The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutShoreline Penalty Docket No. 95-SH-217 and Appeal - SHX Letters / Memos - 9/5/1995 E cE;y Q �r �gSHIN� Christine O. Gregoire ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Ecology Division 629 Woodland Square Loop SE 4th Floor • Lacey WA 98503 Mailing Address: PO Box 40117 • Olympia WA 98504-0117 -•��. �� SEP 0 6 1995 September 5, 1995 MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT. I Richard T. Hoss Hoss and Wilson-Hoss Attorneys at Law 236 West Birch Street Shelton, Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Hoss: Thank you for your letter dated August 17 , 1995, in which you asked that I consider the possibility of the State of Washington, Department of Ecology ("Ecology") entering into some sort of a "Standstill Agreement" with your client, Mr. Douglas Neyhart. In response to this request, I consulted with Ecology and reviewed the May 1, 1995 , letter from the Mason County Board of Commissioners to Mr. Neyhart. It is my client' s position that Mr. Neyhart' s activities require shoreline permitting. In addition, there is nothing in the letter from the Mason County Commissioners or in Ecology's files that sljggests Mr. ?eyl-rt needs addiLional time to apply for shoreline permits. In fact, Mr. Neyhart was given more than ample opportunity to comply with the Shoreline Management Act and the Mason County Shoreline Master Plan before the Order was issued. A stay would further delay the shoreline permitting process that should have commenced years ago. Any additional delay would forestall action on the other directives contained in the Order, including: Ceasing all further filling, diking and modification of the Tahuya River; and Submitting a plan describing restoration plans (which includes applying for shoreline permit) . ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Richard Hoss Page 2 September 5, 1995 Therefore, on behalf of Ecology, I respectfully decline your offer of a stay and suggest that it would be in the best interest of your client to follow these directives on pages 6 and 7 of Shoreline Order 94-SH-217 . As to your request for clarification on the dates of correspondence, Ecology mailed the original denial via Certified Mail on July 17 , 1995, and it was returned marked "unclaimed" on August 4 , 1995. Ecology then faxed a copy and resent a hard copy to Mr. Neyhart by regular mail on August 10, 1995. If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (360) 459-6161. Very truly yours, EBECCA E. TODD A istant Attorney eral (360) 459-6161 RET: lrj rt I lhoss.Itr cc: Gary Yando, Mason County Gale Blomstrom, Ecology - SWRO Steve Craig, Ecology - SWRO Jim Anest, Ecology - HQ � -- �-•. -- �- -- LOCI-'I i_If- C'._i_il_' ii i - _. it-I_. i_11-1 H0S5 and WILSON-HOSS ATTOkNEYS AT LAW RICHARD T. H055 236 WES"1,t}IRCI t 15TRSET AREA CJJ3 ]60 ROBERT D, Wit.SON-HOSS SHELTON,WASHING�or3 cases 426.2999 FAX 426.6715 August 17, 1995 Rebecca Todd Afigistant kttorney General State of W"hington P.O. Box 40117 olymp* WA.96504-0117 Re: In sft as All of�' n ty A �r,r� . Doug as.bTey shoreline Penalty- Docket No. DE 96-SH-217 Dear Ms. Todd: We spoke briefly on the phone on August 15th, and Z mentioned the possibilitY of a workout with Ecology with respect to the Neyhart matter. The ]Ecology order asked for Neyhart Farms to apply for permits. I mentioned that Neyhart had received conflicting information from Mason County about what permits were required. Enclosed :ti t, cpy of tho May 1, 1995 WtA,r sent W Mr. NeYlzast oigned by all three Mason County Commissioners stating that there was no aetion taken to require permits. I understand that after that time one of the county employees did request permits' but I am not sure what the position of Mason County is with respect to those perrait8. I was hoping you and I could explore the possibility of a Standstill Agreement with respect to the Shorelines Hearings Board case to give Neyhart an opportunity to proceed to get the Board of Mason County Commissioners to review what permits, if any, are necessary, Mr. Neyhart has applied for and received dozens of permits over the years, and I believe there is a genuine question about what additional permits the county would require. As a part of the Standstill Agreement we could discuss Mr. Neyhaa"t's agreeing to comply with the determination of the Matson County Commissioners. I am leaving for vacation and will return to my office on August 26th. I hope you have had a chance to review this matter during that time, Please confirm that I very much look forward to working with you toward an agreeable solution of a.UIZ- .,..__l-1___._ T I._. t. el _...,I � . IL.. _.._•.. - C__._. .._._. -- 08/24/95 10:34 DEFT OF Ef=�LOuY — �l,.IFC Q es C��3 Rebeoca ' odd Assistant Attorney(General State of Washington August 17, 1995 page two Neyhart received the Ecology corresporidezice and order on August XOth, and not the July letter date. I very much look forward to working with you toward an agreeable "lotion of thie matter. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Dictated bat not reviewed Mailed to avoid delay RICHA.RD T. HOSS RTH;b enc. cc, Douglas NeylzLrt 06;'1241 131 1CI: __ PEP' DIF r 0 l-IO;:S and WILSONI-HOSS A'rTTOKNEYS AT LAVG' 23�WE5"r'$[Itf_'t 1 STREETA&F.A(7)L1�360 RICHARD T. HOSS ,u., < 4'26.299V TAX�426-6715 ROBERT D. Wit SON•H4S5 SHELTON,WASHING TON 98584 August 17, 1995 Rebecca Todd A*sieta ,L AtWrney Gonerai $tALO of Waphington p.0, Box 40117 Olympia, WA 98504-0117 Re: ja,'ht3..'Y -ter_Af Lba fia".a Ut Qf�' ltX�4�ainns�D lc I��s '1 Shoreline penalty - Docket No. DE 96-SH-217 Dear luxe. Todd: We spoke briefly on the phone on August lfsth, avd 1 mentioned the pcaeibility of a workout with Ecology with respect to the Neyhart mutter. The Ecology order asked for Neyhart Farms to apply for permits. 1 mentioned that Veyhext had received conflicting information from Mason County about what, permits were requi red. Encloard :b Cspy of t.ho tjay 1, 1Actfi iwtuir• sent W NU'• Neyhwt sigried by all three '�'lagon County CorrmiAeioner� stating that there was no action takers to require r` I perzn�ts. I understand that after that time one of the cvuzity erY`.piay68s did request permits, but I am not aura what the position of Meson County is w'itl: respect to those permits. I was hoping you and T could explore the possibility of a 6tandholl Agreement with respect to the Shorelines Hearings Board case to give Neyhart an opport:inity to proceed to get the Board of Mason Count,,.. COTT4►rii6eionero to review what permits, if eu-ty, are necessary. Mr. Itieyhart, has applied for and received dozens of permits over the years, and I believe there is a genuine question about what additions: permits the C041-ity would require. Aa a part of the Standstill Agreement we could discuss Mr. Neyliru-.'s agreeing to comply with the determination of the Ma:;or, County Oomrnissioners. I am leaving for vacation and will return to my office on August 26th. I hope you have had a chance to re,.^iew this matter during that time. Please confirm that I very much look forward to working with you toward an agreeable solution of this matter. I look Corward to hearing from you. �' 8:'�4:`'�5 1U: DEPT OF ECOL'31-3r' - =!;JRC 003 P 03 R,ebeoca Todd Aseistant Attorney general State of Washington August 17, 1995 Page two Neyltan received the Ecology currespondenve and order on August 100h, and ant the July letter date. I very much look forward to working with you toward an agreeable solution of this matter. I look forward to how ing from you. Sincerely, Dictated but ru.)t reviewed Mailed to avoid delay RICHARD T. HORS RTH; enc. cc, Douglas Neyh&L t �Bt"c.rC�l�i 'r OUT6noCi MIN 4b1i18 Pi�IC1i`�1HSVdP's1U.iZ�]i r el*'J,X�pL9iyLir t9w HlAd}a.11FOK 1 OF ohuc-nna 3s,-x* w,a', S2I;ixolss"N3,goo 34 a"09 t 'ILIA bfiC?H '.L UUVHDI'i dcrigap pion) of pazyvw psma141.2u .tau 1719 PaM)W .-• _r= ,4 - i' -= D`PT OF FC=L,]i,, - =',1FC; Searttle, wa. 98101 �aa lettex atIbalittad April 14, 1995. LJG�� meµ• • L' �'�.T•��Il\+i f 4,ar ,r4n�L,fe,d �f5 P1 fn!r�mJctai,-4n9sra M &t• Ne hart Erd�.7C'C • The N:S�son COtl: need you atalx►ti. appeal on the nsefl for -after rer trie fact 75.0 to Taht^ya, We►shingr.on . We :'gave receipted t:lr.4 $'7S-�0 �heCk, � tt.ed Ca �-� up • Permit basis by the Lhie Dime no formal action has been taLye= to require appeal . Ar. At r-hiS o`. Community teve].Upner•t. yve find no basis for :t t-he state Depe,rtmer.t of Ecology issues a or+9er r,� iri.ng after-the- erma4® the Department of Co lity DeveS )9 er Will f Com t it�u fact p • r u I z ement.$ . 'rhA Department of Com Board with aU 0?� ImDation of the ' .• r. 1.` +ti: 1'se ap .ea1 r� �l t�7 a :ae �3c>Axd Dove lopment actiOn ssioc erlsd, at GhaC of County We can ether hold y ouz- s:bnitLQ,d appeal. Zet pe7ading , yOtl'r i'utur• ur._ie.:vcl, va xtdfurcu9 th-B ft+- If the te.L1096d torn andnr t return to the W-eYs at refund p � lease cP- Veparta►-nt of Gomminit.y Developu+ent . Xi you pave any qums, ions t.esl free +�c conGac:t kin . 6 in:,erely N.aeon Ccuncy 9oard :yf County c;xnmimaioovre - y ydr,• Pa4705�cr Mszy o dY l Wallies 'irc�ez Conran s+�iat�er Ch,pi ruvin CcRtml� isszoner a HUNTER LAUKA pourer C , t P�oN.STgTFo o A o u N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT =_ 2 oT 2 �0 N Y coy Planning - Landfill - Utilities 1864 May 26 , . 1995 Douglas J. Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, Wa. 98101 Re : Shoreline Management Enforcement Order No. 94-SH-217 . Permit Requirements . Dear Mr. Neyhart : The Mason County Department of Community Development has received a copy of the above referenced order, issued by the State Department of Ecology (DOE) . This letter is in reference to the plan required by DOE and specifically to permits which would be required to comply with the submission requirements of that plan. On March 29 , 1995 Gary Yando and myself met with you regarding the March 6 , 1995 letter sent to you by DOE. That letter outlined three broad issues which would require after-the-fact permits . Subsequent to that but after the elapse of their 30-day time limit you requested that we clarify the permit requirements in writing. With the Order having been issued we would like to do so now. Please reference the March 29 , 1995 letter from DOE. The Tahuya River, its associated wetlands, its floodway and its floodplain landward 200 feet from the floodway edge are regulated by the Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) . The shoreline designation is Urban Residential . A. Item number one references "Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization" and concerns "the placement of sandbags, riprap, soil , and rock along several hundred feet of the main branch of the Tahuya River" . Chapter 7 . 16 . 150 of the SMP regulates such activities . Shoreline stabilization activities, excluding diking, require a substantial development permit in an urban residential shoreline environment . Shoreline stabilization activities do not raise the level of the river bank but rather armor the bank to prevent erosion or correct erosional impacts which have occurred. Diking activities in an urban residential environment require a conditional use permit . We would concurrently require a substantial development permit in that diking "materially interferes with normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state" (see definition of "substantial development" on page 11 Gary Yando,Director of Community Development • Erik Fairchild,Planning Director Mason County Bldg. III 0 426 W. Cedar • P. O. Box 578 • Shelton, WA 98584 • (206) 427-9670 SMP) . Under use regulation 5 of Chapter 7. 16 . 150 you will note the diking limitations , as follows : 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 (i . e. , tree stumps, tires, etc. ) , and (3) revegetation and maintenance until ground cover is established. The floodway on your property encompasses virtually the entire valley. As such, the dikes located immediately adjacent to the river are not in compliance with the above locational requirement. A shoreline variance would be needed to allow their location. Please reference Chapter 7 . 28 . 030 which lists the variance criteria which must be met . All policies and use regulations within this chapter are applicable to your property. B. Item number 2 references "Animal confinement buffers`" and "your practice of confining horses within 100 feet of a water body" . Chapter 7 . 16 . 010 regulates agricultural activities . All policies and use regulations are applicable to your property. Note in particular policies 3 , 4 , 6 , 7, and 8 and use regulations 2 , 3 , 6, and 9 . Any confinement areas located within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the river require relocation or a shoreline variance. Additionally, a fenced buffer of permanent vegetation is required (or a shoreline variance from that standard would be required as well) . C. Item number 3 references "fill" and notes that, "some of the recontouring activities you have undertaken on your property constitutes "filling" as defined in the SMA" (Shoreline Management Act) . Chapter 7 . 16 . 130 regulates landfill activities . Non-water dependent upland landfill requires a conditional use permit in an urban residential environment . Note in particular policies 1 and 3 and use regulations 3 and 4 . In order to substantiate your application, professional engineering expertise will be required. The SMP states, in Chapter 7 . 16 . 150 use regulation 3 the following: 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 . We will require that a licensed Washington State engineer specializing in river hydrology be retained to evaluate possible impacts from past activities and to determine courses of action to alleviate those impacts . We request an interview with your engineer prior to. your commitment to their hiring. This is to assure both the county and yourself that the person hired is qualified to evaluate the hydraulic forces at work in this area affecting both your property and adjacent properties . The engineer will also be required to formulate a plan for your property which will minimize adverse effects to upstream and downstream properties and to the shoreline environment. In summary, shoreline substantial development, conditional use and variance permits would be required to fulfill the requirements outlined in the DOE order. These permits may be processed simultaneously. The combined permit processing fee is $525 . 00 plus $105 . 00 for an environmental checklist required pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) . Please submit a check with your application in the amount of $630 . 00, made out to "Mason County Treasurer" . As you know, this administrative interpretation of after-the-fact permits required to fulfill the requirements outlined in the DOE letter and enforcement order, is appealable to the Mason County Commissioners . Contact the commissioners secretary to re-activate the appeal letter submitted April 14, 1995 . You also have a direct appeal path of the state order via the State Shoreline Hearings Board. Contact the DOE for more information regarding that option. In general , we recommend you advise the DOE of any action you take regarding their order. If you have any questions we may be contacted at (360) 427-9670 . Thank you. Respectfully, Don Brush, Planner Department of Community Development CC: Steve Craig, DOE Jim Anest, DOE Bill Young, DOE Gary Yando, Mason County 1 1 ♦ f__fIF + ♦i -1 pt-_14 � 4 r.-♦ �•}•--r.�..r r--♦. ��- e- t ..:—, ~-♦-~-t-+ 1 1.•.-�•J.�..I•..5.. 1.,t- 1�±. ,r--�-•ter-�-�-e -♦-+ Skokomish Indian Tribe Tribal Center (206) 426-4232 N. 80 Tribal Center Road May 18, 1995 Ii Ij �i Mason County Commissioners MAY 1 6 1995 �.)