex A 5
STATE Of WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AirdustrW Park, LD-1l
Olympia, W", ' 9asa4 ---7C7 5/
October _4 , 1991
Belinda Freemont
Conservation District
Masan County Dept. of
General Services
PO Box 186
Sheiton. WA 98584
Dear `is . Freemont :
The Shellfish Office of the Department of Health understands that
your office is working with farm practices at the 'cep-hart horse
ranch , located ne_ct to she ipstream segment of the =ahuya River.
Due to co mercial shellfish beds 'n the immediate area of the
T our oT ice regular co 2cts, camp es Lor eCa
coliforms at several stations in this inlet . Within the last three
years, several samples at these stations have exceeded our standard
for water quality, which has prompted our office to identify
potential pollution sources ,
Ae your office is aware , several agencies Were involved in water
quality sampling at the Neyhart horse ranch in late 1988 and in
early 1989 . This effort indicated some potential water quality
concerns and questions about manure-handling practices at the site.
our office is unaware of improvements made at the horse farm since
the 1988-1989 sampling efforts , and would like to be informed of
any better management practices which are being implemented. The
Shellfish Office greatly appreciates any improvements made through
the efforts of your office and Mr . Neyhart , to protect water
quality in the Tahuya River.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. 1 can be
contacted at phone = 733-3517 ( Scan 234- i , or at the DCH Shellfish
Office , Bldg . 4 .. Airdustrial Park . Jlympia 98304-7824 .
Sincerely, `
Frank `leriwether
Environmental Ensineer
cc : „erry Lukes , DOH Sheilfi,sh Office
I
(do
�VOIV s;od a -qv4 -,'v4 kvk
a'acl�rflvyar � �► ,� pP'"`� � '�p-7
XV I�lb(13
9�-IN :pq!V3
aaATZj irXrngvl vq3 ?n Iwuuwgo uTrm ego qo,;m 3oauuoDea ilauaaano
kvm al 'jouuvyo sTtp Jo gnvoa aaddn ago 3o uoTaosdsul ` UTXTv^ sTq uo pasrS
3aauTn 014Z Sulanp suoT3 iaawn oz pasn Iauurgn Pill saaodaa J05Fuam m rA quj
saAT� vkncpl pill 3n Sjauuvgo apTs aua 3o auo uo ITT; auaoaa saPnToul aZTS
otu• -sTt;a m3T3uo0 03 pepeau Sl uol3vuuo3ul Xanans paTTF38p 2a014 •aaAT-8
vXnRvl vqz 3o uTvldpooT3 Y**;-ooI aq3 =o suoTaaod sapnTout maa3 ZargdeN auZ
9POunTP177 ArW rlpg 2=23ncul PooI3 9961 atU •Tvuan POOR $0 810gs t;aaou a43
uo kirna*a sZT 3o mvaaardn xT =sAT-d Vxngvz aq3 arnil
Lr TJ o H uv
n e n
cT'0T1n':nJ aeag3 mio=lad o3 Purlagm aua 30 IZTTTgv eu3
rattnwWal pub •pazovdmT svq aZTs A139 2 aq3 uo 2UTTIT3 atu• 'Xvm4ST11 cqa $uoTe
rauamdoTansp 1vT-aa*u=00 snnT?*n puts t-,gS moa3 =;ouna 3o ZzTTtnb puv AmT3uenb
` atp tpoq sao33Ttq puvlzo^ oql •Rw*nATnd S7O113 303 „ZUSDV[Pr„ aQ oZ Wv0aZS
Piro TnTvl-ia^ Aid ciwpTcuoa saaauTBu3 To sdao0 oul 'Tvuv� POOH moa;7 aouanT;uT
IvpTz 3o auaaxa soddn aqz 30 Zoo; OOZ UTIMA aq 03 savaddv 3vg3 alentno PUT
pvoa =v3 v .cZ mvaaarunoP wrnw')xs PUVTaon atu• •uoTaosdsuT ears otp 3o *WJ2
aqa av (s;a) punnnv .INA 1*pJ oTgna S•j 03 S•0 av pa3t:mTmse svm gzra A073 atu
-4nols uotun oz favangTa3 amoaas 9uTnol3 'anonuTauoo v •sapnj=l purTZon atu•
Onol S uoTun o3 ILTB3nq-;.xm
pu*Tzar v caul T>ogvr►d puv spuvldn at►an*rrp will m0a3 ono wear TTT3 a SePnIz
_uT nZTs vtLj acah I oiittr.N 'gaaoN fZ djusunol 'Zt uoT3 oeS a833vnb 3N euz
30 aaaavnb 3N aqa Aj*2vwTx0addp ul 'zTr3TwQ Jn t; nos (f-iiS) t aanod eav1R
go .pis assn sqz os auooa(pv vsav SUTXa*A wmet; slTgom r sT .I.IS 7. {
mr39oag spuv7a30tTs X9010o3 - Iv4caV14 utlor V PITh TV
c3asuTSu3 30 :d4o0 - 337Tnr:)njI r7mLlD
SuTuuvld Xaunoo uosvH • gcnag anQ '9 PTTL;33T'e3 XTZS
:aaen suoTZoadcut a3 �.
oqz ao3 zus■sad svogz 'paoDsa oqZ aag -%uajnnadcuj onls acat;3 pue=3v Pur
aoz *9uvaar o3 omTz SuiXvz 33ras ano/ pur not earTneadde an •c?.TsiA 0279
DA090 04Z uo ca uommoo 33irzc ano Yn3 RtIT7TvM ul oouaT3ed anoi ao3 no! X-uvg.1
;T)TTg0a7r2 any 3Ea(T
73os vi 1 vLjX N T)lll' arA
78SS6 yn 'uoalatlS
30833S q39 gZaoN 11*7
QuTuurTd 4Dtrn00 UVWWN
PTT14aatv3 xT32 _w
066I 19 aogmaades
rXXlrn'.t faCJ?' t t:u N>SR(, WJo•"•`f VAJ • t t-.A,4 do)ti NPI.
l0010D� 30 1.N3t\AVd3C
N<).LDN*4gvm 4() 11v1�
• fN
L X3
r`
Exhibit RT-17
Mr. Erik Fairchild
September 6 , 1990
Page 2
This side chesuirl lixs 1JVULL completely blocked with several hundred cubic
y+ardu of local soils bulldozed from the surrounding area. It is our opinion
this YIdr tti:atinel and adlacent wetlands is a functional 2art of she Tahuva
Ri-er and Teets the hydraulic crlreria Eor association.
BaNud ou the forgoing we believe these two sites meet the definition of
"wetlands" in Chapter 90. 58.030(2) (f) RC'd, and "Associated wetlands" in
Chapter L73-22-030 WAC. As such, the sites Call undur Lhe jurludicLiuu of
Cho Shoreline Management ACL and L11m Mason County Shoreline Master Program
(MCSMP) . TL Appr:ars bush sires contain unpermitted landfills in violation
of Chapter 7 . 16 . 130 of the MCSMP, which sLraLuu ill paVL.
l.i4ll"1f11.1s art prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or
on bLuluglcal WwLluiids, except that they may be periaicced as a Condi-
tional Use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no
upland of scructural alternative is possibla.
