HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2014-00009 Basin and Channel Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 9/17/2014 Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5t�'Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
September 17, 2014
Notice of Decision
Case: SHR2014-00009
Applicant: Basin and Channel Property Owners Association.
The attached Notice of Decision prepared by the Mason County Hearing
Examiner explains that the shoreline permit has been approved following the
public hearing on August 12, 2014. The conditions stated at the end of the
decision document note the proposed dredging and spoils deposit shall be
subject to the Applicants' requests for permit from state and federal agencies
and the conditions of approval from those agencies. Subject to the progress
started on the September 9, 2014 on-site meeting, the shoreline and
conditional use permit by the Basin and Channel Property Owners Association is
approved and is subject to Washington Dept. of Ecology review, as specifics on
dredge location, amounts, and spoil deposit locations can continue to proceed.
Allan Borden
Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection
426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
Basin &Property Owners decision cover page
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shetton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
September 16, 2014
Notice of Decision
Case: SHR2014-00009
Applicant: Basin and Channel Property Owners Association
Notice is hereby given that Basin and Channel Property Owners Association,
who is the applicant for the above-referenced Mason County Shoreline
Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit, has been granted that
Shoreline Permit and Conditional Use Permit. The request was reviewed on
August 12, 2014 by the Mason County Hearing Examiner and approved pursuant
to the Mason County Title 17.50 Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations,
specifically for Dredging, Landfill, and Conditional Use standards. The proposal
was subject to SEPA review.
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available.
Appeal of this decision may be made to the State Shorelines Hearing Board as
regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal
requirements of any appeal process.
Time Limit for Action. Per the Mason County Code Title 15 - Development Code - No
permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. if
actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not
begun within two years after the approval, the Hearing Examiner shall review the
permit and upon a showing of good cause, may extend the initial two year period by
permit for one year. Otherwise, the permit terminates; PROVIDED that no permit
shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension
before the Hearing Examiner PRiOR to the expiration date. Work on approved project
must begin by September 2016. This permit expires September 16, 2019.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues,please contact Allan Borden,Senior
Planner with Mason County Dept. of Community Development at 360-427-9670 x365
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3 RE: Basin and Channel Property
4 Owners' Association FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
5 Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
6 SHR2014-00009
7 INTRODUCTION
8 The applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development and conditional use
9 permit for the dredging of materials along Hood Canal and the mouth of Rendsland
Creek in order to maintain a navigable channel. The application is approved subject to
10 conditions.
11 TESTLNI ONY
12
Stall'Testimony
13
Allan Borden,Mason County Planner, described the project as the routine dredging of
14 the channel on Hood Canal at the vicinity of Rendsland Creek. He stated the proposal
is to remove 1,166 CY of material in a 12,300sf channel area. The purpose of the
15 proposal is to maintain a navigable channel. The proposed excavation will take place
16 with an excavator during extreme low water. The spoil will then be deposited within
the same basin area but further downstream from the channel area. The proposal was
17 reviewed under the County's Comprehensive Plan,the Shoreline Master Program and
the Mason County Code Conditional Use Criteria.
18
The County had received no formal comments on the proposal at the time of the
19 hearing. Mr. Borden stated the Washington State Department of Natural Resources
20 (DNR) had provided a comment on the SEPA review stating they needed more
review time. DNR noted it has jurisdiction within the channel and at the spoil
21 deposition site. The United States Army Corp of Engineers (Corp) must also approve
of the project.
22
23 Mr. Borden stated the County Staff recommends approval of the project subject to
conditions.
24
In response to a question by the Examiner, Mr. Borden stated the spoil location will
25 not create additional flooding in the alluvial plain because it is of a small magnitude
and will be dispersed downstream by diurnal tidal flooding at high tide. Mr. Borden
also stated the native vegetation will be largely unaffected because there is little
vegetation in the existing channel. Mr. Borden stated there is existing vegetation at
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
the spoil deposit location and that a potential mitigation measure might be to plant
1 more vegetation uphill from the proposed spoil site.
2 Applicant Testimony
3
Ms. Amy Leitman, a biologist with Marine Surveys and Assessments and the
4 Applicant's Agent, testified that though the regulatory window for dredging is open
until January 14, 2015,work should commence as soon as possible to take advantage
5 of the milder weather. Ms.Leitman stated the spoil deposition site was chosen to keep
6 the sediments in the local marine system if possible to help maintain existing beaches
and shoreline.Ms.Leitman also noted the spoil, composed of pea gravel, is consistent
7 with the character of soils at the deposition site. Ms. Leitman also stated the local
vegetation is very sparse both within the channel and the proposed deposition site.