� 411 North 5th, Building 1 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Shoreline Violation, Order No. 94-SH-217; Order and Notice of Penalty Incurred for Violation of Chapter 90.58 RCW and the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program by Douglas Neyhart. To the Mason County Commissioners, We have reviewed the above referenced document and are encouraged that the State Department of Ecology has decided to pursue the corrective action as described. We urge the Mason County Commissioners to cooperate and support the Department of Ecology in this matter. Diking and other activities undertaken on Neyhart Farms located within the Tahuya River floodplain are most likely impacting both Tribal and State resources of fish, shellfish and wildlife. The Tahuya River and estuary are an extremely important component of Hood Canal which the Skokomish Tribe relies on for a way of life. The Neyhart property is located in the heart of the historical early run chum spawning zone. Hood Canal early chum salmon are currently being petitioned unde the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . This zone also is utilized b coho chinook, normal and late run chum salmon, winter steelhead d cutthroat trout for spawning and rearing purposes. This zone is critical for rearing of wild juvenile and adult coho salmon. The stock status of Tahuya coho is determined to be depressed and is also being petitioned under the ESA along with all Washington coastal and Puget Sound coho stocks. Furthermore, the stock status of Tahuya winter steelhead is determined to be depressed. Tribal and non-tribal fisheries have been restricted in past years due in part to the status of Hood Canal coho. It is imperative that Hood Canal salmonid stocks rebuild and are healthy for current and future generations. In order for these stocks to rebuild it is essential that the critical habitat upon which they depend be protected. We cannot afford to lose any more habitat in Hood Canal. Any activities that impact habitat and water quality that these resources rely on is not acceptable to the Skokomish Tribe. We understand the necessity of the actions to be taken by the Department of Ecology on this matter. We look forward to a resolution for the sake of all of our natural resources. Since ely, Ce Filak Skokomish Fisheries Manager cc: Marty Ereth, Skokomish Fish Habitat Biologist Steve Craig, DOE Regional Supervisor, Shorelar_ds Program Dave Guffler, WDF&W Habitat Biologist Carol Bernthal, PNPTC Habitat Coordinator Skokomish Fish Committee - a s 05!12/95 1G:45 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 002 bJrk11• r.,w� E�3:56 2b6352629y JIM ANEST � PAGE 02 f Y �i •-rr►+►4Vo' gt01't� -` Hood arrct�'t rti> 4cology t9A *whhs tv'd Ilim ptt Um,m mvr, '111ey've W,kd to y'ly toz sh9r ir",Irdto �. y, b~ct� none eroaclaii��u d 00KI.,P�l1e,�y c1v�rn�nn wrn*�lt�c re , &Ills%nl,d"lot*'baywSe tnn Uw Avp� �1'^tiY,Ott watt*,jay,the 0". 77K.dinmte W 1M)IOW of oslgolt . . .•. srl�MbNos v4th Np_yham and aoeverij 3ee TANUVA on -- 05/12%95 16:46 DEPT OF ECOLOGY — SWRO Ott, r 03: 56 2D6352a2913 JIM ANEST F/+Gl 03 M�� 11 '9' 11t2+ rl_gy tJELil:RJOiI AF��C �2iE•47375F31 --p ;n.. 1 i 05/11/95 11:57 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 002 i 3 j FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 10, 1995 95-721 CONTACT: Jim Anest (360) 407-6529 ` Renee Guillierie (360) 407-6159 f STATE ORDERS HORSE FARM TO RESTORE RIVER CORRIDOR A Mason county man who boards and trains trotting horses along the Tahuya River has been ordered to comply v�ith the County' s shoreline management master program and pay $5, 000 fine. Today the Department of Ecology ordered Douglas Ney,,hart to stop unpermitted diking and rechanneling of the Ti�lhuya River and to stop filling in the river' s floodway. The TAhuya is a major river in the lower Hood canal . It suppox-Lo 4ative chum and coho f salmon runs . f { "It often floods in this area and every tide it, does, manure t i and sediment from this site car.l geL into theriver. The sad j thing is that it could have been prevented it Mr. Neyhart had followed the County' s shoreline progr-acn, " said Ecology Director Mary Rivcland. .after seven years of tryiizg to get Neyhart to voluntarily meet County requirements -- without success I' _ today Ecology ordered him to do so. Neyhart must apply fob local shoreline permits for past developments that were donewithout them, and upgrade past construction so that it meets 1�cal shoreline regulations . He also must make sure future tevelopments meet the CuunLy' s shoreline requirements . "The permits are important because they allow the County to work with the landowner so that development ban occur without harming the environment, " said Riveland. ,. �i•i ;..rod *��a 4• i C ra'i ^G r-Y ll 05/11/95 11:58 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 003 j i Neyhart News Release May 10, 1995 Page 2 1 in the river' s path during floods . When the {river flushes away horse manure, the impact on Hood Canal can be significant . The river regularly breaks through the several h4ndred-foot-long dike, which does not meet country standards, end sends sediment 1 into the river. "It Mr. Neyhart follows the county' s shoreline requirements, we { believe this area can support both a horse firm and a healthy river, " said Riveland. ! Neyhart was cited for filling, diking and echanneling the Tahuya River without a shoreline permit and in violation of requirements of the county' s shoreline progr4m. The dike was unlawfully constructed in the floodway and toe river has broken through the dike several times, carrying mange, mud and other I debris into the river, according to Ecology 4nforcement officer t t Jim Anest . { "The diking and other activities done by Ml . Neyhart have I narrowed the river channel and increased flooding in the immediate area, " said Anest . Ecology has received complaints from a nei�hbor who believes he has lost shoreline due to Neyhart' s diking. !Two citizen groups, the Point No Point 'Treaty council, and the S okomish Tribe have also complained about the adverse impacts of Neyhart' s actions on i flooding, water duality and fisheries. i Ecology tirst learned of unauthorized love* construction at the 3 site in late 1988 . Since then, staff have m�L with Mr. Neyhart several times to explain that shoreline permits are required, and I 05/11/95 11:59 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 004 I j Neyhart News Release May 10, 1995 Page 3 i advised him on how to comply with the local horeline program. Mason County has also taken sevex-dl steps to get Mr. Neyhart to follow local ordinances . Tn January Ecologyimet with Mr. Neyhart, who agreed to apply for the permits) but then failed to do so . Anest noted that Neyhart- is c:axrying out a farm conservation plan. "We continue to support using best management~ practices on the horse farm, but they don' t address the flooding and shoreline problems caused by diking and filling, " he s id. According to the order issued today, Oie penalty will be waived if Neyhart takes the following actions : 0 immediately stops filling, diking and rechdnneling the river within the area covered by the CounL-y' s � shoreline ordinance, unless authorized by Mason County and Ecology, and 3 ! develops a plan within 30 clays to resto e and protect damaged shoreline areas. The plan must be approved by Ecology. I t i 1 i i r 05%10'95 05:53 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 003 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE BY DOUGLAS ) NEYRAI:T WITH THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ) ACKNOWLEDG ENT OF SERVICE ACT AND THE MASON COUNTY SHORELINE ) ENEORCEMEN DOCKET NO. 94-SH-217 MASTER PROGRAM ) TO: Department of Ecology State of Washington P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 i Attention: Jim Anest Enforcement COOrdiIlatdr Shorelands Program Receipt ire acknowledged of Shoralands Enfor 94-SH-217. aeme t Order No. Dated this —� day of I1995. (Signature) I i (Title) { i Company/agency (if applicable) I 1 i , r 05/10/95 08:53 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 004 Washington State Department of Ecology IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLIANCE ) BY DOUGLAS NEYHART WITH CHAPTER 90.58 RCW AND THE RULES AND ) DOCKET go, 94-SH-217 REGULATIONS ADOPTED THEREUNDER ) ORDER AqD NOTICE INCLUDING THE MASON COUNTY ) OF PENA ,TY INCURRED SHORELINE MASTER VROGRAM ) Mr. Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you have incurred, and tbDre is now due and Payable from you, a penalty in the amount of five tho sand dollars ($5,000) for undertaking an activity on the shorelines of the itate in violation of Chapter 90.58 RCW and the Mason County Shoreline Mana ement Master Program (MCSMP) , If all of the following requirements, terms and conditions of this order are fully satisfied in a timely manner by Douglas Neyhart the penalty will be waived in full. This Order and Penalty is based upon the following allegations of fact and law: ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 1. That Douglas Neyhart owns certain real property,) consisting of approximately thirty-one (31) acres located wit in Section 13, Township 22N, Range 3W of W,M. within Mason County, 2. That Douglas Neyhart also currently leases or of erwise controls approximately an additional thirteen Section 13 Tow (l3) acres f zeal Property within nship 22N, Range 3W of W.M. within Mason County, 3, That the most of the thirty-one acres of the property referred to in Allegation of Fact No, 1 above, is located withi the £loodplain of the Tahuya River. 4. That most of tl-ie Lhir ty o ne acres eferred Allegation of Fact No. 3above, iso also ewithin rt 'erfloodweytofithe Tahuya River, 51 That in August 1990, May 1991,and August 1994, s�aff from the Shorelands Program of the Department of Ecology conducted site inspections of the above described property (hereinafter referred to as "the property") . 05%10/95 08:54 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 005 i I Shor,aline Order 94-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart May 91 1,995 I 6. That on numerous occasions between 1987 and 19 3, Mason County officials have inspected the property. 7• That tho above described site inspections disc osed that: a) A dike had been constructed on sub tantial portions of left bank of the main channel of the Ta uya River; b) Vi11it1g had been done within two h ndred feet of the ordinary high water mark, and within the floodplain and floodway of the Tahuya River; c) The effect of they above described diking and filling was to substantially alter the channel the Tahuya River as it runs through the property; d) Construction of a horse training track and paddocks had occurred within one hundred feet of the ordinary high water mark, and within the floodway and f oodplain of the Tahuya River. . 8. That Douglas Neyhart purchased the property in �981. 9. That Douglas Neyhart purchased the property fro 23, 1992) , the Macombers family. (See Attachment "A", an affidavit by the Al acomber, dated September 10. That at the time Neyhart purchased the property, it was being utilized as a hobby farm by the Macomber family,, and than there was no horse training track on the property. 11. That' at the time Douglas Neyhart purchased the piroperty, there were no dike, berm, or other man-made river bank reinforcement present on the property. (See attachments "B", "c" and "D", which are a series of comparable aerial photos from 1981, 1985 and 1989 of the property) . 12. That since his purchase of the property in 1981, Mr. Neyhart has used the property primarily for the purposes of horse raising and horse training. 13. That Mr. Neyhart has constructed an oval shaped horse training track on the property, with fenced paddocks for horse con ainment both within and beyond the track circumference. (see Attachment E" color xerox of an aerial photograph taken on April 16, 1993 by Department of Ecology staff. ) 14 _ That the track, paddocks, and diked area occupy nearly the entire floodplain of the Tahuya River at this location. 2 I 05i10.i95 00:55 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 006 Shoreline Order 94-SH-211 Douglas Neyhart May 9, 1995 15, That on ntunerous occasions since Mr. Neyhart purchased the property, high wafter stages of the Tahuya River have flo ded the location of the oval track, paddock areas and access road, 16• That since 1981, Mr. Neyhart constructed or au •horized the Construction of a dike extending several hundred feet along the left bank of the Tahuya. River on the property. 17. That the above referenced dike is constructed ithin the floodway, as designated on Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map for Mason County. See attachment "F") , 1 18. That the above described dike were not designed by an engineer or other Professional, 1 19. That the above described dike has caused interfrence with the normal river geo-hydraulic processes of the Tahuya Riv;r, 20_ That in 1987, 1990 and in 1993, Mr, Neyhart agreed to develop and implement farm management plans with the Mason District. ounty Soil Conservation 21. That the Neyhart Farm Management Plans, as curt ntly written and thug far implemented do not bring Neyhart's developm nt and uses of his shoreline property into compliance with the MCS P, 22. That the above described filling, diking, and rechannelli.ng of the river was done without Douglas Neyhart having either plied for or secured a. lawful shoreline permit, exemption, or other aut County. orization from Masan ALLEGATIONS OF LAW 1. That shorelines Jurisdiction under the Mason Coun y Shoreline Management Plan (MCSMp) extends to the floodway of the Tahuya River plus 200 fee landward in all directions, as well as including all biological wetlands within the floodplain, Ch. 7,08. 2. The above described real property is in relevant part within shoreline ,jurisdiction, RCW 90.58.030. 3 That the above described filling, diking, and modification of the channel of the Tahuya River within shoreline Jurisdiction constitutes "substantial development" under RCW 90.58.030. 3 I 05/10i95 00:55 DEFT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 007 I Shoreline Order 94-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart May 9, 1995 4. RCW 90-58.140 states that a development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of, this chapter and after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, ar master program governing that shoreline. 5. RCW 90.58.030 states that: "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the goverment entity having administrati a Jurisdiction under this chapter, ,, T 6. RCW 90.58.210 (2) provides that once substanti 1 development is permitted within shoreline jurisdiction, it Must then be done in a manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of said permit. 7. RCW 90.58,020 requires that permitted uses in tie shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a mane r to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the pu lies use of the water. 8. WAC 173-17-040 provides that local government and/or the Department of Ecology shall have the authority to serve at or er upon a person if an activity being undertaken on shorelines of the tate is in violation of chapter 90.58 RCW or the applicable local maste program. 9. That the diking, filling, and the modification f the channel of the Tahuya River and its associated wetlands do not constitute "practices normal or necessary for farming" under RCW 90.58.030 (3) (e) ((iv). 10. That even if a development is determined to be e: empt, such development must still comply with the policies and regulati ns of the MCSMP and the Shoreline Management Act, WAC 173-14-040 (3) . I -1. That the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program was official adopted on August 12, 1975, and was amended on March 1, 1988, ly 12. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16.150 establishes the policies and regulations for flood protectio and shoreline stabilization. Such provision of the MCSMP stags: Policy # 2. Shoreline stabilization and food protection works should be located, designed, constructed ar d maintained to Provide: . . .protection of water quality. . .$ nd on of valuable fish and other life forms, and their habitat ivital to the aquatic food chain, 4 05/10/95 06:56 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 008 Shorelines Order 94-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart May 9, 1995 Policy # 3, "Non-structural flood contr 1 solutions should be used whenever possible, including prohibiting or limiting development in historically flood proneareas. . . structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should be allowed after it is demonstrated that non structural solutio s would not be able to reduce the damage. " Policy � y Jl 4 . "Substantial stream channel modification, realignment, and straightening should be discouraged as a means of shoreline stabilization and flood Protection, " Use Regulation # 3. The County shall re uire professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geo-hydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream shoreline properties, or adverse effects and uses, ,, o shoreline resources Use Ragulati011 # 5. Diking may be permit ed as o nAjLLQnaL (emphasis added) provided that: diking is set back to the edgeuof the floodway. Use regulation # 6, Flood protection mea ures shall be planned and constructed based on a state approved Iflood control management plan, when available, and in accordance w 'th the National Flood Insurance Program, 73. That the Mason County Shoreline Master program, at 7. 16,130 establishes the policies and regulations pertaining to landf 11 practices. section provides that: That Use Regulation I. Landfills are prohibits waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or on biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a conditional use for water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. Use Regulation 3, Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the geo-hydraulics and flood plain storage capacity will not be a 'tered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property, Urge Regulation 4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage, Use Regulation 8, Fill materials shall be �f such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality, 5 05/10/95 08:57 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWPO 009 Shoreline Order 94-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart May 9, 1995 14. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Progra�, at 7, 16.010 establishes the polices and regulations for agriculture acItivitiee; Policy # 3. Animal keeping areas should), when possible, be located outside the shoreline management area, When located in shoreline management areas, they should a separated from water bodies by vegetated buffer strips, Use Regulation 5. Perennial wetlands sh 11 not be used as animal confinement sites, Use Regulation 6. Requires that confine ent area shall be located away from perennial and intermittently flowing streams. A fenced buffer of permanent vegetation at least one hundred feet in width shall be maintained between such areas a d water bodies, IS. That the property is designated to be an "urban" under, the Mason County Shoreline Management Mas ereProgram. shoreline 16. That the shoreline use matrix in Chapter 7.16 OF the Mason Count Shoreline Management Master Program prohibits commercial feedlots within all "urban" designated shorelines areas, In view of the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-17-040 (the Washington Administration Code) , IT IS ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart and any other person acting as his employee or agent shall, upon receipt of this Order, immediately cease and desist from all further filling, diking, and modification of the c1 annel of the Tahuya )':fiver within shoreline ,jurisdiction on the above refe raced parcel, unless and only to the extent such work is specifically authorize by a currently valid shoreline permit issued by Mason County or authorized from the Department of Ecology for the p r an theenf site. order purpose of rest ring the site, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart shall within twenty (20) days of Your receipt of this Order, respond to the undersignedat the Department o£ Ecology, specifically whether you admit or deny or lac sufficient knowledge to admit or deny each of the numbered Allegations of Fact or Allegations of Law contained in this Order, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart submit a Plan within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this Order to the Shorelind Program of the Department of Ecology (P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690) i which he describes in detail his plans to restore to the maximum extent feasilble, the shoreline of the Tahuya River and its associated wetlands. Douglas eyhart must also agree to implement such plan within a time frame acceptable Ecology, Such plan shall at a minimum include; t the Department of 1 6 05/10/75 OS:5T DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 010 Shoreline Order 94-S1i-217 Douglas Ney}iart May 9, 1995 1) That Mr. Neyhart apply for permits' for all development already accomplished which should have been done subject to shoreline permit; And 2) That all work necessary to bring p st development into compliance with the MCSMP, and all futur, activities within shoreline ,jurisdiction on the above propbrty, shall be- done in compliance with the MCSMP. Failure to comity kith -- e terms I o tY o ? shall De ar ent of oology�includf all -sult in fur.the . aotions ur Zer civil --i—t of to one housandt2do11a If tpered tdayt �L}once a �r se tiara pursuant to Qf U.') 21Q RCW_ end criminal The penalty herei)i described is due and payable by you within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this Notice of Penalty. Please remit the penalt payable to Department of Neology, Cashiering y fee 985Q3. Section,! P,O. Box 5128, Lacey, WA If, however, for any relxyon you believe that the tviol�tion herein described did not occur, or you have an explanation as to why i occurred, or knew o£ any other fact which you believe the Department shoul consider with regard to this penalty, you may choose to submit an "Applicatio of Relies' from Penalty. " 1n such application, yptjlnay set forth th basis for your application and return it to this Department Within t irty (30) days. Your statement must be signed under oath before a notary p blic or any other person authorized to take oaths, Upon receipt of an "Application for Relief from Penal the Department will consider the same and will either reduce the penalty, ancel the allow it to remain as originally stated. decision You will be y notified noftouror , Ecology's m decision regarding your "Application for Relief" is appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant t RCW 90,58.210 end WAC 173-17-060, Signed in Olytttpia, Washington this t day o May, 1995. I teve raig, Regiaz�fll S russet � S re ands and Water s urces Program 7 05/10/95 08:52 DEPT OF ECOLOGY — SWRO 002 i FA A1'p 1 r�• '�Ii�'Ih n�Fly STATE OF WASHINCTON DEPARTMENT OF EGC.)L0 "Y P.O. Box 47600 * Olympia, Wavignpoll 98.514-TGOII (360) 407-60(0o T!)V Only fHearipg Impaired) (. 60) 407-6006 May 9, 1995 Mr. Douglas Neyhart: 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101 Dear Douglas Neyhart: Re: Shoreline 'violation, Order No, 94-SH-217 Enclosed is an original Shoreline Management Enfo reement Order No. 94-SH-217. Although we have discussed this matte - at considerable length over recent months, we have been unable to make significant progress in resolving our differences over whOtheC certain activities on your Tahuya. River property have in the past or do now comply with Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act, nd the Mason County Shoreline Management Master program. It appears hat these differences may need to be finally resolved by a decision of he Shorelines Hearings Board, I A farm entitled "Acknowledgement of Service" 1s aso enclosed, Please sign this form and return it to this office, This order is beixtg issued by the Washington 5 tatunder provisions of RCW 90,58.210, WAC 17g3.17 andethepartment applicabl� Ecology shoreline master program, I All correspondence and questions relating to these documents should be directed to the undersigned, at the Department of cology, Sincerely, I James D, 'AnesG i Enforcement Coordinator Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program I (206) 407-6529 JA:,ja Enclosure cc: Cary Yando, Mason County DCD Rebecca Todd, Ecology AAG Sue Mauertnan, SWRO Regional Supervisor Marian Bruner, Central Programs 05%10i95 03:58 DEFT OF ECOLOGY' - SWRO =11 A TTR(,HM biT A// -ro 5"r"M RVF �/7 (gymK-T)" J% 19eA 7-11 S A,TEM EN'T 4F 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 aiea 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 ' P PertY� Y vYas completely covered by trees and vegetation except for approximately 6 acres which was irk pasture. 4. ViWh.ile 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. S. Prior to sale of the property, there was Aever any dike, berm, or any other man made river bank reinforcement. Dated this day of SeO, 1992. A , Alene Macomber STATE OF WASBINGTON) County of �C�a��fo )ss On this day personally appeared before me L ?��1, ate .�c� To me known to be the individual described herein who executed the',foregoing document for the uses and purposes therein described. o Subscribed and sworn to before me this -�- day of 6e,4n� 1992. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,. Residing at: My commission expires: l 05/10/95 08:59 DEPT OF ECOLOGY — SWRO 012 -., � •n y; �" L '+�� ',�.y �wR A qr rexy r ¢ J y �, N `t s a t t� 7 '�,! r.*�kr ,.alt1T•7Y 7\ a'` ��tt a�¢rri�� j.7 1 t` r ,:' ,r ' r• `��rt A�?: n�tcv., x � � 'Mrt� �,MT,, •. �$'.•.'�«,�'�y�r�� S��.I d"n+C y J�7S(. e ei ti M f' fC•ti,. � � �Mi tr LtV � �t "t., � No ••, � •• '�we ." {{ :4. w1. y 3 zw S h z' �t'tC 4:tl+gtE Yri y`�'4.,,,1� ^Y•* `e ,� p. '6 .,ij'�'5�,� y"r -. .^�A„ i; `+�'�,,'e�SA1,eh >d!r oi" e� �,k�•.� :},.; ram. � �� .. .fr 1J,t<1. f ,r�nhJ< � ti ca- ` 1 � •�� rfi,� C"'a � �a "�A °rx. 71 4 a'..c. r ,L � ,�, `"'�•�, ��°°e ;td � 'E � ,t�L!4,� -�� •. ��'�Nh Y +' f'�7t?� 6' t �, �' t t ,�i 'tyn°. r i �(:a a :h� �'i w� '+ri�h �, 7� f � ,�� SN-^F. .� y •.�,, � � aY��-,n'� ti,y 54^v; Jt 'l !1� '• M •�n Y ., � t((T x.;c �9 r z.$ .+�t1 q '` ' M ��.ar�j� � `,rr�11"� � {4! ,. •w,'C.' rA 7 ,r t +J�];S� " V ,t r,�, A l�t;.�{) �r};,J`'A •'+` �`` .`�, ��,� r Mir,} n �sr f 7j i ,t °� °+ �� "n 1�vc `y ,� �•�G_N�. � r1,�- rn�+t+"yr � .��J,.� AK ,�.g'. �a -a � .,t o eZT!S:.•'t, •f `<"�'r' . 2` t`4 YP k r ' ti .J �i .ti xz,. i �� $ �� -♦ �' ` '�.myr:1� 3r~`` 'y+C7Jr� � `ty ,� �. ""?• k; t'M 4'y'rhyt i�„ { +s�' i � s��4;.±fi � ' +�1rtr� y>� r t�,fR 'nt �tq +� t< rG.a�.h -r+".g;�.•aa� � '� 'r kJ ! � rI aC'�? o ti ^, � �`\5, • '�,,A ayti��i �; L�qF,t.,i�;�., r.�`.�L•A 1,4. �4" �r '%;+�i+'F�r'",".�... •�''r`,' '.('r!-rr;r �....� !,:. � rrt�',, 6 f� �; '�,r��i'.,_. � �.'�„s,.fi' T-a 'S ,�y�;vt•S` e �;, Y'�r'Wx-".,�q'v��' :x,��.�;:�l;r,",�.•.'�'` ,.r;'� F�.tt. 74 •�.`C i ,,r n riyw �'. d �.+h 1 y.: #. M. rU � y� .N�`'T� � —_ a �'� ��W. t f !?..' �A JS&_,,r� . ' W � A X' f'^cP��T' X�h �e� �f+E'f �t�fr •i �R .{.�S Y •k�9�pV' _ , Y N � S y 1 kIN 7 � . �� i•TF`'=ttAi;t \r`f. '* :e(A 4 i e r. .y. t �'F', .�-y: •v '�..r S w`, '$'"03 r` i lA 1�1,^ � 71 ♦ ^ r r't *, �j ., 5`�Y J `r6 wti wi'� Qrr ;��, � `'f � "� a,e ~. � 'r { ?�i 7.d"•err � ',.'A b � J ?, �ia � �;"��.� }l��t %�'��:,ii •�- V '-ir}�_`r��"`"+�F' 1'��i, F\�� c;Y ``c. "x •t ;,x ' t'-;�1"h'+��„��'i xa sd 4:4r�'"!:'�" 'S' .R�µ �'� •r(^�^>M � �'.."6'�L��`�" t'A�'r`ti7�w �ry i+ ['} ,t Q WFtitiu� .� �. '.. •�9 Yy;��l ' �:i' t :�. `�"� �+r, w a � 't n,:Y py.. car,L r�t" �4 �t �� +i`, � �6�.� l•},'�i� tacteh+" ('" +L �• ;t 'l+•F• C.".r..a..:ragF} �, + :sCr JFx "�,; .Cx�•4 1. � z,,a, '�* � � ,r 1r5iG "y�ax'i. "<r 421, � -:.•�, r(�r,�jy �,�„FY �,r .iJy� �6. r-� ' �Y' 7's.e�.' �� „y"�`,��' Ft� :,w'>•?`�G �yy� (( 1 v+X., 1�.S a e` a'�k •�. Je :A .�'- a? _; �. ,}1,��.��jG �y+FAQ',.d�SJN,�'r ,fix?' i• :e r.�.. ru:Sy. J ;.• r�' Pf 'art' •+ nx- " r w 1' `� u+,r., �. J ,,�� :�"��_' C �.,�{h.+�4y.xt :�` I"r,,' y ,J w�r.>e-'�N �'� a+ '� '+C�',`3.y.,: ♦ ,"�"Z ,,,..�,� rt,�...t'` .. .(a'^•.,:�„e ? ) 'j",;�.�, +.'�""'1r 4 °` ',�y.� :�°2+-Y a ?�:�.' ��. �' •,- f r.{ v+ +I,d'�..j7'"•'E ,3.ilµv`r�Y v rN4 1 �fY.>,"`.A�. o .rtr, '�.'.,; l�'C`� IS J ,d' .'r.'�i;,:r" ln t..}.•'S>:'"' 'r� x1�`!9 5`(r p� .nh't i t ,`W�r,�.T}° '•�' '�;,..9i.�� `,` 4,A2r+1. �Y. �'�1 �tl'j°r.t1 7 ° .+,_° � , '��r��(7 � J� .> r'T �� +1� � �S .+ r t '1 z Y N+�• tv ;'+tin. '� `'"'+, �++. ��.. �`,,rp7 ( '��X'�F J��.,r.• y" wµ'4d r t � v � u��e � +l",;<ei .r r t,��^. � ;�w �#�,,�+ • h'+;. St'` xi c t wXX^:i c w♦�. r.y a` �:,i� �,+. Q r�1 �`i� f( i �� :.I !' !• T$' P '-o y $^�+ `may�1q ! ��tqU a� r r �� ,� + 1 �p ��'A. u�,w,Y,✓� ,�r,�lr nd< � � x r r�ty) p• .r � Yw `�'v ''�Y��. R�'..y4' G'i�' !`: T,'l¢� `„1. ;y c i r 1 � � 'x Y, ,e'� ' e, �.6,'1, c ✓, �� r� �k J J J^qU r 'v' r� / � +�, �a��11 �,�ta J �`;«'R t 1 Xti f `` � k: ».,rx 05/10/95 09:04 DEPT OF ECOLOGY — SWRO 013 Xa��a�'°, :Y,w" ',�;,` `:'S! d}��`'75 �,�'.;r u�'� 4' �vb�< v's,��`,gj'1 i�'�9,':,' �J +`. ' �•"< yb�:•i 1't .'�' , �;°�5.' .^: 'yity�'•4!piti G4 ,�` x-r t t { wu� �r .� .l r' •� �1t - l•^a• � :. '7 k � i1'C1C' ,Y{,n `�Yl � h 5 1.4 1 1y{'}•1 '� t L t't'{, �}41�• I 'y�,� a �'Y';��1��k}M�'htr`a�!�k'`��'y`�Ye!li�,t��r�y `1"'1kj�kt. �� :`"��,r<�,',� ?a�,'�1;, 'r~ aF;��e,}L,�'►Y'iC t �"°"�` ".F � 4t,n y°a+r�c:''!w a ty -,��.n!a:"�,y `�`*y,Y`u {��'.+� 'yh Y rs %,.rt`�a,#sA<.�x^• SSS l.fy1"C� :Ar., f� '! !4;. r nr,y",r✓-r1t•'M1. e,k#'#[�a i`A*�� `•L2"�j "`,L'+Y I, v`�k4+ '� �Yr " {a,rl<St`tb5 e^'�ay N y>-tiy r .V..T+r` 'TC'� " a1 I4. ,,*I' a-Al a5b , ,3 a e h lt• �+ A '�° `!'.:r) 3�.,. .-.; ,♦ ��'J�4y cs \;L \ 1 h•r , ...i MwI k,,,,rY`��' ♦a 1. p!"a .(��h�.ti to A,� d l Q,''`.S �.^'!1�i.��y,S' V C v t ,t?,i e� ✓F. �a rXiE 7'Y r 7 .,� , t �taF kw`,Cdt, � w �� +,i},1t'y�.�'" � � e',• ! � ��' r. Q�F 1 ��I'��iii t�, 7 7�r T'5 'AF i' .x t' r v. '�� ► 'd� +;, yrJ 7 �t� ur i Le S+T� l'LZ �, :.� " ��'fi�.Y7•t��(�+a. i `�'; � ��', k r;.��:�,a i f r� h k.��, � ��,,r h+ k r " , '�. -: �` �.yt't '!�kth t '.R7t y�°?fir M� a +.h 4:. ri�(,c•,. °7!. ". 1�aS.:,', ��'� n C Yy;'a;°*M1. ,:PI x y y 'r`.; yr M..ti' i„�. ,ra,.w�4}��,4 d yr +Y• '; e i� �it a�, { 5y'f•"f,Y•_�i.. �, �'� ',.� ^d. ''t'a^:is .r 4'r.n 'r.a `4-Jt t}""r ' r ""r r�i.�.✓ �5 yLC`"Ir cK°':a�. r ..e.+. Y.Ra �y, ,r. Y��}��x �a, .�.F n �,_ Y�t� ;�. ,` �'4':4�H��4¢ � It '+ �"h r,'1?�` '�.^ r. 6�s,�a�',`.a�;V;x'� '-'•'`� T .,'+..�'' 't�r .. :ti':P ..a x s4� M1� e'-(} e� 7�,yy`�"" ^-r t..,,, '+y}tl., /J�'a �C,4+a!'� c� '�''t� 4,q. ,r `.}P.�cr(�i 3-'r hJ411" Ni,� c t 1. Ct-�! '"dt;44 +.• w,¢,yea. rd t� ",'' *z ; '.,+�e n :" .,� x'yM T h. ! V ti 1 :, � ri�x"•,t t° r ''�s�'•r '_Y. ,gi. � Y ,y ':: r T u"',� Q Y .y-x'�'v 3C�;„,�`A" � ,. �a Cc fri !k r°` rX 1Y tit{tt •; �� ',,! Y :rih s 7,z a ..�, G3''1}}, Y.' Ms�i d ��lr �' a:`a 5ti,.d r� �'h'�'td"•rc'Y. a:�a# � Fir apt`. �r r.r b � '� ,, tag, f'� t,p�.+�rj."e.Y",�: ,4 n .,.'r t �� .:t ,S•; '3'NN'��,.v.t'" }-�a C it �� . sat .�a 'kw 2` ?C A x-.'',�<'�.. '�+ �Ntr. 27�,,a�� d�> V�`N,+F '�''{Y r k ,� 1 a� Y., t „b s:'..:' 7�' ��'"s �' +k x,�+e`.�� 1,.- p� �•+ 'P�'r � kdr 5'Y$ +'.Yi'pf4� `�as d'""}�� '�i' it + 4y"�� .. +4 r�'�p'� + in.Ny.�.•�".? 4' i, 2"•. 'i;.' �{',• Y, •r C t,`. ?kt:�' "+ fy-' l $`' �: Y} 'f<rr e• ',' r7 foO ai '� �''.'yI'+Z� �h„'�' t� .. t ,_ ♦ h� r f+�'i�sk7T 1."f` ° 1 4 A 4e.�i r a < �'ur ` •�h y t„. �;, c is 4'► k �� ,„ 4v rriy;� ,fir 2°"�.', } {''� vy'x'�•; p �� r J•+s� 4' �= � ,�j ��, yx '4'r'`' LAC �� "� t� �t 'v t� :f a { r'rr"��.J� � AX � a ,� �' }+, •1s� '�,7�aZ t+. 'l a a%�i�;� �$� � 2�"`' �{�.,y f r �.(°Fv �a�,4��G �' t'S+•i,� '�' .. d1 ��t•c� � � :. 1 r� `"' -�n 1 # +� .d�9�o"'r�° y +'�r.�.� � ..u G jn yJ_'Jy.C 4•+y f o��c "rh qj'� 9r^i' tl'C �"'.�ri�� r'C.++''r�� W:'11�t t ` � irk'T 4�. r'r � ,5 ,=+fi,4'�I ..*q'�r �" tit i�R' •i? ty, 4h, F,� ,'��*�. r'W�,L�y" ' r r. �n�� r e. lY' �sW tr w ","".Y � � kt,r y Y.F ,r' y`l'`p�✓` �' '1.Y1'.rC Y''+�4' Y +. $'i.�',141�t ly' �a.4r} iy Y t i�,�•�+f k��i' t9 9�,rt ti)f {{+ :`� ''�{*'.t• k,�'+:wl't °4 .h'i,e Y ,'<g-R^.` +,g'*r y' ^.� i' rr r +�► js r t!y, } '+'r 1 ° f f / f t F;.+a ! `KC• A MA '�. � r { ' r 7f ':r''.Y I y ref ,E r<y{k`i' �•c ¢'-°y, t .t ;:-a ,.1 °4�-i ,I4 'syv'r`' `� r 4'�,: r�.+a•p ":"y 6.^,', ? rr tk r'p �'Y�� •.a�: + 3hF�.�ky rFl�;Wy@tr � 'A, y', r„ ;J r A(Y;�' I- l+jj i Sa i.' J �: � u ,�..•FF' q r P t '�,�, - � R.� a .i^t a. J �`,�•��u R ,v� N!� �,,� � � r � ! � •rti A4 ,r�C"A ��yy3�f i al Ip." 'v7 y�'° ,�n'K �'�c" �' e �°'irk. rr )�k 44 +� J�p• K y � yi i y. ,,�rf� 1��x �x� YID �� r�# ��j �� .1� }+�ry4,�,+ FR` ^w� ,/: fi!;,f'� , .. �: �� . I.'"". M .. n� .v!�.. �iAi �.i"C�'L'�-e��" '�K, '��.NM N'i.�Y}, il':V�;,` •.A'. 'r .... , `1;tiP.'f� 05/10/95 09:05 DEFT OF ECOLOGY — SWRO 014 I Zi:T�; � � .J �z.4,,1.:i. r y, ' .h Y•c"' .rt� Lk 4' �,�,�' r � h � .r, 5 � m 'k�3•• ao, r� ��.F{+.w��J++'. i`�, �� ,y .ur2,W��+''P. ,rn�•,eRl� R °t, - �'rti• �—.� "�( vy � C �, ^ �i° - �{ f �t t�••,�"�a '"* f:-v r K �:�rr�> E y ,p e '4a• �• � 4 C" i�fcn� �',, ,S, xf w ? 3,'�'S�,ti�H�A S' �M,f�q��(S< ar" r F. �LJ .:x {a,ter ,,. a Yid- a ✓f� 5 .F y. rS g7''�(�Jay{✓" t• , 1`� 'i 1`x„q�-S�' 'JI..'••:+7.1 R�`8l�f�ti ti ..a4�f \ FF AIA �� 5y� �s �'`� Y Sr�.', •� tic ,,a; «ram .�. r'� ,� S'*'1��y.?�,.. &� �`y: ��1 T ^t, ''.r> • k�1 e•irs��' .It"''y, '� � �'�;;4 L�� l� ,'�#`Jy'�.1�.y;;r�"' t!i �� µ'ty'�r.�T. �� ,��b� � s K.*v��M+M`�'•• 1�:y,.+ l�Lk ,�k � ..•: '� , :`,h*', '� ,y,Sy� �h��' ', �/}.^�wx ti•�2ti '�,y' s,f' c�+M1��,k 4 ' !� s { '�r .ay a '' p �• �c y y4 {e,,i�gg., 4n h .r j •, �'bS1 ,+ tl .-,� }' ,"d°'� �, J� L K -j'�ir °f�fw�flr f7 w''k r' i�l;1i i',t ¢.+.' �'4 1 r^r� ? y� r e6�w'�„y .('� � "�C�♦ '2C �' �' "�x l.��r.( i5 •rl �� "tK6'B. d yd' �'� Y �. 1} , �` '°.i0 "'r ''tiiT ] 1 �0a�°r* `�R X i. ,#.� � ,•. � a t�'•.`� � ,,.i S i {� �",{?iti`4�.�Y,^' `. `',,"'�i+ai4. -:,�.. � +k y' *„!'y r4*t t�w..�� _. �°L; F '�.A .. Y�'. s�d ° a'a' ?s51�`� � � v.fii'� � ^W�- �; �F � ��rn�,w.w+4�` 5.,.#-, R 4�yam. •.�.-'�� , 1��*rM ��• ,�Y�f)L)r+.:.'�Q f"Y; .N R�..t.�l;. J'"' x' '�1.: "hk"k. ixt � 'f'.' r, j =�t �.f4ir5 fi�t� 1:d�b t,i �4 �t'�;`F' yyy,• -� P ,,��q` �, .+�. •j'!' ;•<<. :��E,�a r � '.� ��y... �' � ��W� r. r �� .P"2�: �r .�• .. � ..). �.0 ti;I111 a5i r'�h.r_�i a �y�rti�. � '�l .fr r .,- .�.��t�•.,r rf�.L }� � �',�?If� �.. '), "k�!rcG .a1 �� '• ,'k r.y�7�t•.R.• L �'+ ;o. +: ,,i s lI• „4 k' ,.i-e^:+:. SG: '^. '�Y 7 •t�e ;; '.•y�:'t,.lr�T�.:, . r�t�� f 14 y,CS'�• a .J. Y L,�Jrfh �. 1 t'7�? K, '� ',a'i.'+``�4� - '`'^,.1^-- •'Y�y+�� _�r;_aP:y.:it:, :-a^1w_; -- `st�` 4. '.l � �-q r, t „�,L'•�": a':4�._ r,♦ :� '+T: -+ r.�ti'.w� u�''"�.r a,u. � .r?p' `4 .�'1[ J 4�';�4+ih • �� S�S .' '�w`.'?» �xk'':.'_ `�„ .tis:•". Rio . '•,t�^; =.`-�,�. Mf F 'a J • a• -e ' �i e� S •f e ■ ■ ■ '■ i ' .axes;• x',n. a a � PP w � I li ., � � `, • .. I -✓ r • t . � ��♦ � 1/1 �� 5i �� .�""� �� • �V'` I Ilf � � � , • �� —•,.-� .. •� ; F� :�� r� t� P� �` .,, �: . :� �. ' '.,;� .. iil ; � r ` 1 I X• { ' Y' •�-- . • _ �� , ' � �' .l � �' � . `;4 :� ♦� ;� 1 �.� .� n' ! � I 1 it • .- ' .-^ �:�� ^^-�;� �� . :-�� ' � ��^ . . � I � . • , � _ _C.' � jai �_ i i .f''i�r:.'•S t. raw.