Ldnd Cllla are «oc permitted on esLuaries, tidelands, marshes, ponds or
swamps , uxuKpL Lhat they may be allowed for water dependent uses as a
Conditional Use.
Landfi.11x Arm itut permitted in floodplains unless is can be clearly
demonsLtaLud LhmL dic Beohydraulic and Eloodplain storage capacity will
not be alLared Lu lat;rtzase flood hazard or other d,mw6a to life or
property.
Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water draina6c.
As yuu .arm aware, local governments have primary responsibility for enforc-
ing their Shoreline Master Programs. Euulugy's 3lturel.uids and Coastal Zone
Management Program has sulues rezuurcas available to pursue enforcement. For
further assistance with enforcement issues, please contact Jim Anest,
Shoreline Enforcement coordinator at (206) 459-6795 or SCAN 583-6795.
Sincerly,
Donald J. Bales
Shorelines Putmil CUULli1La aLur
S}torelands and Coastal Zone
Management Program
DJB:del
cc: Al Wald
John Marshal
Jim Anest
.loon VOR1lknnjR
Chri3 McCauliff, cnF
MASON COUNTY Exhibit RT-18
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
�- Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
'.YA
._.�.�.�'..-tea r .,iY �� �� �.7r. _ _• a... _._ ... . :1'. _ �. .� ...
�awvG_ a FSan'=y _I we.^,: 01 _ __ :..e ey.-a a tC
a=1i= the w=rK _n3= was ceIrG core an ^-= prcper ..y. We were --e,e
by Eric Neyhart who _oic that ..is Ia_her had given standng
orcer= n:)mot to =e: any•= ? c:i. the p_ ape- _y, wnen ne w?=.^. tne:- .
Er_C ceniea us acCeZz tc tne property. We _r.e • . oce=cea a"•r
road ana tad ked to the people who i_ied the complai'. . M=. ?:_ys
showed us from his pr_^erty _: e activity `.^3t was go:.:-g ::n .".� .
Neyhart s property. we saw .he bui_doce: wcr'kiag _:. =:^.e niccie :�t
the pasture that was tl%e e:,:tent of the activity. Mr. Keys inlar--red
us that Neyhart had caused the diversion of the river and it way
causing Keys to loose his property through erosion by the river.
July 9, 1990
I ( Randy Neff ) talked with Jack Huis of Mason County Soi'_.^
Conservation, regarding Mr. Neyhart and his lar:n. _ e::pla_
concern with the activity on his farm, the report done by Water
Quality that and at the amount of material in nis file. acr:
then enlighten me as to the extensive amount of work done by Water
Quality and by So::s Con. to help Neyhart out with his :arm
practices. He said that he would set-up an appointment with
Neyhart for us to walk his property.
July 10, 1990
Jack Huls and I walked the property of Neyhart.. He showed us the
different diking project and the clearing that he was doing on his
property. I had researched his property from different maps and
was concerned about h s filling in any wetland or affiliated areas.
I asked Mr. Neyhart if I could walk up a dried streambed that be
had come across. He said yes., so I proceeced up the oec. At this
time a came across �3:y^e e::rarSe. C_ areas or =. _-=e3?1DF.'d _.^.
which dirt and, vegetation had been pushed into the streameed. This
1nateria_ came i.om h__ =_earing tc _-e _. W. area cc :.iz ,rC^=r:y.
:'he area -e =tr=a7=aC a= ..aa ., __..
be app=o:,i-ately measures at 2.00 . =uc:F. pi'= =- -= - a oamage
to the East fork of t: a .'a ,uya :Giver, a- i3 __.^.e , 3C.. an
1 Jit
Exhibit RT-18
�_s ...._ Y 'i ..�'i c :�: ... ::�:a +. �1=C .3 o-- j )W a,2 Wes
� . _ _ .. _ _- . _.- .�-.- -.. ._. - _ � _ .._-_mod i - _-r ��::_:•: o -.:. _ =:i�:aa::+_ .�
:.._ _ 7, 7. rC
r. rl�^ %. 7�'C3.Se n•a .•1+3 3 �� � ice_:y' :. �!?_ _. '?'. :i _ .i'_.'.F_': T._
H
:Hyde ;lad ._. i_3_ '_ n;.,2, 'dad; ce vr. 4:? _^_'a to Ivrec _C
`eyna: _. Du,-3-n -- con veroa::. er
Chide that, he ( Neyhart ) had made arrangements 411E D11 ._.. Small to
inspect the property at 3 �':.tture :3:t?. The St-.) W,--rc W base-4- an
the Vloiatyons o2 (.:apT. 7. the
Program # ' s 1, 2, an- :3.
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERth"NIIdgS
Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
May 24, 1989
Doug Neyhart
315 Seneca Street
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Neyhart:
This report summarizes findings from the water quality
investigation that we have been conducting since November, 1988.
Our intention is to make this report publicly available after you
have had an opportunity to review it. Copies will shortly be sent
to the Belfair Herald , as well as the county commissioners, county
planners, and the state Department of Social and Health Services.
As you will read, we conclude that activities on your farm are
leading to fecal coliform contamination of the waterway. At this
time the beaver pond appears to be working to your benefit by
settling some of this bacteria out of the water and moderating the
rate of contamination. We are hopeful that as development
continues on your farm, impacts on water quality be given serious
consideration.
We will continue to sample the Tahuya for fecal coliform
contamination, and. to monitor any impact Neyhart Farms may be
having on this water quality. We would like to sample on your farm
roughly six times per year. Two of these sampling events should
occur during dry weather, and four sampling events during wet
weather periods. It would be best for us to continue the procedure
we have been following. Our sampling schedules are unpredictable
since thay are dependent on weather and available lab capacity,
therefore, we would like to contact you shortly before we plan to
sample on your property each time. If you so desire, we will keep
you informed of our findings each time, with a short letter after
we have reviewed sample results.
Exhibit RT-19
Rick McNicholas and I have discussed your offer to pay for some of
these sampling events. We appreciate this offer and have decided
that payment should be made with gifts of yearling horses to Rick
and Myself on a periodic basis. Actually, we are exploring avenues
for your contributions to the sampling program.
If you have any questions or comments on the Water Quality
Investigation Report, please call me at 427-9670 x292. We have
greatly appreciated your cooperation with our efforts.
Sincerely,
t
Ann Remerg ,
Environmental Technician
P.S. Please be advised that your tentative plans for a fish pond
on your property will require review by the state Department of
Fisheries and the Mason County Planning Department.
Exhibit RT-19
MASON COUNTY WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATION OF NEYHART' S FARM
ON THE TAHUYA RIVER
Background Information
This water quality investigation was prompted by citizens '
complaints of alleged water quality degradation originating from
Neyhart ' s Farm on the Tahuya River. There was also strong concern
by the Washington State Department of Social and Health Service' s
(DSHS) Shellfish Program for protection of commercial oyster
growing at the Tahuya river ' s mouth. This report is generated by
data collected and observations made from November, 1988 through
May, 1989.
Mr . Doug Neyhart is the owner of approximately 40 acres in the
floodplain of the Tahuya River, approximately 2.0 river miles
upstream of the mouth. Several years ago Mr. Neyhart established
a horse farm on this property. In 1987 he was keeping 48 horses
on this land. As part of his effort to develop this farm in the
river' s floodplain , Neyhart has been forced to hold back the river
by depositing dike and berm material along the river bank .