8 Neither area is viable fish habitat beyond providing fish passage to other areas.
Rendsland Creek is an intermittent stream and was dry at the time of the habitat
9 studies.
10
Ms. Leitman noted the proposed dredging activity is within historical norms. This
11 channel is manmade. It has been dredged at least three other times since 1978,
averaging 10 years apart. The proposed spoil deposit location is the same place it has
12 been before. This location keeps the soils in the same alluvial plain and in the same
direction of drift, but moves it away from the channel. Ms. Leitman stated the local
13 topography is very steep and the spoil deposition is unlikely to affect local hydrology.
14
Ms. Leitman stated the DNR had called MSA in February 2014. The DNR
15 representative, Celia Barton, told Ms. Leitman that there are new rules with a new
level of scrutiny. The DNR is unfamiliar with this type of proposal as they had not
16 previously been the agency with approval authority.
17 Mr. Borden stated the DNR had contacted the County in March 2014, though they
18 had not yet provided formal comment at the time of the hearing.
19 E7IMITS
20 All exhibits are admitted as identified in "Case Index SBM014-00009," attached to
21 the staff report of Allan Borden, dated August 12, 2014. Three additional exhibits
were admitted into the record after the hearing:
22
Exhibit 10 - WDNR Comment Letter, August 13,2014,
23 Exhibit 11 - Marine Surveys and Assessments Response Letter, August 21, 2014,
and
24 Exhibit 12 - Email from Marine Surveys and Assessments in response to DNR
25 request entitled'*Tahuya Dredge Photographs &response to WA DNR
comments" from Amy Leitman to Allan Borden,August 18,2014.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA p.2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 1. Ayylicant. The applicant is Basin and Channel Property Owners
2 Association.
3 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on August 12, 2014, at 1:00 p.m. in the Mason County Commissioners
4 Meeting Room. The record was left open through August 22, 2014 in order to
provide DNR an opportunity to comment and the County and Applicant an
5 opportunity to respond.
6
Substantive:
7
3. Proiect/Site Description. The applicant proposes to dredge the channel
8 Hood Canal in the vicinity of Rendsland Creek. The project site is adjacent to the
north shore of Hood Canal, between North Shore Road and Hood Canal adjacent to
9 properties lying along North Shore Road between Mileposts 18 and 19, about four
10 miles west of Tahuya and south of Rendsland Creek. The nearest physical address is
18881 NE North Shore Road (APN 32219-5 1-00000 1).See Ex.4. Rendsland Creek is
11 classified as a Type F fish bearing stream by the Department of Natural Resources.
Rendsland Creek is an intermittent stream that drains directly into Hood Canal.
12
The proposal is a maintenance dredge of the mouth of Rendsland Creek in Hood
13 Canal in order to remove build-up of 1,166 CY of material within a 12,28sf channel
14 area to keep the channel along Hood Canal navigable for the public and property
owners. An excavator will perform work at extreme low water and the spoil materials
15 will be placed west of the dredged channel and remain in the shore sediment drift cell.
16 The Hood Canal tides and the periodic high flows in the creek have produced alluvial
17 deposits in the area. The proposed project would dredge the area around the mouth of
Rendsland Creek in Hood Canal to maintain a navigable channel. This channel is a
18 manmade channel that has been dredged for similar reasons on average every 10
years. The proposed spoil deposit location is the same place it has been before. This
19 location keeps the soils in the same alluvial plain and in the same direction of drift,
but moves it away from the channel.
20
21 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is characterized by very low-
density rural development consisting of single-family residences along Hood Canal
22 and North Shore Rd.
23 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are several listed threatened and
endangered species in the vicinity of the project. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon,Puget
24 Sound Steelhead, Hood Canal Summer Chum, Bull Trout, Rockfish, Marbled
25 Murrelets, and others have all been found to spawn in nearby rivers, including the
Tahuya, Skokomish and Union rivers. The project vicinity is in the Tahuya Basin.
The actual iv Tahuya
y River is three miles away. None of these threatened fish has been
documented as spawning in Rendsland Creek, though Hood Canal Fall Chum and
Forage Fish might be in the vicinity of the project. The Washington Department of
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Fish and Wildlife (DFW) has identified potential foraging fish spawning habitat
1 within 600' of the project vicinity. The HMP notes the project may have impacts in
2 the form of increased turbidity, increased noise and entrainment of juvenile
salmonids. See Exhibit 9, P. 10. The recommended mitigation in the HMP prevents
3 adverse water quality impacts to threatened fish created by dredging and construction
activities by regulating the timing and manner of the dredging operation as well as
4 providing siltation management strategies. Mitigation requiring re-vegetation will
improve nutrient supply. This decision imposes the mitigation recommended in the
5 HlvT. The HMP concludes, as proposed and mitigated, the project is likely to have
6 no effect or no adverse effect on threatened and endangered species which may be
present in the project vicinity.