�:�':. .��a'..��.�.��.� _ .,�.^ 05i10i95 09:15 DEPT OF ECOLOGY — SWRO 017 z KEY TO MA I'I 500•Year Flood Boundary. I00•Year Flood Boundary— — FLOODWAY FRINGE --••w FLOODWAY 100•Ycar Flood Boundary 500•Year Flood Boundary Approximate 100•Year _ Flood Boundary Cross Section Line A A Elevation Reference Mark RM7X River Mile •M1.5 NOTES TO US R Boundaries of the floodways were cam uted at cross sections and interpolated between cross section , The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements of the Federal Emergency Management A ency. This map Is intended for use in defini i; floodway and flood boundaries. tone and Base Flood Elevat on (BFE) data may not l be correct as shown. Refer to the separately printed Flood In. surance Rate Map for correct Zone and OF data. Refer to the Flood Insurance Rate Ma {{{for r description of EIe• vatlon Reference Marks. This map does not show all flood boundaries, Refer to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for additional flood boundaries, For adjoining map panels, see separately printed Index To Map Panels, •7T ee,, ^, v • �� :�.` '� „T•+ � wA'�'. �+ 4 :r '•,,k..e t� Via. A,; •>, � a� 'gat- ,,�,..".,"� .� ,"� }� �•f h 1 �¢t rPt � ,,, ,•� K� �f` ',�y k ,� 1 +dP +x1r t 'vk 1 �4 y , ":"'F r�9ft"�P (+11..�1r � � it �Qpx M !.�•� � •� � i �' u<:�f�. � tt fg:♦ L sY�.ifaT � i ;. �k Y �q 4" �[��IA t �` • nlzm .... +.y �";{15y, o�- w:�' k -•,• a A J �, ..-� P�" "�" �',t6 t:.d :t -•h ;•^ 1 Qy r, Wr 72vK.,.. 4 -:'Y +tA yY L Q °�i ° xl :• 4�, .'�- t P/'�µyyt r 1 .R v '.�•. .. `.t: ro.. MA fa•:� rs- •i0 M Jar /t R ' ; d _ s" ,.' .;`r ;fie 1� •� �' '� ,>.+yt •+,1°,'f k .��yy1 .r ....� ° 1 et,;v�' r 4 ;c P zi low y •-" a �a ',. x'Y '"1,'�'vi 4 - ^, �v, ,t'�'F �X'/a c�, ��-'''. W .'� •LR'. x.a Sri N� 8 S y a„ ti F � _ t?�:Nx`".' ��,�` .R r�1r��( .+ ' •�.7.tpW'�)_ " ' ��'°�n�•.," �.� �'=�� ,� r •. i 1 `k'Mr r '- -� 'fix+° I ! ,,;&y� � � ej ve••�iry.p n �r�. , r r'�" 4'y^' � ;, c 4 '•$ .N ,/ f '�>F N. � „ �+:•nC'Cr" A")�•.: !. '.YfP �yr �7' � ..F v ".K•, i k 5 4 P 1�Yy. ` >tr ''� F:ly .. ♦gyp � Rt" p F r Prt n. �`• ,., �, � y� Xy �1N. � '�. Ya'�•°�� .. � y.q,�r ,�,p4,�W.T'� y PhJ a4 !.� ow..l,fl:j. t�� L` tA➢ � R r !' a AA+',cs_..4�'af- "SR A'tw'r,�• H HlC�9'� � ` � ,.� d °- r r i A.!� .K y"'oa,(' kA ��Y�•,!' y_.�e i-� � r.,.,+.. , t� -'� y '.?... '" ..Q,. ,-.'� ,-i�.F `'t��P•n3S"'�, t�'E,-�t'f�� y�-a^$i ��. � '� ',�ry�� s •.�'. s. t ` �� " ` ifs jN Y P. _ Fr ( �,4F � 1.,(RA!•�t' ; .f� .. ) 1 {w�f X 6.4'�•/yy��'�'j'vf1': ..7� :1R' 'I�O.�� f A� "" a,. •'')7 P" � 3 _t �n M4 � .. r±•.•c.•w4 a>i.'• Y ,s>lK i .n`�, •: .. i y j'4 ,a�r,C dat, rtc,. y 1 , �` v,�� p'r, rn-:S�y, �� °��dj ,'�^ •. to loft Y 1� t� '4 ,bpi v y �" �- � v �,: �� A I w3�fY,I• 4 � 'a� N 1r 1 •t Y,''A 6 .*"`�r �•?' 't��{Y't:':��sl♦��" F�� '��o.' � j t,�:'ii} {'.� "j ��.to' fd' .�'Yt �`5�.��i$? r�r�y fir" a ;: :,f+Rt kS !' n, C• T.„'f.,i, ,y !l l4W/i�'•jl y,• 'r' .�yr- ) ,} 1 r ��,�' �•''P" °�iT 'a'.�y',n J '�4'�i: - wo �"•�«g ii* �},1�1r.S. .+ ` �jj. r ,. �j,G t-t,'�. �+."w:et 1 !�^T,�.j,r r '� .,t� va �: a b :p r «::ii fi, � 1!� J�;yM. .e✓ w ,� ��. 'Yf;�xT• -�'•.:EM� .,t« t�g ,.��.. i�»fir;'-, rtiu�'• �`'`. f c s,Tr caw ttrte r MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY COURTHOUSE BUILDING I 411 NORTH FIFTH(206)427-9670 EXT.419 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 May 1, 1995 Douglas J. Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, Wa. 98101 Re : Appeal letter submitted April 14, 1995 . Dear Mr. Neyhart : The Mason County Board of Commissioners has received your request for an appeal on the need for "after the fact permits" at Neyhart Farms, Tahuya, Washington. We have receipted the $75 . 00 check you submitted to US . At this time no formal action has been taken to require permits by the Department of Community Development. We find no basis for appeal . If the State Department of Ecology issues an order requiring after-the- fact permits the Department of Community Development will contact you with an explanation of the requirements. The Department of Community Development action would, at that time, then be appealable to the Board of County Commissioners . We can either hold your submitted appeal fee pending your future decision, or refund the fee if that would be more convenient . If you wish a refund please complete the enclosed form and return it to the Department of Community Development . If you have any questions feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Mason County Board of County Commissioners yo tV�4 61 William O. Hunter Mary Faughlender Mary o Xady Chairman Commissioner Commissioner 1st District 2nd District 3rd District M.L.FAUGHENDER WILLIAM O.HUNTER LAURA E.PORTER i caertv caiw tines. MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY COURTHOUSE BUILDING I 411 NORTH FIFTH (206)427-9670 EXT. 419 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 April 27 , 1995 Douglas J. Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, Wa. 98101 Re : Appeal letter submitted April 14 , 1995 . Dear Mr. Neyhart : The Mason County Board of Commissioners has received your request for an appeal on the need for "after the fact permits" at Neyhart Farms, Tahuya, Washington. We have receipted the $75 . 00 check you submitted to US . At this time no formal action has been taken to require permits by the Department of Community Development . We find no basis for appeal . If the State Department of Ecology issues an order requiring after-the- fact permits the Department of Community Development will contact you with an explanation of the requirements . Their action at that time would then be appealable to the Board of County Commissioners . We can either hold your submitted appeal fee pending your future decision, or refund the fee if that would be more convenient. If you wish a refund please complete the enclosed form and return it to the Department of Community Development . If you have any questions feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Mason County Board of County Commissioners 1-1711� William O. Hunter Mhry Fauc Wender Mary Jo Cady Chairman Commissioner Commissioner 1st District 2nd District 3rd District M.L.FAUGHENDER WILLIAM O.HUNTER LAURA E.PORTER STA A° DEPART MENT E v = TM NT OF COMMIJNITY.DEVELOPMENT 2 0T �oJ N Y �,oy Planning - Landfill- Utilities 1864 REQUEST FOR REFUND Date: Name: Address: City: Stater Zip Phone: do hearby request refund on receipt number dated issued for dollars (S ) for the reason: Signature: PLEASE ATTACH THE ORIGINAL RECEIPT TO THIS REQUEST. 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 l_ rations levy. that failed axeol;y ears ext 1 Ecolo orders Tah�uya ¢years. �� eview voter bond,: e com �y horse farmer"'top ' On May,lb'!Washington State, manure, mud and other debris tilne,'.we realize:the real battle ' Departmentof Ecology issued into the river, ' t has just begun,*, he says,urging Douglas Neyhart, owns;.;of1`,N�ey Regarding dil ►o,y cal list oters to f: heir.'- those re reeentatitereqted to ves, senators rs 14 hart Farms In Tqhuya, w1Ln an hart,he has a chrgj}1.q1. . P. 4 z{ 'A order to immediately.stop filling,` what lie has:dons I He:says that and commissioners in support of diking and rechanneling..the when flooding bias occurred on. Ecology's action:, •� Tahuya River and to comply with, several occasion§,he hqs.obtained NEYHART SAYS he's offered ' latitempt to the Mason County Shoreline' emergency hydraulic: permita. to talk things,, before, to no ea of the prof- Management Master Program,. from the Washington:State De-, avail."I've.offered on more than a Jim Anest,an enforcement offi partment of Fish and;Wildlife to dozen occasione to sit down with } }` P people who have a concern and ahon or per- cer with Ecology's shorelande pro- do he necessary.repair work. to do do the gram, said;the.department has Neyhart says he {uet with a talk about what the problems are adon:t see a been in contact with Neyhart for person at the as .County and try to resolve any problems think,fisher- several years. Neyhart boards Planning Department to ask what and they have refused to meet d�more of a and trains about 50.,trotting permits are needed.;"The plan with me." He's frustrated, he prooess and horses on. his, farm along the,. ning guys told me what permits 1. says."I liye..'on:Hood Canal also. need and when I called them back y ' merited ap- Tahuya River.• I'm concerned about the canal." 1 ing a portion Allegations of fact listed in the' and asked them to put that in he ; issued oing a portion order state that Neyhart:owns writing,they wouldn't do it,"he states thatrNeyhartbagreed 1n as the intent approximately 31 acres and says. 1987,1990•,and1bx.1993 to develop ' for an overall leases an additional 13 acres and that"most of the 31 acres of the "WE HAVEN'T changed the and implement'farm manage- project.";permits were property...is located within the channel of the"river," he says: went plans`with the Mason Con- would'allow tloodplain of the Tahuya River." "The river:channel is exactly the servation District. same as it4was'in`1981 when I owners to However,:the order says that >,E THE ORDER STATES that came there:It'strio different,'All the plans,•;"as,currently written presentation, in August 1990,May 1991 and iii we've done is protect our property and thus far,:implemented do not ere offered a August 1994, Ecology staff con- if We flooding and I have the right bring.Neyhart's development and thIs proposal. ducted site inspections,;as did to do that uses of his shoreline property into O grew up Mason County officials various A fine of$5,000 will be waived, compliance; with the Mason whose father times between 1987 and 1993. Anest says, if'Neyhart'imme- County Shoreline Management said the only These site inspections,says the diately stops filling;'diking and Master Program." ding problems order,showed that four activities rechanneling the.river within the remove the had occurred at or near the river. area covered`by,'the county's Through the Natural Resource e,have always The order from Ecology states: shoreline ordinance, unless it is Conservation Service,Ken Dreck- page 2.) •"A dike had been constructed authorized by Mason County and .sel works with_Neyhart as he on substantial portions of left Ecology. In addition; .he was implements'a farm management bank of the main channel of the ordered to'develop;a plan within plan developed specifically for.the Tahuya River; 30 days to restore"and'protect site.The target for completion of •"Filling had been done within damaged shoreline areas.The the plant says Dreckael,is fall of S 200 feet of the ordinary high plan must be approved byEcolo 1996. y water mark and within the flood- U. ANEST SAYS,THAT Neyhart plain and fioodway of the Tahuya The Tahuyq,River, a major has made some progress with the r River; river rn the loe chum Canal, farm management plan.But that si . supports native chum and coho "THE EFFECT OF• the salmon runs. " '` Iis a separate issue,he notes."We above described diking and filling "It often floodi.in this area and continue to support using best was to substantially alter it (lo the every time ps'manure and .management practices on the horse !farm; .but they don't channel the Tahuya.River as it sediment from this sitp can get ...horses.'.'farm,, k but and shon't runs through the property;`and into thwkVisr'-Thd Ad thing ie re- • "Construction, of a horse hat.it.could ha've.been prevented . line,problems`caused by diking training track and paddocks'had if Mr. Neyhart had:followed he slid fdling,°`he Bays' occurred,within 100 feet of the county's shoreline program,*said N sagrees. "They're eyhart;di ordinary high water mark and Mary Riveland;'director of.Ecol- not separate issues he says. within the.floodway and flood- ogy,in a prepared,statement."If "Maybe he riverbank isn't part of plain of the Tahuya River." Mr.Neyhart follows'the county s' the farm management plan but In addition,it says;on several shoreline requirements, we ifa covered under he emergency occasions;since Neyhart,pur- believe this area can support both clause in the shorelines manage- chased the property.;in 1981, a horse farm and a healthy river." meat plan:Don't I have he right a. "high water stages of the Tahuya to protect my property? River have flooded h Ecology location of A STATEMENT from "I spent:$10>000 building a ' he oval track,paddock areas and says the department has received manure storage building. I did access road...Mr. Neyhart.con- complaints from'a•neighbor who everything"•they asked me to do. believes he has.loat;shoreline due . All that's left to'do is to seed four structed.or authorized the.con- struction of a dike extending to Ne Yhart's diking.The Point No or five fields,"says Neyhart about several hundred feet along. the Point Treaty Council and the Sko- the implementation of the plan. left bank of the Tahuya River." komish`Tribe, have also com "We've been working very hard The order states that ha.dike plained tq,,F_ ,ogy about.the on the:.)-farm manageme�}t was not designed by_an engineer' adverse: impacts on flooding, plan...(and)'I feel like someone or other professional by and that it water qualityand fisheries:.. doesn't want me to finish it,"he "has caused interference wih.the A citizen's group.that has fol says.9rhis has been going on for normal•,river geo-hydraulic pro- lowed the situation is the Tahuya along time.;There's a lot more to ce�se�of the Tahuya River" River Basin Organization. Vern it than what is (happening) on Rutter,president tof the organiza- the surface,.:They're accusing me THE ORDER SAYS that the tion, says;'"Our group formed of doing things that I don't think I filling;diking-andrechanneling of about 3Y2 yeara'ago.and,this was did,"he-says;noting that he is the river..�"was done.without one of our central organizing uncertain what steps he will take ° Douglas Neyhart having,either (factors)• at this point . applied for-or secured'a 4awful' "We are pleased!that these )fwl iN- shoreline"permit exemption or= longstanding violations are final THERE IS AN appeal process otheirauthorizati n 1romMason ly being'enforced'and that Mr.' that NNeyhart can go through, County�''X�b,o �s�tsa�j> Neyhart'willlbe'made'to-follow` saysfAnoe "It v' just time to "The diking Land c'other activi the law-'just like'everyone'else.4`issue the.order,"he says.'He had 3 too get in touch with he ties"'"done;-bflMr c'N'eyhart°have This I`enforcement-'represents a =prom,. nano ed the ever-channel,and )',victory ifort,all iofY us'who work' cc .KinfJanuary and get the incr ec��floocpng'in th n?me i,hard and play'bythe rules: properpermits and he failed to do dints a"rea,"'aaye-Anes1 noting -"Whilehe Tahuya River Basin that!This has been going on for a, that the riyer has i)rQkIen through Organization has been working to long time'and it's time to get this •thi gsever%ljtjnio%carrying correct the*. rpr blems for a long resolved r , ) eli+ i3�r A xi fA LSt6� rll� e ,, Iri one"morning• ' , :tf, x1 ��- �, oncls to 3 fires , Be ause of a mµtual aid con engulfed in fiames,"Greene says. he notes.,!'Although firefighters ' tracwith'Kftsag County, fire Although:.the garage,was.lost, were a%IN to put the fire out .L wR.... _ r.,,. +v lNr,. 't},Av were able,to limitthe:'dam-;. quickly,llje says the.truck was i v 'DATE: APRIL 14 , 1995 m 7 c: Community Dev. TO: MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: DOUGLAS J. NEYHART 315 SENECA STREET IVi/A6u i,UUly1 Y SEATTLE, WA. 98101 COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: LETTER TO DOUGLAS J . NEYHART FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY REQUESTING THAT DOUGLAS J . NEYHART GET A COMPLETE APPLICATION FROM MASON COUNTY FOR AFTER THE FACT PERMITS AT NEYHART FARMS IN TAHUYA, WASHINGTON. DEAR COMMISSIONERS , THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE COUNTIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING A SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANI VARIANCE ALL FOR AFTER THE FACT WORK. ON MARCH 6 , 1995 , I RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY THAT I GET FROM MASON COUNTY AFTER THE FACT PERMITS FOR THE FOLLOWING. 1 . FLOOD PROTECTION AND SHORELINE STABILIZATION 2 . ANIMAL CONFINEMENT BUFFER 3 . FILL i ON MARCH 29 , 1995 I HAD A MEETING WITH GARY YANDO AND DON BRUSH OF MASON COUNTY TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF THE D.O.E . LETTER. I LEFT THE MEETING VERY CONFUSED ABOUT ALL THESE DIFFERENT RULES AND REQUIREMENTS. ON APRIL 13 , 1995 , AT 1 : 30pm I ASKED GARY YANDO TO PUT IN WRITING EXACTLY WHAT PERMITS FOR WHAT ACTIVITIES HE WOULD NEED, BECAUSE I WAS CONFUSED. HE TOLD ME THAT I KNEW WHAT PERMITS I NEEDED' AND HE WOULD NOT PUT IT INTO WRITING PERIOD. I FEEL THAT THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES SPELLED OUT IN THE D.O.E. LETTER ARI EXEMPT FOR THE SMA. 90. 