Some neighbors are concerned about the impact Neyhart' s bank
stabilization and livestock activities are having on neighboring
properties and on the river' s water quality. Some of the
complaints were probably fired by the desire to see the rural and
wild character of the Tahuya remain unchanged. One claim of horse
manure from Neyhart' s Farm covering beaches on Hood Canal was
discounted when pictures of brown scum were offered as proof. The
brown ooze was most likely dead and decomposing plankton pushed by
the wind onto the beach.
In response to initial citizen complaints, a county
commissioner, county staff from the water quality and planning
departments, and representatives from the state departments of
Ecology and Fisheries visited Neyhart' s farm in June of 1987.
Following visits by the Soil Conservation Service produced a farm
plan recommending some best management practices to minimize water
quality impact to the river . However, this farm plan has not been
implemented to this date.
Exhibit RT-19
Investigation procedure
A review of existing data indicates that the Tahuya River has
been a clean stream for many years. In the Lower Hood Canal Study
conducted by Mason County from October, 1986 to June, 1987, the
Tahuya River water quality met state standards for fecal coliform
concentrations in the seven samples taken during the study . ( Fecal
coliform is a group of bacteria common to all warm blooded animals.
Its presence in water indicates sewage or animal waste
contamination. ) State standards (RCW 173.201 ) call for a maximum
geometric mean of 50 FC per 100 milliliters of water with no more
than 10 percent of the samples exceeding 100 FC per 100
milliliters.
Fecal coliform (FC) analysis of water was the primary tool for
this investigation of water quality. Sample stations were chosen
at the mouth of the river , at several points upstream to Neyhart' s
farm, and in various places on the Neyhart property itself . Refer
to figures 1 & 2 for locations of sample stations. In choosing
sample stations we endeavored to select locations which were above
and below areas where we suspected possible fecal contamination .
In order to effectively "bracket" a source, it is important that
the downstream station be well enough below the source for there
to be adequate mixing with the river before sampling. Sites A,B,
and C, (on Neyhart' s farm) were selected by an employee of
Neyhart' s farm who• was given directions to choose sample stations
above, below, and in the middle of the farm. After sampling
several times, we saw that some sample stations were not aptly
located. Site C, chosen to be the below-the-farm station was
actually located upstream of where most of the runoff from the farm
converges with the river. Our second downstream station from
Neyhart' s - the public fishing access - was too far downstream to
reflect immediate fecal coliform input from the farm' s runoff : FC
concentrations become further diluted the further away from the
source. Towards the end of this sampling period we selected
another sample station that was just 100 yds downstream from where
the runoff enters the river .
Exhibit RT-19
We sampled on 6 different days between November, 1988 and May,
1989. Half of these sampling days were during periods with much
rain, and half were during dry periods. It is generally most
informative to sample during wet weather because we would then
catch the contamination that is carried in the runoff . However,
dry weather sampling is also helpful in portraying the overall
character of water quality.
Findings
From our sampling we have learned that the water quality of
the lower Tahuya river is very good--it fits within state standards
for class AA waters as earlier described . Refer to Table 1 for
fecal coliform values found at all Tahuya River sampling stations.
Close to the mouth of the river (at Allen ' s crossing ) the geometric
mean value ( an average of all sample results taken there) for fecal
coliform concentration was 10 FC/100m1 . Geometric mean values
(GMV' s) of fecal coliform concentrations were found to be 4. 5
FC/100ml at both sites A and C - sites which are upstream of where
runoff from Neyhart' s farm converges with the river. Fecal
coliform values are almost double this at the public access where
we have found a GMV of 8.5 FC/100ml . This is a small but
significant rise in FC concentration. From closer inspection it
becomes apparent that Neyhart' s farm is responsible for this rise
in contamination.
A 7/8 mile training track covers much of Neyhart' s property.
Many horses are kept in paddocks within the area of the track.
Runoff from this area follows a ditch, along the track , to a
culvert which passes under the track. The culvert empties into an
intermittent tributary, which reputedly originates from the hills.
A spring upwells below the culvert, also contributing to the flow
of this tributary. This unnamed tributary makes a few meanders
before flowing into a natural beaver pond. Animal keeping areas
are adjacent to this tributary and to the river on much of
Neyharts' s property. In some areas there are no vegetative buffer
strips to' filter runoff , and in most areas there is no fence to
keep animals out of the water . During wet weather we have observed
Exhibit RT-19
muddy runoff from horse paddocks entering the tributary through the
runoff culvert and by trickling down steep banks into the
meandering section of the tributary. Samples taken from the
tributary on these occasions have shown this runoff to be highly
contaminated with fecal coliform (a maximum of 5800 FC/100ml was
found at site B) .
Before the tributary enters the Tahuya it is filtered through
a natural beaver pond . It appears that the beaver pond is having
a moderating affect on the rate of fecal contamination to the river
from Neyhart' s farm: it is raising the lower levels of bacteria
but lowering the higher levels. Fecal coliform bacteria often
attach to suspended sediments. Since the pond catches much of the
sediment that runs off the animal keeping areas of the farm, much
of the bacteria is trapped in the pond sediments and gradually re-
suspended into the river . The GMV at site B ( the tributary, above
the beaver pond ) is 22. 5 FC/100ml , half of the GMV of 43.7 FC/100ml
at site D ( below the beaver dam) . Yet the range of FC values at
site B (0 to 5800) is much wider than that at site D ( 5 to 490.
The runoff from the farm flows sporadically (only during wet
weather) , but water is always flowing through the beaver pond .
Although beavers themselves may have some contribution to the fecal
contamination of the water it could only be minimal compared to the
documented concentration of 5800 FC/100ml , coming from the farm
runoff. This is supported by the fact that the highest FC values
at site D correspond to the highest FC values at site B, and that
these highest values were recorded during wet weather - when runoff
from the farm was greatest.
The one sample we took 100yds downstream of the beaver pond
confluence with the river shows that runoff from Neyhart' s farm is
increasing the FC concentration of the river. This fact doesn ' t
show clearly in samples taken at the public access ( because of the
dilution which takes place) .
Conclusion
Neyhart' s farm is contributing to bacteria contamination in
the Tahuya River , but current levels are not sufficient to greatly
Exhibit RT-19
impact overall water quality especially regarding shellfish harvest
at the river mouth. Poor farming practices, allowing contaminated
runoff to enter the waterway, are having an impact on fecal
coliform bacteria levels. While the quality of the river is very
good , even with the contribution from Neyhart' s farm, we are
concerned that as development on Neyhart' s farm continues, water
quality will be further degraded unless an approved water quality
farm plan is implemented. Mr. Neyhart has expressed that he, too,
is concerned about the water quality of the river . He understands
that his farm has the potential to pollute the river with animal
waste and he has offered to personally fund some of the future
sampling events.
We will continue to sample water on the Tahuya river and on
Neyhart' s farm, to monitor any changes that occur in the water
quality as a result of further development along the river and in
the watershed .
Some of the original complaints were in regard to unpermitted
diking activity on the Neyhart Farm. Diking can affect water
quality and fish and wildlife habitat by increasing erosion and
sedimentation and by changing the stream channel and streamflow
regime. However this water quality section does not have
jurisdiction to investigate diking activities. Citizen concerns
about diking should be addressed by the Mason County Planning
Department.