58 , MCSMP AND THE WAC173-14-040 AS FOLLOWS ; 1 . FLOOD PROTECTION AND SHORELINE STABILIZATION WAC173-14-040 (b) , (d) AND (k) EXEMPT THESE ACTIVITIES (b) IS NORMAL MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR OF EXISTING STRUCTURES (d) EMERGENCY CONSTRUCTION NECESSARY TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM DAMAGE BY THE ELEMENTS (k) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY SYSTEM OF DIKES , DITCHES DRAINS OR OTHER FACILITIES EXISTING AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1975 AMENDATORY ACT ' THE MASON COUNTY SHORLINE MASTER PROGRAM CHAPTER 7 . 13 . 010 PARAGRAPH 2 , 4 , AND 11 EXEMPT THESE ACTIVITES . 2 . ANIMAL CONFINEMENT BUFFER WAC173-14-040 (e) , (k) EXEMPT THESE ACTIVITITES (e) CONSTRUCTION AND PRACTICES NORMAL OR NECESSARY FOR FARMING IRRIGATION AND RANCHING ACTIVITES (k) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY SYSTEM OF DIKES DRAINS OR OTHER FACILITIES EXISTING ON THE EFFECTING DATE OF 1975 MASON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CHAPTERS 7 . 13 .010 PARAGRAPH AND 11 EXEMPTS THESE ACTIVITIES 5 . CONSTRUCTION AND PRACTICES NORMAL OR NECESSARY FOR FARMING, IRRIGATION AND RANCHING ACTIVITES 11 . OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY SYSTEM OF DIKES DRAINS OR OTHER FACILITIES EXISTING ON SEPTEMBER 9 , 1975 . CHAPTER 7 . 16 . 010 AGRICULTURE. MASON COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM CHAPTER 7 . 16. 010 ALSO EXEMPTS THESE ACTIVITIES . FARM MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED JANUARY, 1993 WHICH IS ABOUT 90% COMPLETE, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE D.O.E. 3 . FILL WAC 173-14-040 (a) , (e) AND EXEMPTS THESE ACTIVITIES (a) ANY DEVELOPEMENT OF WHICH THE TOTAL COST OR FAIR MARKET VALUE DOES NOT EXCEED TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS . (e) CONSTRUCTION AND PRACTICES NORMAL OR NECESSARY FOR FARMING, IRRIGATION AND RANCHING ACTIVITES . INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL SERVICE ROADS AND UTILLITES ON WETLANDS . MCSMP CHAPTER 7 . 13 . 010 PARAGRAPH 1 , ANY DEVELOPEMENT OF WHICH TOTA) COST OR FAIR MARKET VALUE DOES NOT EXCEED $2500. 00. PARAGRAPH 5 CONSTRUCTION AND PRACTICES NORMAL OR NECESSARY FOR FARMING, IRRIGATION AND RANCHING ACTIVITES , INCLUDING AGRICULTURE SERVICE ROADS AND UTILITES ON WETLANDS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BARN OR SIMILAR AGRICULTURE STRUCTURES . ALSO MCSMP CHAPTER 7 . 16 . 010 EXEMPTS THESE ACTIVITIES MASON CONSERVATION DISTICTS FARM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NEYHART FARMS THIS FARM MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED BY THE D.O.E. SEE LETTER DATED MARCH 3 , 1993 AND SIGNED BY BILL YOUNG - SENIOR WATER QUALITY INSPECTOR. I FEEL THAT THE ABOVE THREE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE SPELLED OUT. IN THE D.O.E. LETTER ARE ALL EXEMPT ACTIVITIES . I REQUEST A HEARING BY THE MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO RESOLVE THESE IMPORTANT, ISSUES,,__;';,;) M a SINCERELY YOURS , )OUGL J. NE HA 'GYH T FARMS 'C: RICH HOSS PEGGY JOHNSON STEVE GRAIG / D.O.E. CHUCK GALE / D.O.E. PAT LEE / D.O.E . 'HECK FOR $75 . 00 FOR APPEAL ,TTACHMENTS: LETTER FROM STEVE GRAIG / D.O.E. DATED MARCH 6 , 1995 LETTER FROM BILL YOUNG / D.O.E. DATED MARCH 31 , 1993 1V __-----------� �,R-�.C.,. /c.�n,....r„-.,.� /� �s�-9�a-�.,�,�.-,�(U;,v�..�./�,�t,�,err►-.1�-�-�1r�-r�. � �y - CAL /�.� �t'r;�.-ems �, a � � STATg O� o x 1889 t�0 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (206)407-6300 March 7, 1995 Mr. Gary Yando Mason County Department of Community Development P. O. Box 186 Shelton WA 98584 RE: Shoreline Exemption Issued to Doug Neyhart Dear Mr. Yando: On February 16, 1995, Mason County issued an exemption to Mr. Neyhart for specific repairs to the dike he has constructed on the Tahuya River. The exemption was based on subsection (b) of WAC 173-14-040 which covers normal maintenance and repair. It would have been more consistent with the intent and purposes of the Shoreline Management Act to base it on WAC 173-14-040(d) which covers emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements which requires immediate action within a time too short to allow full compliance with the act. The exemption authorizes construction for two years with the option of a five year extension. This language is confusing and misleading. The exemption was for a specific, one-time repair of damage caused by a single flood event. The length of time granted for completing this activity is not consistent with the nature of the activity being authorized, and may be misconstrued as authorization to do additional repair work. We recommend this exemption be withdrawn and a new one issued that more accurately reflects the nature and extent of the activity being exempted and the two-year and five- year timelines be omitted. If you have any questions, please call me at 360 407-6784. l rely, Craigrvisor r and Shoreland Resources Program SC:cl i�i P 02 .�. Y�, jJ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 96504-7775 • (206)407-6300 March 6, 1995 Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101-2999 Dear Mr. Neyhart: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on January 11, 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 Shoreline Stabilization 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. =,sSuch 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 11th meeting, we discussed the training track in particular. The SMA states F ©3 j Douglas Neyhart March 6, 1995 Page 2 that: " , . ,alteration of the contour of the wetlands' by leveling or filling °other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered "ormal or necessary farming or ranching practices, (Chapte'r �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. jerelya Craigrvisorr and Shoreland Resources Program SC:cl Enclosure CC: Gary Yando, Mason County Chuck Gale, Ecology, SWRo Jim Anest, Ecology, HQ t"Wetlands, 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 . . . " 5TAre G F. CEIVE a � y � n �v FE9 2 2 1995 9� ieey STATE OF WASHINGTON 4DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (206)407 6 CO February 17, 1995 Mr. Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101-2999 `l Dea J..eyhart-: This will confirm the draft letter I sent you by facsimile (FAX) on February 15, 1995. I requested that you provide comments within 10 working days after receiving it. In particular, I wanted to know whether the 30-day time limit mentioned in the third-to-the- last paragraph was adequate. The note accompanying the FAX also mentioned that unless we heard from you within 10 working days, we would assume that the letter is clear and that our requests are reasonable. In that case, we will mail the letter to you with no other changes. Sincerely, Bill Young Shorelands Compliance Specialist Water and Shoreland Resource Program BY:cl cc: Gary Yando, Mason County Kam„ i� J � 1 Douglas Neyhart 31.5 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101-2999 Dear Mr. Neyhart: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on January 11., 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 horac- rearing and training operation on the Tahuya River. At the meeting, we stressed that the 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 w:iLh enviranmenLal regulaLions through this process, YOU will be subject to far less criticism than you are presently. Therefore, we request that you acquaint mason County officials with all aspects of your project and apply for whatever new or after-the-fact permits are required to come into compliance w'the SMA and the MCMP. p with in particular, there are three issues we be " substantial development ermits lice need ts, or P conditional exemptions to be brought into legal Compliance. As we discussedat some length at the above-referenced muting, any exemption granted by the County would be only for the Substantial Development Permit process but still needs to be consistent with Policies and procedures of the SMA and the MCSMP. We believe the County should rule on each issue as to whether it needs a Permit or is exempted from One. P pike construction and repair (stream bank stabil A+ inn l _ By your own admission p P � , You have laced sandbags, ri ra r,� 14 rock along several hundred feet of the main brranchpofptheQTahuya.d � River that flaws through >�� g Your property. This work was done to PC MP �w prevent high river flows from inundating your property. d�.� � d,,,,X a 60 p sops Accordingly, it needs an after-the-fact Substantial Devela meat � 'ol� s"tjd-td"�i �"'�4^•'�"� Permit and apparently a Conditional Use Permit to be in 4VA" compliance with the MCSMP. zn addition, we view future dike ©� " t^ _repairs as foreseeable evente, which removes them £raid the category of "emergencies,, and therefore any future repairs require a Substantial Development- Permit � . r_e az - _ p from the taunt rs are Thes P re ulated Y e 9 under Section 7. 16 . 15q of the MCSMP. Animal con(inem�n .$uf fer ��` s Your practice of allowing horses access to pastures within 100 feet of a water body without a vegetated buffer is inconsistent. �' �:"�a►`�`" ' with the MGMP (see 7. 16. 010) . This practice must be reviewed b � � Y `6) �ay �.�.�( UU-) I Mason County officials to determine how your animal confinement activities can come into compliance.p ce. Fill It is our position that some of the recontourig activities you have undertaken on your property constitutes "filling" as defined in the Shoreline Management Act. At the January 11th meeting, we discussed the training track in particular. The Shoreline Mal-lagemejIL Act- states that : " . . .alteration of the Contour of the wetlands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or .a" a r: ranchingk�P necessary farming or practices" (Chapter" , �( � � d 90. 58. 030 (3) (e) (iv)RCW. Therefore, we believe that an after-the- t fact Substantial Development Permit is required for those fillings you have already done and a new one for such activities in the future. 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 request that you submit a complete application to Mason County, including any required fees, within 20 days after receiving this letter and notify us in writing that you' have done go. Failure to der so44 tie yruf will result in our issuing the Order. You may, of course, appeal •�e„ � gNg the Order to the Shorelines Hearing Board. Since we believe it is important that you understand the speciEic nature of our allegations, T have enclosed the most recent draft of the Order, which is nearly identical to the one you taw 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 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. Si nce.rt�l y Steve Craig cc: Gary 'Yando, Mason County I"Wetlands, in this content 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. . . „ TPV-9LQ AL Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101-2999 Dear Mr. Neyhart: Thank you for taking the time to meet with us on January 11, 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. We promised you a letter specifying those activities for which we believe you must obtain after-the-fact permits . At the meeting, we stressed that the 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 is found to be in compliance with environmental regulations through this process, you will be subject to far less criticism than you are presently. Therefore, we request that you meet with Mason County officials as soon as s 'ble and assist themn e ding what steps you need to take to et your activities on the huya River in compliance with he SMA and the MCMP. This eans you must take steps to acquaint them ith all aspects of y ur project ,apply for whatever new or after-the-fact permits a r 'ired by the SMA. In particular, there are three issues we believe need either -1 germitsQ�`6 "exemptai�s to be brought into legal compliance. As we discu2sed at some length at the above- referenced meeting, any exemption granted by the County would be only -the Substantial Development Permit process but still needs to be consistent with policies and procedures of the SMA and the MCSMP. ,County—shoo-ld rule on each issue as--to -whether it needs a permit or is exempted from one. eam bank stabilization 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. Accordingly, it needs an after-the-fact shoreline permit to be in compliance with the MCSMP. In dike repairs as foreseeable events, which removes them from the category of "emergencies" and therefore any future repairs requixe a-permit from--t-he--£ounty. _ y 11 �,� �e regulated under Section 7. 16 . 150 of the MCSMP. ` Animal confinement buffer �cr 1 ., Your practice of orse�s aaee�s- to- ures within 100 feet of a water body $ "`~a ve4etated buffer is inconsistent with the MCMP (see 7 . 16 . 010) . This practice must be reviewed by Mason County officials to determine how your animal confinement activities can come into compliance. Fill It is our position that some of the recontourig activities you have undertaken on your property constitutes "filling" as defined in the Shoreline Management Act . You recall that we discussed the training track in particular at the January llth meeting. The Shoreline Management Ac� states that : " . . .alteration of the contour of the wetlands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or necessary farming or ranching practices" (Chapter 90 . 58 . 030 (3) (e) (iv)RCW. Therefore, we believe you requi-re- a shoreline permf -Uor-sueh--activities. We agree to forego issuing our Order provided you make the necessary arrangements to get your property on the Tahu R}'ver into compliance with the SMA and the MCSMP. We � L��you )'M- submit a complete application to Mason County, including any required fees, within 30 days after receiving this letter and 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 the 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 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. Sincerely Steve Craig CC: Gary Yando, Mason County 1"Wetlands, 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 . . . " 02f10/95 11:07 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 002 Douglas Nelrhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101-2999 Dear Mr. Neyhart: Thank you for taking the time to meet with ua on January 11, 1995 . As you recall the purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways Ludt you can come into compliance with the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Mason County Shoreline Master Program (MCSMP) concerning certain activities oa your horse- rearing and training operation on the Tahuya River. At the meeting we emphasized the importance of how the shoreline TAD PPo�etC�,�s 1 Yy permit process allows the public and agency personnel to conunent on your- project in a comprehensive and timely manners komething that has not been possible so far. To the exLeat that your 4 project comes into compliance with environmental regulations 1 rough this process, you will be subject to tar less criticism that: you are presently. There are three issues we believe need Shorelines Permits before they c:umply with the SMA and MCSMP: I . Flood P_rQLection_ dad_5hcrellne _StaLili4"JQu By your owii admission, you have placed sandbags, riprav 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. work requires an after- the- fact Substantial Development Permit i 02'10,,95 11:08 DEPT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO GO37 and apparently a Conditional Use Permit to be in compliance with the MCSMP. Flood pi-otection and shoreline stabilization is regulated under Section 7 . 16 . 150 of the MCSMP. 2 Nnimal con f iilemeU buff er Your practice of confining Horses within 100 feet of a water body is inconsistent with Lhe MCMP (see 7. 16 . 010) . 'Phis is particularly important given the large number of horses you have on your property, wtiicYi is within the floodplain of the Tahuya River. This practice must be reviewed by Mason County otticials to determine how your alliinal confinement activities can come into Compliance with the MCSMP. 3_. Fill it is our position that some of the recolltourig activities you have undertaken on your, property collstitUtes "filling" as defined in the .Shoreline Management Act. At the Januarymeeting, 11th we discussed the Li:'aining track in particular. The Shoreline Management Act slates that : " . . .alteration of the contour of the wetlands by leveling or filling other than that which results from normal cultivation, shall not be considered normal or Necessary farming or ranching practices" (Chapter 90 . 58 . 030 (3 ) (e) It iv) RC W. i"Wetlands, in this 4Ozltext is defined as " . . floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward two hundred feet from such floodways; and all marshes,bogs, swamps, and raver deltas associated wiLh streams. . . " 02/10i95 11:08 DEFT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO 004 we agree to forego issuing our Order provided you make the neceesary 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 Lo Cie Shorelines Hearing Hoard. Since we believe it is important that you understand the specific nature of our allegations, I have enclosed the unst 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 appiy 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 r- at 407- 6784 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely Steve Craig CC; Gary Yando, Mason County �� G j; ate , Z4 , -? p ^-� tz� 1 11 SHOREL ANDS FAX ROUTER a LOCATION• �`}'t .