While not all of the complaints we heard prior to the study
were verified in our findings, local citizens rightfully should be
concerned that the water quality of the river could be threatened
as a result of activities on this farm, or for that matter, any
other development along the river or in the watershed. It is
through the vigilance of the local residents that many problems are
first uncovered and often through their local knowledge that the
problem sources are identified .
F�q�rc- I ' samv�` LLor-aicon5
U _K.��-T-19
MQ9�k.
(j"CA i
Wddbcrr� s Q-� Scc. T�aN,R�'
Ncyor-+s Fan,
LEI �' jp0s cJ
° cro�h+r'q
_ s�••e ti
Not-41 51,ore.Br -0
W
S:stcrs
'/o
00
C'9N
�4�
F; G `S±tC Exhibit RT-19
locaf�or►5 on Ne. 1�.rts
farm
trz �rfa
woo
E
10
-04
.� � • -� PQdaoks
ti
t
�1
i
Table I
FECAL COLIFORM VALUES AT TAHUYA RIVER SAMPLING STATIONS*
Station 11/26 11/29 12/20 1/18 3/15 5/9 5/10 GMV
Site A-Neyhart' s
(Tahuya River, upstream 1 .8 4. 5 15 7 . 5 u 15 10 4 . 5
end of farm)
Site C-Neyhart' s
( Tahuya River above 3.5 4. 5 30 10 2. 5 - 0 4 . 5
tributary confluence)
Site B-Neyhart' s
( Intermittent tribe 22 . 13 5600 0 77. 5 - 0 22. 5
below runoff culvert)
Site D-Neyhart' s
( trib flowing out of - 33 432. 5 12. 5 32. 5 - 55 43. 5
beaver dam) i
M
Tahuya River-100yds X
below trib confluence - - - - - - 35 35 -
Tahuya River-Public
Access 2 2 50 1 5 30 10 8. 5 --1
Tahuya River-Blair' s
path access 4.5 6 140 - - - - 17
Tahuya River-Allen' s
crossing 9.3 4. 5 22. 5 15 5 30 7 . 5 10. 2
Tahuya River Estuary-
North Shore Bridge 4. 5 6.8 - - - 30 - 9. 7
w
*,All values are given in FC/100ml of water.
State Water Quality 8tagda d o ass AA Waterg
Pursuant to RCW 173.201
Part Ii Geometric means not to exceed 50 FC/100m1 for freshwater.
Part IIa Ten percent of samples not to exceed 100 FC/100ml for
freshwater.
Exhibit RT-20
TO: M I k::E BYRNE
FROM: ANN REMSBERG
SUBJ : SITE INSPECTION OF NEYHART' S FARM
DATE: 5-15-99
Jack Hulls, of the Mason County Conservation District, and I
conducted a field sampling of Tahuya River stations and inspection
of Neyhart' s farm on May 1C.), 1989.
After sampling stations downstream, we met with Ray Wright
( the new hand ) on Neyhart' s farm. Mr. Wright walked around the
farm with us , chatting about plans for improvement of the farm, as
we collected water samples .
As we walked around the Neyhart' s farm Jack and I discussed
patterns of runoff and made observations on the condition of the
farm. I also took a few pictures: a few of the Beaver Dam (which
had been built up very high and was very impressive) and a few of
the dikes.
In general , the farm was much dryer than I had ever seen it.
There was no visible runoff , and the tributary which flows into the
beaver pond was becominq thick with algae and stagnating due to
lack of water movement. The river itself was lower than I had seen
it. The beaver dam was more exposed than ever, due to the low
river . I was impressed with the height of the dam: five to six
feet from the creek bottom. This dam appears very strongly
constructed and is holding back a great wall of water. In so
doing , it must be a wonderful sediment trap.
The area on the right bank: of the river, downstream of the
barn is rapidly eroding along the bank . Horses are presently in
this area where they are eating and/or trampling most of the
vegetation . One electric wire placed at the very edge of the river
bank keeps the horses penned in, out of the river, but it has not
kept them from impacting the land adjacent to the river bank . This
portion of the bank is constantly sloughed off and the wire is
continually brought back . This situation does not exhibit good
practices; a fenced buffer strip keeping animals back from the
river is the very minimum that is needed here.
As per a soil Conservation Service Recommendation , Mr. Wright
explained that the paddock between the river and the tributary
would be cleared of horses, yet again , as always when I visit,
there was one horse kept in this paddock . They obviously have not
yet evacuated this paddock .
As we walked along the track , I looked for evidence of recent
diking or berming activity and for the presence of wetland plants.
I was concerned with whether or not the section 404 Corp of
Engineers permit process would apply to the diking activities on
Neyhart' s farm. Regardless of county regulations, section 404 of
the clean water act requires that a permit be obtained from the COE
in order to deposit dike or fill material in navigable waters ,
including wetlands. If Neyhart had been placing rip rap below
ordinary high water, this would be considered navigable water and
he would require such a permit. I don ' t k:ni-it•i if he has obtained
such a permit , nor was I able to ascertain whether he would need
one or not. I saw no sign of recent diking . Mr. Wright verified
that in the past two weeks that ne had been there, there had been
Exhibit RT-20
no diking . Nor did I _ee any vegc-Cation , other thaE what is common
to a ri.ier bank: and riparian zone, that would identify this stretch
of property as a wetland and therefore subject to section 404 of
the federal clean water act.
Jack: was concerned with the path of runoff , particularly that
from the training track area. I explained to him that this runoff
follows the ditch and then passes through a culvert Linder the
track , and flows into the spring-fed river tributary. Jack
suggested to Mr. Wright that rather than running into the
tributary, this runoff should be directed back to a filtering area
which would have to be created . Jack was also concerned with the
pro;,imity of horses to the river. He and I agreed that this needs
to be addressed . Jack: is going to plan another visit to Neyhart' s
farm with Skip Moore, the SCS technician who wrote up the oriqinal
farm plan . Jack: is hoping to follow up on that plan .
Mr. Wright mentioned their plans to turn the beaver dam and
backed-up tributary into a fish pond . We discussed the importance
of good water quality for such a project. I mentioned that they
would have to get permits in order to proceed with this project.
Mr. Wright was very enthusiastic about spiffinq up the farm in all
areas. He wants it to become a "showpiece" .
Exhibit RT-21
Mi :e Ly,/r-nie
7.-0m : Ann Remsnerg
SUbJ . Ney7art :s F.3rm , update r u a r'y', 1 eC;
I visited Neyhart ' s Farm on 4 occasions between the months of
,November 198S and e Jani / ' 959 . On, � - ns '
mar-. y. each of �_i-'.e��_ :�=d=tG. i did
a Slte inspection and collected water samples .
T"le fit-st two of the=•= visits we-;-e '.Gn Novamoer- "-gth and "c'th .
r:e'y^art S ` arm w a S irc lu"i'e❑ i.7 a w a t e qua l i _ _uu y _ _ le 1Llwer
Tahuya River made possible by DSHS who off?r?d to sponsor 3
sampiiny event by analy::ing 50 of ou.- s3mpleS for free . Gn ou;_
first day of sampling for this event Rich Mctiicnolas and i were
Joined by Jerry Luk:es of DSHS . There was no precipitation during
the days before or during the days that we sampled . Fecal coliform
counts were very low ( less than 35 FC/100m1 ) throughout the river
area , including Neyhart' s Farms .