�s v.r. [:c�/n�`7 r��v9•�r', 'c :___.._.._.y r. FAX NUMBER: 22- Z-7. c/,? Is this a SCAN? DATE: 1 " •,� ,:; I4lLesT T . :AGE �C' � ,2 7 , FROM. Phone nu nber. ._ AT: Shorelands and Coastal zone Managemeni Washington State Department of Ecology E FAX: (206) 407-6535 / SCAN 407-6535 HELP: (206) 407-7250 i SCAN 407-7250 W A I I I I I I I I ITATE IE � IITME / T If E C 0 L 0 G Y 4. MESSAGE: �'i •;i�vCt_;� .ram] �'. C-L - NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING TRANSMITTAL PAGE: p:fAXA0VTGmV10•28.83 /11_19_93 CIO- 165 Mason County and Washington Stato Department of Ecology IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLIANCE ) BY DOUGLAS NEYHART WITH CHAPTER ) DOCKET NO. 93-SH-2 :.- 90.58 RCW AND THE RULES AND ORDER AND NOTICE REGULATIONS ADOPTED THEREUNDER ) OF PENALTY INCURRED INCLUDING THE MASON COUNTY i SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT Mr. Douglas NeyhArr 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you have incurred, and there is now due a,-. , payable Prow you, a penalty it, t.hes &wousit of ten (??) thowand •i— ( ,i0,000) for undertaking an acritrity on the shorelines of the vitlAtion of Chaprer 90. 58 RCW and ti,c� Mason County Shnreline Program. OPTIOi A-L; It oll- , - terms order u T sa4_isfied in_a r me.ly m nner by_Doug1B_s Iv iLdH. will .bev�Sitz,. .11 �Ti i s '. ° 'r t s based upon the allegations of fact and ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 1. That Douglas Neyharc ow11s of con;:xo'_s - Lain real propert'; c... of approximately seventy i7 acres, and located wi; - isi .i Township 2lN, Range 3W of W.M. within Mason County 2. That appi-ox'r thircy7?? acres of the above describedi r. f ,ocated witi floodplain of the. Tahuya River. IMPORTANT Tu r, _iSI:E HOtd .-IUGH WITHIN THE F'LOODWAY? 3. That on August 1990 and May 1991, enforcement. Program of the Department of Ecolu,gy conducted si above described property (herein after r.fei-red i 4. That on ntuaerous occaaior::> ut—,4k-ea have inspected the property. 5. That the above described site inspect:.a:is disclt,, a) dike had been, constructed p;a +:: R:. .,. Aouglas Neyhar, June 9, 1994 b) Filling had done within C high water mark, and with.L:< i •. ! the TahuyA Riv,rr; c) The effect of the above descry substantially rechannel the Ta' the property; d) The construction of a hvrstA ry the floodplairt of the Tahuya Y. �/�I�•"`5 Z 6. That Douglas Neyhart cstd the property .. 7. That at fi' ., t:sled Ole grope family c e AL4nclunaxtt Alene Ma r. 23, 1931) 8. That at thr as a hobby fai'w by cha N16Lk..mbet- fami3• ,�7 +};n. traininr t? n-t n tPzr ,,.-,...,et'-v had been - r horses. 10. That at the tlmu NeyhAft purclshsed the prv(,n berm, or other man-made rives bvii(c �:eixlfox,.�.r,, :• t properry. 11. That since his purchase in 1981, fir. N'-.. the property primarily 1'si .or'sa I ,,. rraining. 12. . That Mr. Nev'tiart has constructed an oval sham ', the property, with fenced paddocks for horse utaitwkeiit track circumference. (see Attachment '•B" coI 13. That the track, paddocks, and diked area oct- floodplain of the Tahuya River at this iocat That on numerous occasions since Mr. Neyi.:- hi e.h water stages of the ;ahtiva River h F 1981 , Mr. Nevhart cores: ,Sv o.'13/94 13: 13 SHORELANDS 004 i Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart j June 9, 1994 DRAFT 16. That the above referenced dike is constructed within the floodway, as designated on Federal Flood Insurance Rate maps for Mason County, [NEED TO CONFIRM AS MAY BE ONLY MAPPED AS FLOODPLAIN ???] 17. That the above described dike were not designed by On enEii-; . ,ether professional. 18. That the above described dike has caused inLerferenpe with the livralal river geo-hydraulic processes of the Tahuya River. 19. That the activities of Mr. Neyhart va the property over the },..rt :.e• years meet the definition of "commercial feedlot' under Chapter 7 — the MCSMp. 20. That on several occasions since 1987, Mason County has informed Mr. Nevhart in writing that he needs to secure shoreline management permits for curtain of his activities on the property. - That in July of 1990, Mason County issued a stop work to :,tviiart Farms for violations of tie county shoreli!:. master program. �0 22 . That Mr. Neyhart has refused to comply wi. ' the Mason coiuik . �y<<ests I for information stating that lie believed the activities in question were exempt from shoreline management- requirements as agricultural activities. 23. That in June of 1993, Mr. Neyliart agreed to develvp and implement 24 management plan with the Mason County Soil ConservaLiot:a District. 24, That the Nevhart Farm Management flan, as currently drafted does not <0 7 � bring Neyharc's development and uses of his shoreline property into � � qF0 P" compliance with the MCSMP, 25. That the above described fi ing, diking, and rechannelling of the rive3. was done without Douglas Neyhart having, either applied for or secured a shoreline permit, exemption, or other authorization from Mason County. Al-LECATIONS OF LAW 1. That shoreline jurisdiction under the ounty Shoreline Management Plan (M(:SMV) extends te- the floo lahuya River plus 200 feat landward ill all dims , Ch. 2 The above described real property i. rale.vnnt- part in shot`r :ine jurisdiction, 90 -8 .030. �r, 06- '13%94 13: 13 SH PELRIDS 005 Slhoreline Order 93-SLI-217 Douglas Neyhart "" June 9, 1994 D A �� 3. That the above described filling, diking, and rechannelling of the Tahuya Ritter Within shoreline jurisdiction constitutes "substantial development" under RGW 90.58.030. 4 . RCW 90. 58.140 states that a development shall not: be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consiat.ent with the policy of this. chapter and after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master proe ram governing that shoreline. 5. RGW 90,58.030 states that "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first_ vbLaining a permit from the government entity having administrative Ju# isdictton under this chapter. " 6. RCW 90.58.210 (2) provides that once substantial development is permitted within shoreline jurisdieLion, it must then be done in a manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of said permit. 7. RCW 90. 58.020 requires that permitted used ire the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage Lo the ecology and envirotvnent of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. 8. WAG 1.73-17-040 provides that local goverrmient and/or the Department of Ecology shall have the authority to serve an order upon a person if an activity being undertaken on shorelines of the state is in violation of chapter 90. 58 RCW or the applicable local iisaster program. 9. That the diking, filling, and rectianrtelling of the THhuya River and its associated wetlands do not constitute "pract-ices normal or necessary for farming," under RCW 90.58,030 (3) (e) (iv) . 10. That even if a development is determined to be exempt, such development must still comply with the policies and regulations of the MGSMP and the Shoreline Management Act, WAG 173-14-040 (3) . 11. That the Mason County Shoreline Managumerit Master Program was officially , adopted on August 12, 1975. i That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at establislAes the policies and regulations for flood pi, WI rye stabilization. Such provision of the M' te4 Policy # 2. Shoreline stabilizat a fly works should be located, designed, constructed auv .ritai co provide: —protection of water quality. . .and protection of valuable fish and other life forms, and their habitat vital to the aytt food chain. 4 • r `.F 13, 94 13:14 =HORELHtdDS C10 oh->reline Order 93-511-217 Douglas Neyhart .Tune 9, 1994 � Policy # 3. "Non-structural flood control solut.iurts, should be used whenever possible, including prohibiting, or limiting development in historically flood prone areas, . , structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should be allowed after it is demonstrated that non structural so7,itions would not be able to reduce the damage. " Policy # 4. "Substantial stream channel modification, realignment, and straightening should be discouraged as a means of shoreline stabilizeaLion and flood protection. " Use Regulation # 3. The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river goo-hydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses . " Use Regulation # 5. Diking may be permitted as a conditional use (emphasis added) provided that: diking is set back to the edge of the floodway. Use regulation # 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. 33. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16,130 establishes the policies and regulations pertaining to landfill, pract.ices. That section provides that: Use Regulation 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or on biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a conditional use foe: water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. Use Regulation 3. Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulics and flood plain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. Use Regulation 4 Landfills shall not. disrupt normal surface. water drainage. Use Regulation 8. Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality, 5 �r+4 r J ,-;94 17: 14 SHORELHH11'_; 00 Shoreline order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 9, 1994 14, That the Mason Gounty Shoreline Master Program, at `1,16,010 establishes the polices and -egulations for agriculture activities; Policy # 3. Animal keeping areas should, when posslUle, be located uutriide the shoreline management area. When located in shoreline management areau, they should be separated from water bodies by vegetated buffer strips. Use Regulation 5. Perennial wetlands shall not be used as animal confinement sites. Use Regulation 6. Requires that confinement area shall be located away from perennial and intermittently flowing streams. A fenced buffer of permanent vegetation at least one hundred feet in width shall be maintained betwoerr such areas and water bodies. Use Regulation 9. Commercial feedlots where permitted withitr the shoreline jurisdiction shall require is cvirditional us ,it and ? shall be setback a minimum of one hundred feet fro (sic} rdivary S/ C high water mark. ti . In view of the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of WAG 173-17-040 (the Washington Administration Code) . IT IS ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart and any other person acting as his employee or agent shall, upon receipt of this Order, immediately cease and desist LLvIn all further filling, diking, and rechannelling of the Tahuya River within I shoreline jurisdiction within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Tahuya River, or within associated wetlands on the above referenced parcel, unless and only to the extent such work is specifically authorized by a currently valid shoreline permit issued by Mason County or authorized by an enforcement order from both the Department of Ecology and Marion CvuitLy for the purpose of restoring the site. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart shall within twenty (20) days your receipt of this Order, respond specifically whether you admit or deny or lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny each of the nutnbered Allegations of Fact or Allegauions of Law ,:-)stained in this Order. IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart submit a plan within thirty (30) days of his receipt of this Order to the Shoraland Program of the Dt-partment of geology (P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690) in which he describes In detail his plans to restore to the maximum extent feasible, the shoreline of the Tahuya River and its: associated wetlands. Such plan shall at a minimum include: 1) That Mr. Neyhart apply for an after the- fact shoreline permit for all development already accomplished which should have, been Jorre subject to a shoreline permit; and 6 I �4 1^: 15 ISHORELAHES 008 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 _ Douglas Neyhart d - '� June 9, 1994 I T 2) That all work necessary to bring past development into compliance with the MCSMP, and all future activities within shoreline jurisdiction on the above property shall be done in compliance with the MCSMP. Failu�•g tom► with-the terms of this_order stall result in further actloj, by the Department of Ecology including, bgt nuL liwited 19,�the issuance of further civil penalties of uQ to one_ thuvoand dollars permed and criminal prosecution b suant to 90.58+210 Rq ,+ The penalty herein described is due and payable by you withig, thirty (30) days of your receipt of this Notice of Penalty. Please remit- the penalty fee payable to Department of Ecology, Cashiering Section, P.O. Box 5128, Lacey, WA 98503 . If, however, for any reason you believe that the violation heroin described did not occur or you have an explanation as to why it occurred, or awry other tact which you believe the Department should consider with regard Co Ibis penalty and you desire to submit an "Application of Relief from Penalty," get forth these facts and return it to this Department. within thirty (30) dayu. Your statement must be signed under oath before a uotary public or any other person authorized to take oaths. Upon receipt of an "Application for Relief from Penalty" the Department will consider the same and will either reduce the penalty, cancel the penalty, o,.: allow it to remain as originally staled. You will be duly notified of our decision. Ecology's decision regarding your "Application for Relief" is { appealable to the Shorelines Hearings board pursuant to RCW 90,58.210 and WAC 173-17-060. Signed in Olympia, Washington this day of Juno, 1994. Thomas Mark, AICP Shorelanes and Coastal Zone Management, Program Signed in Shelton, Washington this day of June, 1994. Gary Yando, Director Mallon Lou-1-,. of a Y� l ♦��STArt o� y _ : 7� o J~ STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Sot 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 • (206)407-6000 • TDD Only(Hearing Impaired)(206)407-W6 November 14, 1994 " DRAFT Mr. Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Shoreline Violation, Order No. 94-SH-217 Dear Douglas Neyhart: Enclosed is an original Shoreline Management Enforcement Order No. 94-SH-217 . Although we have discussed this matter at considerable length over recent months, we have been unable to make significant progress in resolving our differences over whether certain of your activities on your Tahuya River property have in the past or do now comply with Chapter 90.58 RCW, The Shoreline Management Act, and the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. It appears that these differences may need to be finally resolved by a decision of the Shorelines Hearings Board. A form entitled "Acknowledgement of Service" is also enclosed, Please sign this form and return it to this office. This order is being issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology under provisions of RCW 90. 58.210, WAC 173-17 and the applicable shoreline master program. All correspondence and questions relating to these documents should be directed to the undersigned, at the Department of Ecology. Sincerely, James D. Anest Enforcement Coordinator Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program (206) 407-6529 JA:ja Enclosure cc: Gary Yando, Mason County DCD Rebecca Todd, Ecology AAG Pat Lee, SWRO Marian Bruner, Central Programs ` DRA FT -,j WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE BY DOUGLAS ) NEYHART WITH THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE ACT AND THE MASON COUNTY SHORELINE ) ENFORCEMENT DOCKET NO. 94-SH-217 MASTER PROGRAM ) TO: Department of Ecology State of Washington P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Attention: Jim Anest Enforcement Coordinator Shorelands Program Receipt is acknowledged of Shorelands Enforcement Order No. 94-SH-217. Dated this day of 1994. (Signature) (Title) Company/agency (if applicable) r oRAFTI ' Washington State .� Department of Ecology i IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLIANCE ) BY DOUGLAS NEYHART WITH CHAPTER ) DOCKET NO. 94-SH-217 90.58 RCW AND THE RULES AND ) ORDER AND NOTICE REGULATIONS ADOPTED THEREUNDER ) OF PENALTY INCURRED INCLUDING THE MASON COUNTY ) SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ) Mr. Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you have incurred, and there is now due and payable from you, a penalty in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) for undertaking an activity on the shorelines of the state in violation of Chapter 90.58 RCW and the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. If all of the following requirements, terms and conditions of this order are fully satisfied in a timely manner by Douglas Neyhart, the penalty will be waived in full. This Order and Penalty is based upon the following allegations of fact and law: ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 1. That Douglas Neyhart owns certain real property, consisting of approximately thirty-one (31) acres located within Section 13, Township 22N, Range 3W of W.M. within Mason County. 2. That Douglas Neyhart also currently leases or otherwise controls approximately an additional thirteen (13) acres of real property within Section 13, Township 22N, Range 3W of W.M. within Mason County. 3. That the most of the thirty-one acres of the property referred to in Allegation of Fact No. 1 above, is located within the floodplain of the Tahuya River. 4. That most of the thirty-one acres of the property referred to in Allegation of Fact No. 3 above, is also within the floodway of the Tahuya River. 5. That in August 1990, May 1991,and August 1994, staff from the Shorelands Program of the Department of Ecology conducted site inspections of the above described property (hereinafter referred to as "the property") . • �S Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 r Douglas Neyhart DRAFT November 14, 1994 6. That on numerous occasions between 1987 and 1993, Mason County officials have inspected the property. 7. That the above described site inspections disclosed that: a) A dike had been constructed on substantial portions of left bank of the main channel of the Tahuya River; b) Filling had been done within two hundred feet of the ordinary high water mark, and within the floodplain and floodway of the Tahuya River; c) The effect of the above described diking and filling was to substantially alter the channel the Tahuya River as it runs through the property; d) Construction of a horse training track and paddocks had occurred within one hundred feet of the ordinary high water mark, and within the floodway and floodplain of the Tahuya River. 8. That Douglas Neyhart purchased the property in 1981. 9. That Douglas Neyhart purchased the property from the Macombers family. (See Attachment "A" , an affidavit by the Alene Macomber, dated September 23, 1992) . 10. That at the time Neyhart purchased the property, it was being utilized as a hobby farm by the Macomber family, and that there was no horse training track on the property. 11. That at the time Douglas Neyhart purchased the property, there were no dike, berm, or other man-made river bank reinforcement present on the property. (See attachments "B" , "C" and "D" ; which are a series of comparable aerial photos from 1981, 1985 and 1989 of the property) . 12. That since his purchase of the property in 1981, Mr. Neyhart has used the property primarily for the purposes of horse raising and horse training. 13. That Mr. Neyhart has constructed an oval shaped horse training track on the property, with fenced paddocks for horse containment both within and beyond the track circumference. (see Attachment "E' color xerox of an aerial photograph taken on April 16, 1993 by Department of Ecology staff.) 14; That the track, paddocks, and diked area occupy nearly the entire floodplain of the Tahuya River at this location. 2 I r Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 /Douglas Neyhart DRAFT November 14, 1994 15 . That on numerous occasions since Mr. Neyhart purchased the property, high water stages of the Tahuya River have flooded the location of the oval track, paddock areas and access road. 16. That since 1981, Mr. Neyhart constructed or authorized the construction of a dike extending several hundred feet along the left bank of the Tahuya River on the property. 17 . That the above referenced dike is constructed within the floodway, as designated on Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Mason County. See attachment "F") . 18 . That the above described dike were not designed by an engineer or other professional. 19 . That the above described dike has caused interference with the normal river geo-hydraulic processes of the Tahuya River. 20. That the activities of Mr. Neyhart on the property over the past several years meet the definition of "commercial feedlot" under Chapter 7.08 of the MCSMP. 21 . That in 1987, 1990 and in 1993, Mr. Neyhart agreed to develop and implement a farm management plans with the Mason County Soil Conservation District. 22 . That the Neyhart Farm Management Plans, as currently written and thus far implemented do not bring Neyhart's development and uses of his shoreline property into compliance with the MCSMP. 23. That the above described filling, diking, and rechannelling of the river was done without Douglas Neyhart having either applied for or secured a lawful shoreline permit, exemption, or other authorization from Mason County. ALLEGATIONS OF LAW 1. That shoreline jurisdiction under the Mason County Shoreline Management Plan (MCSMP) extends to the floodway of the Tahuya River plus 200 feet landward in all directions, as well as including all biological wetlands within the floodplain, Ch. 7.08. 2 . The above described real property is in relevant part within shoreline jurisdiction, RCW 90.58.030. 3 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart DRAFT November 14, 1994 3 . That the above described filling, diking, and modification of the channel of the Tahuya River within shoreline jurisdiction constitutes "substantial development" under RCW 90.58.030. 4. RCW 90.58. 140 states that a development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of this chapter and after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines , rules, or master program governing that shoreline. 5 . RCW 90. 58 .030 states that "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this chapter. " 6. RCW 90. 58.210 (2) provides that once substantial development is permitted within shoreline jurisdiction, it must then be done in a manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of said permit. 7. RCW 90. 58.020 requires that permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical , any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. 8. WAC 173-17-040 provides that local government and/or the Department of Ecology shall have the authority to serve an order upon a person if an activity being undertaken on shorelines of the state is in violation of chapter 90. 58 RCW or the applicable local master program. 9. That the diking, filling, and the modification of the channel of the Tahuya River and its associated wetlands do not constitute "practices normal or necessary for farming" under RCW 90.58.030 (3) (e) (iv) . 10. That even if a development is determined to be exempt, such development must still comply with the policies and regulations of the MCSMP and the Shoreline Management Act, WAC 173-14-040 (3) . 11. That the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program was officially adopted on August 12, 1975, and was amended on March 1, 1988. 4 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 DRAFT Douglas Neyhart , November 14 1994 ft 12. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16. 150 establishes the policies and regulations for flood protection and shoreline stabilization. Such provision of the MCSMP states: Policy # 2. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to provide: . . .protection of water quality. . .and protection of valuable fish and other life forms, and their habitat vital to the aquatic food chain. Policy # 3. "Non-structural flood control 'solutions should be used whenever possible, including prohibiting or limiting development in historically flood prone areas. . . structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should be allowed after it is demonstrated that non structural solutions would not be able to reduce the damage. " Policy # 4. "Substantial stream channel modification, realignment, and straightening should be discouraged as a means of shoreline stabilization and flood protection. " Use Regulation # 3. The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geo-hydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses. " Use Regulation # 5. Diking may be permitted as a conditional use (emphasis added) provided that: diking is set back to the edge of the floodway. Use regulation # 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. 13. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16.130 establishes the policies and regulations pertaining to landfill practices. That section provides that: Use Regulation 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or on biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a conditional use for water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. 5 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 DRAFT Douglas Neyhart November 14, 1994 a.�. Use Regulation 3 . Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulics and flood plain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. Use Regulation 4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage. Use Regulation 8. Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. 14. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16.010 establishes the polices and regulations for agriculture activities: Policy # 3. Animal keeping areas should, when possible, be located outside the shoreline management area. When located in shoreline management areas, they should be separated from water bodies by vegetated buffer strips. Use Regulation 5 . Perennial wetlands shall not be used as animal confinement sites. Use Regulation 6 . Requires that confinement area shall be located away from perennial and intermittently flowing streams. A fenced buffer of permanent vegetation at least one hundred feet in width shall be maintained between such areas and water bodies. Use Regulation 9. Commercial feedlots where permitted within the shoreline jurisdiction shall require a conditional use permit and shall be setback a minimum of one hundred feet from [sic} ordinary high water mark. 15 . That the property is designated to be an "urban" residential shoreline under the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. 16. That the shoreline use matrix in Chapter 7.16 of the Mason County Shorleine Management Master Program prohibits commercial feedlots within all "urban" designated shorelines areas. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-17-040 (the Washington Administration Code) . 6 'I Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 DRA F T j Douglas Neyhart L J November 14, 1994 IT IS ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart and any other person acting as his employee or agent shall, upon receipt of this Order, immediately cease and desist from all further filling, diking, and modification of the channel of the Tahuya River within shoreline jurisdiction on the above referenced parcel, unless and only to the extent such work is specifically authorized by a currently valid shoreline permit issued by Mason County or authorized by an enforcement order from both the Department of Ecology for the purpose of restoring the site. T IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart shall within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this Order, respond to the undersigned at the Department of Ecology, specifically whether you admit or deny or lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny each of the numbered Allegations of Fact or Allegations of Law contained in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart submit a plan within thirty (30) days of his receipt of this Order to the Shoreland Program of the Department of Ecology (P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690) in which he describes in detail his plans to restore to the maximum extent feasible, the shoreline of the Tahuya River and its associated wetlands. Douglas Neyhart must also agree to implement such plan within a time frame acceptable to the Department of Ecology. Such plan shall at a minimum include: 1) That Mr. Neyhart apply for an after the fact shoreline permit or permits for all development already accomplished which should have been done subject to shoreline permit; and 2) That all work necessary to bring past development into compliance with the MCSMP, and all future activities within shoreline jurisdiction on the above property, shall be done in compliance with the MCSMP. Failure to comply with the terms of this order shall result in further actions by the Department of Ecology, including, but not limited to, the issuance of further civil penalties of up to one thousand dollars per day and criminal prosecution pursuant to 90.58.210 RCW. The penalty herein described is due and payable by you within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this Notice of Penalty. Please remit the penalty fee payable to Department of Ecology, Cashiering Section, P.O. Box 5128, Lacey, WA 98503. If, however, for any reason you believe that the violation herein described 7 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 D8AFT Douglas Neyhart November 14, 1994 �..� did not occur or you have an explanation as to why it occurred, or any other fact which you believe the Department should consider with regard to this penalty and you desire to submit an "Application of Relief from Penalty, " set forth these facts and return it to this Department within thirty (30) days. Your statement must be signed under oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to take oaths. Upon receipt of an "Application for Relief from Penalty" the Department will consider the same and will either reduce the penalty, cancel the penalty, or allow it to remain as originally stated. You will be duly notified of our decision. Ecology's decision regarding your "Application for Relief" is appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.210 and WAC 173-17-060. Signed in Olympia, Washington this day of November, 1994. Jay Shepard, Program Manager Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program 8 L MASON COUNTY and WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IN THE MATTER OF COMPLIANCE BY DOUGLAS ) NEYHART WITH THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE ACT AND THE MASON COUNTY SHORELINE ) ENFORCEMENT DOCKET NO. 93-SH-217 MASTER PROGRAM ) TO: Department of Ecology State of Washington P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Attention: Jim Anest Enforcement Coordinator Shorelands Program Receipt is acknowledged of Shorelands Enforcement Order No. 93-SH-217. Dated this day of 1994. (Signature) (Title) Company/agency (if applicable) Mason County and Washington State Department of Ecology IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLIANCE ) BY DOUGLAS NEYHART WITH CHAPTER ) DOCKET NO. 93-SH-217 90.58 RCW AND THE RULES AND ) ORDER AND NOTICE REGULATIONS ADOPTED THEREUNDER ) OF PENALTY INCURRED INCLUDING THE MASON COUNTY ) SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM ) Mr. Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that you have incurred, and there is now due and payable from you, a penalty in the amount of ten (??) thousand dollars ($10,000) for undertaking an activity on the shorelines of the state in violation of Chapter 90.58 RCW and the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. OPTIONAL: if all of the following requirements, terms and conditions of this order are fully satisfied in a timely manner by Douglas Neyhart, the penalty will be waived in full. This Order and Penalty is based upon the following allegations of fact and law: ALLEGATIONS OF FACT 1. That Douglas Neyhart owns certain real property, consisting of approximately thirty-one (31) acres located within Section 13, Township 22N, Range 3W of W.M. within Mason County. 2. That Douglas Neyhart also leases or otherwise controls an additional forty acres of real property within Section 13, Township 22N, Range 3W of W.M. within Mason County. 3. That approximately thirty acres of the above described property is located within the floodplain of the Tahuya River. 4. That nearly the entire thirty acres referred to in Allegation of Fact Number three above, is also within the floodway of the Tahuya River. 5. That on August 1990 and May 1991, enforcement staff from the Shorelands Program of the Department of Ecology conducted site inspections of he above described property (herein after referred to as "the property". Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 14, 1994 6. That on numerous occasions between 1987 and 1994, Mason County officials have inspected the property. 7. That the above described site inspections disclosed that: a) A dike had been constructed parallel to the banks of the Tahuya River; b) Filling had done within two hundred feet of the ordinary high water mark, and within the floodplain and floodway of the Tahuya River; c) The effect of the above described diking and filling was to substantially rechannel the Tahuya River as it runs through the property; 7 n M d) The construction of a horse racing track and paddocks within the floodplain of the Tahuya River. 8. That Douglas Neyhart purchased the property in 1981. 9. That at the time Neyhart purchased the property, it was owned by a family called the Macombers. (See Attachment "A", an affidavit by the Alene Macumber, dated September 23, 1992) . 