The second visit was on the 20th of December . Phyllis
Shefler , our water quality volunteer, joined me this day. There
was heavy rain throughout the day , so there was substantial runoff .
Very turbid runoff was flowing from the training track area of
Neyhart ' s Farm into the unnamed tributary. Fecal coliform counts
were very high ( 5800 FC/100ml ) where this runoff converged with the
.ributary. Before this tributary joins the Tahuya it runs through
a natural settling pond formed by a beaver dam. Some sediment
settles out of the water here, removing a portion of the bacteria
before the tributary converges with the Tahuya. Counts below the
beaver pond from this day were lower, though still significantly
high (375 and 490 FC/100ml ) .
Fecal coliform concentrations in the Tahuya River as a whole
this day were higher (as is to be expected during wet weather) than
they were during our dry sampling days , but generally the water
quality was very good . Immediately below Neyhart ' s farm the
concentration was found to be 50 FC/100ml . At the mouth we found
concentrations of 10 and 35 FC/100ml . So, any pollution entering
the river from Neyhart ' s Farm was not enough to significantly
degrade the water quality of the river as a whole.
I paid my third visit alone, on the 18th of January. Sample
results from this day are questionable. All samples had a very
low count ( the highest was 20 FC/100m1 ) , which I would not expect.
Although our first samples were this low, they were taken during
very dry weather . whereas this time, there had been much rain the
previous night (0. 55 inches) and there was a fair amount of runoff .
The runoff was notably clear however , so since bacteria bind to
sediment particles , less coliform couic je =>eaec_ed ( all. else being
equal ) than in turbid runoff . These samples , however, were stored
overnight in my refrigerator- before being 'taken in to the lab. —"
'h2 longer samples wait to ~e aral'yZed . *` ? `1; ~er the chances Of
3l_ '-_ �a � Ylilij >T - S �airpi8 5@z! ca,
until we are able to see more of a trend with feral coliform counts
in r-e1ation t0 r lnof nit im—is _ acc'?p �_ these 7lrL __ a5 +�Ises •:iC a7i? .
Exhibit RT-21
Doug Neyi-,art wall 'ed around the farm with ne as I col 1 ec ted
water samples thi third time , We discussed the history of actions
13t have tad=ein p 6ce between other residents of the area , local
government , and himself concerning his position in the floodplain
and his practices . Mr . Neyhart is very eager to see some
zonciusive action taken on this issue . He expressed that he would
just like to know if he is a significant cause of pollution or not
and what he is doing wrong so that he can correct his practices.
-e seemed wi ling to Wart to work 'things out . , said that from the
water quality Standpoint we cannot yet say -erinitely now mucil ;of
a contribution his `arm is having to water pollution of the Tahuya
River , but the more sampling we do the clearer this will become .
I said that I would make an effort to work with Rick on following
this through .
To sum up wht I ' ve seen from site inspections :
1 . The manure and wood chip pile is still back from the river
bank , and separated by a buffer strip. Mr . Neyhart reiterated
that it will be used as compost in the field inside the
training track where he is planning to grow hay for the
horses . Oily organic residue is leaching out of this pile and
mixing with standing water . I question if this is getting
into the ground or surface water.
2. The paddock between the river and the tributary has been used
by 1 or 2 horses at a time. Mr. Neyhart said that it will
now be permanently abandoned and the vegetation will be
encouraged to grow back .
3. Half of the area inside of the training track is corralled .
The remaining area is covered with brush and shrubs. Mr.
Neyhart said that they are going to let the horses roam in
this area to help clear it out. Then he is going to pull
stumps.
4. They are extending the southern fence to let the horses roam
farther back . This will clear this area also. The places
that have been cleared by horse activity are very torn up and
muddy . There is no fenced buffer strip separating the horses
from the river in this southern part of the farm.
S. Horses are free to roam all about the farm ( the babies are
often not penned ) . They have clear access to the river in
many areas.
6 . Mr . Neyhart was laying down and grading crushud rock onto the
training track during my visit.
Thera ; S muc^ SIrg;7. _?` Desv?r aC-._yi 1; 7-r.a
bea,er rend . 7 „e- 0_eciver are ,-apiG i y uiai i i;iCj -P : 1c' da;' . i;ni=
natural process is a boon to Neyhart s !=ar-m because the dam
c-eaC s 3 rla'uraI sef' {_ iinq oonc .
Exhibit RT-21
Although Neyhart ' s Farm doesn ' t appear to be significantly
;D:olluting the water of the Tahuya River, they are operating in the
flood plain with practices which are environmentally harmful . As
rivers are always changing their course and unpredictably rising
and failing , it may be only a matter of time before pollutants will
enter the river from Neyhart ' s Farm . Furthermore , Neyhart ' s Farm
is currently in violation of the Mason County Shorelines Master
Pr_gr-am on a number of issues : 7. 16.0i0 Use Regulations 7-. ,6 , 7 .
;`-Iayhart F, `arm has instituted some .:)f the r-ecommendations made
to them by the Soil Conservation Service, but others have been
ignored . I don ' t know which action should be taken next. We could
recommend that Neyhart ' s Farm institute more soil conservation
measures but we cannot guarantee that this will happen . What type
Of enforcement actions could be taken at this time, if necessary's
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENELk k4WgES
Courthouse Annex i N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) Cs""'_r�
_iding environmental health maintenance parks&recreation planning sewer&water
April 14, 1987
Mrs. Joan N--yhart
NE3981 North Shore Road
Belfair, WA 98528
Dear Mrs. U--yhart:
This letter is to summarize our meeting at your horse farm on the Tahuya
River March 19, 1987, in discussion of water quality concerns. My visit was
part of an intensive water quality investigation of lower Hood Canal which
includes your Tahuya River watershed. The survey of your farm was prompted
largely by high bacteria levels measured at the river mouth. Citizen
inquiries on the Hood Canal shore also sought identification of the source
of horse offal on their beaches. Your farm was one of three on the river
that is a suspected source.
The inspection findings are summarized as follows:
1. All of the pasture/woodlot area of the farm is in the Tahuya
River Flood Plain.
2. Thirty-two horses on less than forty actual pasture areas
represents a very intense use of the land.
3. The paddock (or sacrifice area) is on ground that slopes to the
river and is actually ditched to the river. This is a significant
bacterial source during any rainfall.
4. Manure and straw and sawdust are piled more than ten feet high
on the river bank. It is evident that much of the manure found its
way to the river during the dumping operation and more continues to
do so even though that activity has ceased.
5. Efforts to control the river 's course during flooding which
naturally uses flood channels on your property may be causing
excessive erosion on neighbor's property.
Since the problems on your farm are of both a water quality and a stream
hydraulics concern, I am contacting Skip Moore of the USIA Soil Conservation
Service to provide animal waste gAling2guidance, and Grant Fiscus of the
Washington Department of Fisheries to assist you in developing a reasonable
plan for activity in a natural floodplain.
Water quality testing will have to take place as weather dictates and
laboratory capacity permits.
Sincerely,
is/
Richard MrNicholas, R.S.