10. That at the time Neyhart purchased the property, it was being utilized as a hobby farm by the Macumber family, and that there was no horse training track on the property. 11. That at the time Neyhart purchased the property, approximately six acres had been cleared and used for non-winter pasturing of a maximum of four horses. 12. That at the time Neyhart purchased the property, there were no dike, berm, or other man-made river bank reinforcement present on the property. 13. That since his purchase of the property in 1981, Mr. Neyhart has used the property primarily for the purposes of horse raising and horse training. 14. . That Mr. Neyhart has constructed an oval shaped horse training trac o the property, with fenced paddocks for horse containment within4t`fie track circumference. (see Attachment "B" color xerox of an aerial photograph taken on , 1993. ) 15. That the track, paddocks, and diked area occupy nearly the entire floodplain of the Tahuya River at this location. 16. That on numerous occasions since Mr. Neyhart purchased the property, high water stages of the Tahuya River have flooded location of the oval 2 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 14, 1994 track. 17. That since 1981, Mr. Neyhart constructed or authorized the construction of a dike extending between two and three thousand feet of the banks of the Tahuya River on the property. 18. That the above referenced dike is constructed within the floodway, as designated on Federal Flood Insurance Rate maps for Mason County. [NEED TO CONFIRM AS MAY BE ONLY MAPPED AS FLOODPLAIN ???] 19. That the above described dike were not designed by an engineer or other professional. 20. That the above described dike has caused interference with the normal river geo-hydraulic processes of the Tahuya River. 21. That the activities of Mr. Neyhart on the property over the past several years meet the definition of "commercial feedlot" under Chapter 7.08 of the MCSMP. 22. That on several occasions since 1987, Mason County has informed Mr. Neyhart in writing that he needs to secure shoreline management permits for certain of his activities on the property. 23. That in July of 1990, Mason County issued a stop work to Neyhart Farms for violations of the county shoreline master program. 24. That Mr. Neyhart has refused to comply with the Mason County requests for information stating that he believed the activities in question were exempt from shoreline management requirements as agricultural activities. 25. That in June of 1993, Mr. Neyhart agreed to develop and implement a farm management plan with the Mason County Soil Conservation District. 26. That the Neyhart Farm Management Plan, as currently drafted does not bring-Neyhart's development and uses of his shoreline property into compliance with the MCSMP. 27. That the above described filling, diking, and rechannelling of the river was done without Douglas Neyhart having either applied for or secured a shoreline permit, exemption, or other authorization from Mason County. 3 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 14, 1994 ALLEGATIONS OF LAW 1. That shoreline jurisdiction under the Mason County Shoreline Management Plan (MCSMP) extends to the floodway of the Tahuya River plus 200 feet landward in all directions, Ch. 7.08. 2. The above described real property is in relevant part within shoreline jurisdiction, RCW 90.58.030. 3. That the above described filling, diking, and rechannelling of the Tahuya River within shoreline jurisdiction constitutes "substantial development" under RCW 90.58.030. 4. RCW 90.58.140 states that a development shall not be undertaken on the shorelines of the state unless it is consistent with the policy of this chapter and after adoption or approval, as appropriate, the applicable guidelines, rules, or master program governing that shoreline. 5. RCW 90.58.030 states that "A substantial development shall not be undertaken on shorelines of the state without first obtaining a permit from the government entity having administrative jurisdiction under this chapter. " 6. RCW 90.58.210 (2) provides that once substantial development is permitted within shoreline jurisdiction, it must then be done in a manner that is consistent with the terms and conditions of said permit. 7. RCW 90.58.020 requires that permitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water. 8. WAC 173-17-040 provides that local government and/or the Department of Ecology shall have the authority to serve an order upon a person if an activity being undertaken on shorelines of the state is in violation of chapter 90.58 RCW or the applicable local master program. 9. That the diking, filling, and rechannelling of the Tahuya River and its associated wetlands do not constitute "practices normal or necessary for farming" under RCW 90.58.030 (3) (e) (iv) . 10. That even if a development is determined to be exempt, such development must still comply with the policies and regulations of the MCSMP and the Shoreline Management Act, WAC 173-14-040 (3) . 4 I Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 14, 1994 11. That the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program was officially adopted on August 12, 1975. 12. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16.150 establishes the policies and regulations for flood protection and shoreline stabilization. Such provision of the MCSMP states: Policy # 2. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works should be located, designed, constructed and maintained to provide: . .protection of water quality. . .and protection of valuable fish and other life forms, and their habitat vital to the aquatic food chain. Policy # 3. "Non-structural flood control solutions should be used whenever possible, including prohibiting or limiting development in historically flood prone areas. . . structural solutions to reduce shoreline damage should be allowed after it is demonstrated that non structural solutions would not be able to reduce the damage. " Policy # 4. "Substantial stream channel modification, realignment, and straightening should be discouraged as a means of shoreline stabilization and flood protection. " Use Regulation # 3. The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geo-hydraulic processes, leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream shoreline properties, or adverse effects to shoreline resources and uses." Use Regulation # 5. Diking may be permitted as a conditional use (emphasis added) provided that: diking is set back to the edge of the floodway. Use regulation # 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. 13. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16.130 establishes the policies and regulations pertaining to landfill practices. That section provides that: Use Regulation 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark, or on biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a conditional use for water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. 5 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 14, 1994 Use Regulation 3. Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulics and flood plain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property. Use Regulation 4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage. Use Regulation 8. Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. 14. That the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, at 7.16.010 establishes the polices and regulations for agriculture activities: Policy # 3. Animal keeping areas should, when possible, be located outside the shoreline management area. When located in shoreline management areas, they should be separated from water bodies by vegetated buffer strips. Use Regulation 5. Perennial wetlands shall not be used as animal confinement sites. Use Regulation 6. Requires that confinement area shall be located away from perennial and intermittently flowing streams. A fenced buffer of permanent vegetation at least one hundred feet in width shall be maintained between such areas and water bodies. Use Regulation 9. Commercial feedlots where permitted within the shoreline jurisdiction shall require a conditional use permit and shall be setback a minimum of one hundred feet from [sic) ordinary high water mark. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with the provisions of WAC 173-17-040 (the Washington Administration Code) . IT IS ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart and any other person acting as his employee or agent shall, upon receipt of this Order, immediately cease and desist from all further filling, diking, and rechannelling of the Tahuya River within shoreline jurisdiction within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Tahuya River, or within associated wetlands on the above referenced parcel, unless and only to the extent such work is specifically authorized by a currently valid shoreline permit issued by Mason County or authorized by an enforcement order from both the Department of Ecology and Mason County for the purpose of restoring the site. 6 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 14, 1994 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart shall within twenty (20) days of your receipt of this Order, respond specifically whether you admit or deny or lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny each of the numbered Allegations of Fact or Allegations of Law contained in this Order. IT IS FURTHER CONSIDERED THAT Douglas Neyhart submit a plan within thirty (30) days of his receipt of this Order to the Shoreland Program of the Department of Ecology (P.O. Box 47690, Olympia, WA 98504-7690) in which he describes in detail his plans to restore to the maximum extent feasible, the shoreline of the Tahuya River and its associated wetlands. Such plan shall at a minimum include: 1) That Mr. Neyhart apply for an after the fact shoreline permit for all development already accomplished which should have been done subject to a shoreline permit; and 2) That all work necessary to bring past development into compliance with the MCSMP, and all future activities within shoreline jurisdiction on the above property shall be done in compliance with the MCSMP. Failure to comply with the terms of this order shall result in further actions by the Department of Ecology, including, but not limited to, the issuance of further civil penalties of up to one thousand dollars per day and criminal prosecution pursuant to 90.58.210 RCW. The penalty herein described is due and payable by you within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this Notice of Penalty. Please remit the penalty fee payable to Department of Ecology, Cashiering Section, P.O. Box 5128, Lacey, WA 98503. If, however, for any reason you believe that the violation herein described did not occur or you have an explanation as to why it occurred, or any other fact which you believe the Department should consider with regard to this penalty and you desire to submit an "Application of Relief from Penalty," set forth these facts and return it to this Department within thirty (30) days. Your statement must be signed under oath before a notary public or any other person authorized to take oaths. Upon receipt of an "Application for Relief from Penalty" the Department will consider the same and will either reduce the penalty, cancel the penalty, or allow it to remain as originally stated. You will be duly notified of our decision. Ecology's decision regarding your "Application for Relief" is appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board pursuant to RCW 90.58.210 and WAC 173-17-060. 7 Shoreline Order 93-SH-217 Douglas Neyhart June 14, 1994 Signed in Olympia, Washington this day of June, 1994. Thomas Mark, AICP Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program Signed in Shelton, Washington this day of June, 1994. Gary Yando, Director Mason County Department of General Services 8 t June 9, 1994 Mr. Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Shoreline Violation, Order No. 93-SH-217 Dear Douglas Neyhart: Enclosed is an original Shoreline Management Enforcement Order No. 93-SH-217. A form entitled "Acknowledgement of Service" is also enclosed, Please sign this form and return it to this office. This order is being issued by Mason County and the Washington State Department of Ecology under provisions of RCW 90.58.210, WAG 173-17 and the applicable shoreline master program. All correspondence and questions relating to these documents should be directed to the undersigned, at the Department of Ecology. Sincerely, James D. Anest Enforcement Coordinator Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program (206) 459-6529 JA:j a Enclosure cc: Gary Yando, Mason County DCD Rebecca Todd, Ecology AAG Pat Lee, SWRO Marian Bruner, Central Programs �IIQkS1Sd3lx�KiR�1��7{IZE � n � Director IAIK STATE Of WASIAING10N DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 7272 Cleanwaler Lane, LU-I . Olytypia, Washington 9850-I-WI 1 • (206) 753-2353 March 3, 1993 Douglas Neyhart 315 Seneca Street Seattle, WA 98101-2999 Dear Mr.. Neyhart: In September 1992, Ecology received a complaint regarding management practices on your farm near the Tahuya River. Recall that you and I met with representatives from Mason County and the Conservation District to review what had transpired before my involvement. I learned that you were currently,in I the process of voluntarily developing a farm plan and, in fact, were very close to having it done. As I have explained to you, there is a formal procedure in place called the Agricultural Compliance Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) , which deals with agricultural complaints. This procedure allows a land owner who has had;a complaint filed against him -or her six months to develop a plan and 18 months thereafter to fully implement the plan. In your case, since you were already participating in the farm planning process and were nearly done, I thought it ' best to formally inform you of the 18 month implementation deadline after the plan had been signed. Your farm plan contains a set of two tables, both labelled Record of Cooperator's Decisions and Progress in Application. Contained in those tables are dates by which specific items should be accomplished. Some of the dates fall beyond the 18 months allowed. for under the MOA. However, I believe the situation on your farm is complex enough chat the tiiuC is naceszary. TherefoYe, you have until the last implementation date shown in the plan; to fully implement it, which I believe is Summer. 1996. To be more specific, I ' suggest the plan be fully implemented by September 1, 1996. Thank you again for your willingness to work cooperatively with the District to resolve water quality concerns on your farm. I suggest that you strive to meet or exceed the compliance dates in your farm plan. If you feel you cannot make any of the dates, please let. the District know. This is very important because if there are water quality violations caused by your not following the farm plan, you may be faced with enforcement proceedings by Ecolcgy. -0EDk1 3 I i Douglas Neyhart Page 2 March 3, 1993 Thank you again for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me at (206) 586-5551. Sincerely, Bill Young, Senior Water Quality Inspector Southwest Regional Office BY:bk cc: Bill Taylor, Chair, Mason County Conservation District Belinda Fremont, Technician, Mason County Conservation Dist Phil Kauzloric. WQ Dick Grout, Shorelands Tim Determan, Shorelands Debbie Sargent, Shorelands Major bases for violation• - Operating a "commercial feedlot" , which is a prohibited activity - Filling within the floodplain (probably floodway) - Dike construction within floodway, and was not properly engineered - Rechanneling the stream, adverse impacts on WQ and fish habitat Our Primary Goals: - Restore the riparian corridor: fish habitat, meandering channel, flood storage capacity, water quality protection. Require an after-the-fact permit for work already done If there is to be a dike, make it be a professionally engineered one, and one which is set back to protect WQ and allow the river a wider high water path, and which is designed to restore fish habitat. - Restrict horse operations, so that animal confinement areas are 100 feet across vegetated buffer from he river, perhaps limit the number of horses in the floodway or prohibit winter pasturing of horses within the floodway. Neyhart, essential Chronology 1982 First HPA for debris removal and bank protection 1984 Emergency HPA, bank protection and debris removal 1986 Emergency HPA (three of them) , to rebuild farm bridge, for further bank protection and debris removal, and to repair bank, setback berm. Corps letter, no violation. 1987 HPA extension, three more emergency HPAs, two for berm repair, and another for beaver dam removal. Corps granting nationwide permit County notifying of violation of SMP 1988 Two more emergency HPAs: bank protection and debris removal. Complaint from Skokomish Tribe. 1989