Water Quality Coordinator
DEPT OF GE � SERVICES
RM/JW
XC: Commissioner John Eager
Skip Moore, USDA
Grant Fiscus, WDF
-2-
MASON COUNTY Exhibit RT-23
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) X2MX:K 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance parks&recreation planning sewer&water
July 13, 1987
Doug Neyhart
NE 3981 North Shore Road
Belfair, WA 98528 -
Dear Mr. Neyhart:
This letter is to summarize the findings of our field meeting on June
19, 1987.
At that time Jamie Hartley of Department of Ecology noted that a
Subtantial Development Permit would be required for the dike construction
which has taken place along the river bank. After the site inspection you
called to express the belief that a Substantial Development Permit is
unnecessary. I stated that if you would forward copies of your Hydraulic
Permits I would review the paper work to determine whether or not a
Substantial Development Permit is - required. I have not received those
copies yet.
- During our tour of your farm it was apparent that you are clearly in
violation of the following sections of the Shorelines Master Plan: Chapter
7.16.010, Paragraph B.5. - The location of barns, feedlots, corrals, and
other livestock handling areas, also facilities for retention and storing
wastes from them, shall be located in such a manner that no pollution of
adjacent waters will occur. Guidelines as set forth by the U.S.
Environmental Progection agency regarding construction standards shall be
considered as standards to be followed. Chapter 7.16.010, Paragraph B.10 -
Feedlots, retention and storage ponds from feedlot wastes, and stockpiles of
manure solids shall not be located in shorelines or wetlands. Feedlots
shall be located as far as is feasible from any water body, and on slopes
leading away from water bodies and floodplains. Wetlands are defined as
"those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions, as measured
on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark. . . and floodplains
associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the
provisions of the Act and this ordinance (Shorelines Master Plan, Page 8) .
While it is clear that you may not be able to have full compliance with
these regulations due to the configuration of the land, it is Mason
Exhibit RT-23
County' s responsibility to make sure that your farm management practices
comply with the Shoreline Master Plan provisions to the greatest extent
feasible. To this end, our Water Quality Specialist, Rick McNicholas, will
work cooperatively with the Soil Conservation Service and you.
Mr. McNicholas will be in contact with Mr. Skippy Moore Soil
Conservation Service, to monitor the progress of your corrective actions.
We appreciate the cooperation which you have shown us thus far and look
forward to our continued work with you.
Sincerely,
Patti Miller-Crowley, P nner
DEPT OF GENERAL SERVIC
PMC/jw
-2-
"tit > y � H^,�s��`r t- t,.,. '•aa.` �k,.^ � u /'
r ,,,•, :'°t � sq„A^e a tXf83:'t ►� •/';. Y kP 1 yf }�,+ a:�*. �h, ��. .
v.
�• C <��` yr : ���
Xt%'rt: �g�[,,, Y„ W t� ���`� .� I°��.,y"'a >�e�a`.���•, ��
MIT
Y / ':c��' F "Y ':✓' �•t q�GYM;. �,�Ay.�.A �,C \� "R' 1�\
rWK
�X�'��..s",�s xr j�r: i/ a"��� 6��iA��y'�''r•��rf�� �<$<ar���" nr�
r. ..�\ Y T�' ,4 SAS Y ^3 q� *,�,�3���•��� •r''+" �1
�if��Ar^�•c' "d7 �x � Fr�x 4 z /x �: ir� �5�� e tl�,
^ram\
d r �•
r ✓ > �n.'E� ^� .� ^ /yam • •
. �r ��0. � ' k 'ids , /V � � • � � • � • •
Y
SSf +'• ,7ae♦ y\y
tirl ld'ryyf. kk` ee!'�c.a tea x,�.����dv;x'
`td �V—�
sx �' S.y �a „(�,w�•�; ��r� • • - • •
riR^ t
Cyr y ; •�v�•�n}s._�, t%1
�„„y ry,q{.g ,d 'r'�P �.R��d�*�y,a��v'���� a `�� ••� 'fir.. �k � V..• M
'�,���i ?3v "�9r,A*�r�`'yy�V'•"�.�.'r�r�¢,•,r,r'��'y(ty+k� S �"� g' „ 4
4 ?��10 T Y��^°xw�I'..E myr ''•✓ :7•�" .yV`� (�.¢,jw�v'� It'p _�
-� •.•�� �2+�#R'' "� � �i<+wY3«+����i^• yY fit• `�1�Q�.
r� ,•,�, tie„°" *�"`,sue` .,3.j" Y�#R��. F .2f..,._.3e� � � •
octo
• .<.�if.•` I�` `�:`?t� y,�{ .t�- � .may. (' ix�, ..•f r _ ��a�.. �'�}1.: .i'`•f i _ '�^�«K'4f.r+
ai•r � [_ i _�".r "r_` - f '�i r+,�,. ar. �- t ' '"'"-�ti �r'Y.a'3 (i f "f�rw' t' J.�,r,,.. •.tky�# �..�. "a
i :�i .! v 7'` i , � ��'t � ti °i tt tt,�... .a • X
o.,� y�i'Z^�•a'v�.u'�"`�', "� J a�S`��r,w k �V`•- ��,S`i\.} .y�..� -� �r.: �I
:s.i• T... � - DLL � * * � `� � ,;v Via(`,
t �:R3z '� �., r•e"`,�+� ���. � Mail: ,.r`�'' ,� •� ,< ,� rr�,., �'; .:a}- ca 4'0: Y 4`�. T LS ��'i }' '�� � � ?:
- i�tx r• � N � I�.:• ��� _ ,:,ice,' '�ti��S _.�_* :.r(��•�'1'��. ti
- "� `�3.' L+-.='�''ad '""'.�`s :.F,�py:: "' - �3 't., a '4 �j• ��n '� ��"! f,• :•
� w - � �m.M.:t> j z���r�`, •�1 _ •f.�. a '1.'i.�'-0,��i'.� "i. 2Z"O��s.:
~` .l�hi., wi' �°`?�`�!'� � ��` '7%.`i. �:. 't'� 4 f�,k• � ,...,�'� a',�F`; ._;S"f""i,.� •.��F.' .ai "�y } i`'ai!'��: � � e{< ,n
it—
_ F` «�'i+�"%i'r<y+{"•"".'� '� �+ y��. M�yr✓_4.�r ,�j��_" v. ti,'y' *, �is�'r !y `lt ti Y '�f�'i- s yam,
•j- k. ....fi.xµ..�•�2. ��At.�' �.lt 7� S" � 7,. '+'4`� do a��a �.wf �. .��t_- �,� ,� .:'r,a[:;'
`�-•tY• �.� f .ric, v.�� ,yM, '7- �' �� � '�-t� 1f2'ki k: _ ,�t� i9
'; �"- � �tii'� ":r'� :``,�+�I � •••,r - s ..5., ;�,y .+' ys°�.t �} �. ;5;`''St. =z. �"i •. $�`�-.�}� '"'�•!a, ���
� d'�y�s;� ri� i 3 �. :� �• �.i..._k• ,m '�'"" -' _.' tiro^''�- _ �M+-yi �t?'.i'.a' Y
�i
S•- a1...
e{,'Rti ?yyi��.y�� `_."`y•,y��` k4'°!ti"+�"� ��+r�:''fir( �;?. e�" � _V =� 3ie � f r ,! 'cis � a'" ..-
tt '.S -' �, � 'i',t''+�'C .:'!"� _'�:. '„L—.l- �� .�'r _� �. ,,.:a^('F ';M-.. "fly" �y. ^��-•`,�,.:s.,,.., _ v .;�
°mid_., •i 5'`r'
Y� r 's � '! �+�1��p. h ',+�, „t a�,.J,.. .,,k�`. .��T: `4.` .• �. "e'.rt �` pl�r t f "�
t,.�'�.e '.TC. �7►5, S`•5�•7^t_, ay♦ k�F �,.. Y � •� ia'rle•s`,. �„�� :'�• i+'� � '��-' +:: .f{. ..
Fe
Al Zft,
�_ .: + " '� �„!( j�'�� •t ^. -.1` `it .�E:��',> "�" ry }4`'�y!- "a � ��k P`'a '- _+��'� '�'� ;ss
Y
p�yp
• r
4 e
. / • .•�,4 ,w.� t ., —. ,! -_
~' }J� �" �����kµyh,:�y'{,r�r�'y���J a'�at�'.-. i —. � �►r i.^, t .'ifs '� �` �. i 1
�' yr i It :•kx•'i�'3�,`L'' �C= � � •�X � '2 - : 't�d`w. `�' ..� �S 'tiiy. aK' :.,..
4 .._ ���yr� '�' � ?:. '_ •„• _- ,.'''ve' -,..... �, ,.x` � _. t rot .. -
r
-
,w
��ya .y lS`.^�1''�`C _' � r P- _ �wf t. 'i`.1� t-,"y �H:".. � �>.` ele• �� �y '�s� .�:5: ,++re<'.;
t@' .. .•>�'�2.+ fl�s{6 !'.�a 4}``�`dt'Y }t :;�i.fraY �(t �`J `ti:w.��1"i: .t.+�stu�'s��`a '�+�'� •x. +7. �`s.,..� '����• .i�:; fl i �,` "�,`7.
�.,N -.� yY+.+i pc i• �,•_ ",fin' t� - �.. t..i,_,� -. a .� .Y�,..� _ Y"� ', }, r•,1.
-~ 'e'�NrR*VY...a ' .' )`C^ �i: RR '-^i- ��'•-. Sri :.,' , '.F +�a �':.1 _
` '�� .fit 4"'4 _.... y`".'�r�f��. :.�LA �J:��afr- ..,.*�` ,... ,� '�.p,:. :..s W 64.+� ... .t.'.v. -•r: ''�• \arrl'�;�'1 �' �r`�. �,-'':..
11
.;.� �'q..: .... •eir..-k-..< .( - .�._:.. .:_>:r,� ,,: ,-{... ,-jr. .rt.... ..�.. .. � .., �'.'rr.. � _.._.. .'a s r.a. a.A_.:,:<. .. �.._.:.r..+•s._... ,.., Tt=,.,a•:q-.. - �., ... ... .. � .- .,---. .ar:.
id.F y� KEY TO MAP
. _t J
500•YearFlood Boundary
Y
k4 100-Year Flood Boundary—
/
i t t i FLOODWAY FRINGE --E FLOODWAY
w 100•YearFlood Boundary
500-Year Flood Boundary
fx•.
�. Approximate 100•Year a®
Flood boundary `
"A:'� Cross Section Line
i a . } 7�rir
K Elevation Reference Mark RM7X
r S
" �iy1ti�t 9 River Mile •M 1.5
{T NOTES TO USER t
Boundaries of the floodways were computed at cross sections '
and interpolated between cross sections. The floodways were
based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements �r
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This map is intended for use in defining floodway and flood
471 boundaries. Zone and Base Flood Elevation (BFE) data may not
be correct as shown. Refer to the separately printed Flood In-
surance Rate Map for correct Zone and BFE data.
Refer to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for description of Ele- n
� S,� vation Reference Marks. ,
This map does not show all flood boundaries. Refer to the Flood f
Insurance Rate Map for additional flood boundaries.
For adjoining map panels, see separately printed Index To Map
Panels.
s•�
t
y +
fie► y
Ex(11i��T-Z�
The Tahuya River Basin Organization
PO Box 273
Tahuya, Washington 98588
22 Feb 94
Ms. Deborah Norcross (et al)
Mason County Conservation District
615 W Alder, Ste 3 - Shelton Washington 98584
Dear Deborah,
It is clear from your letter of 16 February that you have been misinformed as
to my actual public statements with regard to the Conservation District. We fully
understand that you have no enforcement powers per se. But, you are clearly
obligated to ensure that any farm plans executed in the county comply with applicable
law and regulation prior to their implementation. Otherwise, our understanding is that
you are to back away from your consultative role to allow the Department of Ecology
to step in and take enforcement action. This "carrot and stick" arrangement works
only if the Conservation District ensures that the law is followed in the provisions of
a farm plan. Therefore, you are the controlling path for enforcement, if not the actual
enforcer. In the case of the farm plan implemented for Doug Neyhart, the
Conservation District failed to uphold this basic responsibility. My public statements
related that we oppose any public support of the Conservation District until you
demonstrate that you understand and five yp to this responsibility. Our position is
based on the following:
Neyhart's operation lies on a large low flat area (floodplain) between two
channels of the Tahuya River. The farm plan that your organization sponsored for Mr.
Neyhart perpetuates and increases violations of the law and contains provisions which
are obvious detriments to water quality in the Tahuya River basin and Hood Canal -
a body of water with Statewide and National Significance. We are aware that the
plan was by prepared by Ken Drecksel - a SCS employee. However, the plan was
approved by the Conservation District Board Chairman, Mr. Taylor. This makes the
plan _your document and_your responsibility and our problem.
Specific issues of concern include but are not limited to:
► The plan allows Mr. Neyhart to expand his operation by at least 30% in area
alone. This violates the Mason County Shoreline Master Program (MCSMP)
which prohibits expansion of a non-conforming use and adds to at least a
600% increase in area since 1981 . Further, Mr. Neyhart's operation falls
Exhibit RT-25
within the MCSMP definition of a feedlot - a prohibited use.
► MCSMP required buffers have been ignored by the plan.
► The plan sanctions the use of a Conservation District commissioned (SCS
design and construction) manure storage facility on the flood plain - literally
within inches of the river. Interestingly, the designer (Dean Renner) shows the
location of the facility on a portion of a USGS map which shows the area to be
designated as floodplain/wetlands. The MCSMP requires such facilities to be
located above the 100 year floodplain.
► The plan directs that manure generated beyond the capacity of the storage
facility be stored in a gravel pit on the south side of the valley. This pit is
within a few feet of the river. The geology is such that any manure stored here
will leach directly into ground water and the river. To reach this area, Mr
Neyhart must illegally cross a channel of the Tahuya River.
► The plan allows pasturing of 25 horses on the flood plain of the river in the fall
and winter months - during prime salmon and steelhead runs which have
greatly declined. Leaving aside flooding, the run-off alone generated during this
period is lethal to the fish and their young.
► The plan calculates manure deposition based on 500 pound animals when 1000
to 1200 pounds is the true average weight even taking into account the
presence of younger animals.
P. Conservation District policy precludes public review of the plan until after issue.
We believe this policy violates the Freedom of Information Act. In Neyhart's
case where farm plan preparation was essentially required to avoid in progress
enforcement, and, given the serious compliance issues discussed above, the
policy is tantamount to obstruction of justice.
In short Ms. Norcross, your organization has demonstrated by approving the
farm plan for Neyhart that it is part of the problem, not part of the solution. We will
therefore continue to take any action within our power to prevent any sort of public
support for the operation of the Conservation District until shown otherwise, which,
again, was the gist of my public remarks.
Exhibit RT-25
We want to emphasize that we do not have anything against farmers in general;
some of our best friends and neighbors are farmers. We also support the county's
efforts to support our resource based . The Conservation District could and
PP economy.
shou/d play a part in securing sound environmental practices. We will however,
continue to publicly point out where reality differs from public relations.
You would be well advised to speak with Ms. Jo Sohnerone of the Department
of Ecology (Shorelands, 407-6525) since she is well versed in the technical details of
the issues related to Neyhart. County Planner Don Brush is also a good point of
contact. I would love to mend fences with your organization and would be pleased
to discuss this matter further with you at any time. I may be reached at home: 275-
5459 after 6:OOpm; or at work: 476-6718.
Si cerely,
4VeJRR rtter
President
Copy to:
Mason County Commissioners
URBPA (Mannheimer)
DCD (Brush)
DOE (Sohnerone/Anest/Marks)
_ ... .. � .mac'+ ».r.•Y�'}"'^._,w... ..� ..r.w.,w.t+ ..w�.__ .. _ ...».........•... _. ..
AF Till ko1 VOL. PG.itA
A SURVEY IN THE SW i/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF {
SECTION 13 TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH RANGE 3 WEST W.M.
>R f/[•RUM CDC"ut CREEK
r a J•ALUMINUM
CAP
IOMOW (SEE R.P. 1 2 R (FLOW SOUT110XY) FoLle ONE,
MONUMENT PER
COMCRCiC
f 97411W E sr<7t VOLUME.Sn ACE 133
12
71 T 27 W S FOUND
ND/'A [Ir2l• >[C71aI CaRR7r
SET OAR L CAP Y SAIWW GM fiMl►m ,1: EM@74 TDUO 10
'L Tt'L x SO1TRALY u u S.+wT1n ruvnvl !
A T'EdN u[or TAMUILOAe�� IOCITKIE o0RI1Q Imm►OSSIU AS SECTOR Caen _.
,.FOUND Ile Pill f1AO,NO MAROM IE
wAT S Or[tTl I
A,10' (OD-fDO,W 17.0'� -
x.FOUND JO•nt SRLi fRl POEMS
FORD 1•R011 PrK FACL NO MARLS '
NOTE: SET SAN JA.OY EAST Or REST 3 SS t 17.r - -
N W57-E r.10 PROPERTY lR1[ (ELO-3 SP[17.37 s
OUE TO WE ]FOUND Y FIR TRW NO MAARS
CWSTEIL• M a•E 2&AF
CAIl]1LAT[D COLD-M xW It•1.W7
POSTO1 ♦FOUND Ar FR STUMP E10 MAN"
M or E IAO'(17.9 LOP(OISTAMCIO 1
(OLD
-M xT W 17.4r) FOUNO FOR am W CAP �
■E f/K FOLLOW"RIB •1 n S'06•It].Jr _L.
400' 0• 400• 800'
S.f M 57.am , S MYTa �.
•ii•3n.11-71 1 �x SCALE, 1' 400'
7.,r
sa:E7.ar -
a,YFR -
sJrE„a -
`Q1L ALL RPa MAW 4 NACKS.
LAMP LAW T .MAX•Rm PAINT.
NEN,MT WELL I r Su
MERIDIAN
OF FENCE _xauav
EPTIC IRR[
STPTiA �: _ 300.0(r BASED ON 1973 SURVEY BY
K91 FDIC[
e
N} WASHINGTON STATE D.N.R.
m UME I'-PACE in '� i MAP #,89
J SURIEK C 1/4 COON
10009' PROJECTED P ONE1*7PER�4 13 ONE 1S7J 41W1[r-,,
t 3 Ed-
33'IS"E 26,AOIr 13D7_ocr
3n (S er'JS•iS"C)(MtJ.f)7 (x3LO3L�
EH0 Oi•fl1R I
FOUMO VOLUME
17 eM•CAP ii
.�—WER UR IIIK,7 PACE 132
7r 3lIR1EK �� 7 PER
ONE 19
J'- ONE Ir73 SUILM[r
-PR"CTEO PER
ONE 1273 SURVEY
4
{ f, : DESCRIPTION:
i
MAT PART OF THE REST IDo FEET OF ME EAST 500 FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE-WAIF CF ME
iOUTH.csT aAR*ER a"WE NdITIME3T OUARTFA OF SECTION1J,tY19MP 22`IaR1H.
RANGE J REST.'RM.•'N MASON COUNTY RASMINGTON.LYING SOUIMERLY OF CO1M"ROAD
';EE MOTE ��
RNORN AS TAMUYA 31VER ROAD.
CORNER
n PIPE
SR11.3,.E 21.3IF
BOARD GF CE 1,a CORNEA
LEGEND
^" PROPERTY LINE
IN
TRADERE
zx.xY
fir RESIN (XXX) RECORD BEARING h DISTANCE
•i 0' 50' 120' ;5Mn AYA O CORNERS FOUND AS NOTED
5 rx•-ALCUuim E D.eT
.»
._FILE: i = 30' 'E Ills CORNEA
0 SET 5;"8' REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP LS y18918
AUDI.OR•S CERTIFICATE SURVEYORS CERTKICATE B. tip NOTE: „1 FOREST LAND SURVEYS! -01-S-1"C DATA
�/ 6. l I1' et rArs 1.)SET BM•CM•IN TERSECTIOI •� RICHARD B.NORRIS P.L.S.f a•a iPr n•cOra t Y uF1LVD.ay 19__37.Re1.Li.n n l.M q C--"rgr�wb•ywV ENMIP W—P,un0.Illy aVActbl ,�� OF PROPERTY UNE AND EMSTMe 1
000w._.r�_PF..AEl1aS_a,:eaa•.+'i.3_.Ae en.r.a.•se cr M.wFaln.le AI w.M►w.wlR r W SRwf R..�•7 M WI Er TRACK.
KEEP OARS MT OF RACE M .5101.x7-Sf]0 s
-i:HARO B. NORRS _ -"ied r....._.�au4.!(EYN,Mi . + u owl er•J.J.G"`�vo.913(22,3)�At 6 - 95 GAF /
Q FENCE r0 SW 1/E EC'ION
I r 1.
OF
AOLY......._.....:f_iQ...._ .P7 O' Cr1 EOUIP./PROCEDURE: 1 A
QQ JJ - [ LAB S• TOTAL STATION R ED.M.
v a';ON Covnly Au,fito 'iwMO L TOM1S
..rMllml•Na.......:SSDI...................... 7 M ;'PIED) TRA•.ERSE
� � T 1 f,, »"..irl!�c�c4.�ar�4erty� `,.•�'�"`-
� i �j�7•tri... t
r r ./