7
The DNR is concerned that project dredging will occur on recreational shell fish
8 beaches and/or restrict public access and enjoyment to the project site. DNR is further
concerned that the proposed dredge spoil location will not contribute to the
9 nourishment of down-drift beaches while impacting state and tribal shellfish
10 resources. DNR would prefer to see the project applicants perform all dredging
materials from a barge floated at high tide. DNR also proposes a mitigation measure
11 that would remove an old pier made of creosote timbers near the mouth of Rendsland
Creek.See Ex. 10.
12
The Applicant's Agent, Marine Surveys and Assessments (MSA)provided a response
13 to the DNR comments. MSA believes the DNR is confused as to the actual project
14 scope and location as the proposal at hand does not impact recreational shellfish
beaches or restrict public access or enjoyment of the site. All dredging and dredge
15 soil disposal is proposed for +4.45 to +5 mean lower low water (MLLW). The
majority(90%) is above+5 over MLLW, outside of the shellfish habitat.No shellfish
16 were observed during the habitat survey in the dredge location, the proposed footprint
17 of the excavator during the dredging, or the dredge spoil deposit areas. Public access
and enjoyment will not be affected. The shellfish are located waterward near the
18 MLLW, a safe distance from the project site. See Ex. 11.
19 DNR stated they would consider a proposal to dredge the existing salt water channel
as it currently flows out of the lagoon. MSA stated the dredge footprint as proposed is
20 in the historical location of the saltwater channel and that the present channel has
21 meandered and migrated east due to influx of sedimentation from the adjacent
Rendsland Creek.See Ex. 10 & 11.
22
DNR stated they would not approve of the current dredge spoil deposit location as
23 proposed. MSA stated this is the historical location for dredge spoil deposition and
that this location does, in fact, contribute to nourishment of down-drift beaches while
24 avoiding impacts to shellfish locations. However, MSA is open to suggestion should
25 DNR propose a better dredge spoil deposit location. See Ex. 10 & 11 and Testimony
Summary above.
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MSA stated the project Applicants cannot afford to have the dredging work
1 performed from a barge. They further cannot afford the expense of piling removal.
2 See Ex. 11.MSA proposed a site visit with representatives of the County and DNR.
3 At the time of the hearing and as of the date of this decision, a site visit between the
Applicant's Agents, DNR and Mason County had not yet occurred. The outcome of
4 such a visit may impact DNR's decision to approve, deny, or approve of the permit
with further conditions. A condition of approval requires the outstanding issues with
5 DNR to be resolved and that all other state and federal permits be obtained.
6 As currently proposed and mitigated, the project will have an overall positive impact
7 on adjoining properties by maintaining the navigable channel while posing no
significant adverse impacts to any threatened or endangered fish. No other adverse
8 impacts are discernable from the record.
9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10
Procedural:
11
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) authorizes the
12 Examiner to review and issue a final decision regarding shoreline substantial
13 development permit requests.
14 2. Shoreline Designation. Urban Residential.
15 Substantive:
16 3. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for this project
because the proposal exceed $5,000 in value (according to the Staff Report, p. 2), and
17 the project is located within 200 feet of Rendsland Creek and Hood Canal. Under
18 MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(c), the Examiner must make a Decision on a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit application upon the policies and procedures of the
19 Mason County Shoreline Master Program as well as Chapter 90.58 RCW. This
application qualifies as Dredging and Landfill under the Mason County Shoreline
20 Master Program, and the applicable policies for these uses are quoted and applied
21 below. A Conditional Use Permit is required for the excavation and dredge
deposition. The generic review criteria for all Mason County permits reviewed by the
22 Hearing Examiner, MCC 15.09.055(C)also apply and are addressed below.
23 A SEPA Determination of Non-Significant Impact was issued in July 2014. See Ex. 6.
At the time, DNR requested additional review time. No further contact from DNR
24 occurred until County Staff contacted the agency at the request of the Hearing
25 Examiner after the hearing. DNR responded with a comment letter on August 13,
2014.See Ex. 10.
MCC 17.50.060,Dredging (2):
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Urban Residential and Urban Commercial Environments. Dredging shall be
1 permitted:
2
a. If it is necessary to deepen or widen navigation channels.
3 b. If it is necessary to deepen or widen commercial moorage.
c. If it is necessary to create settling lagoons.
4 d. If it is necessary in conjunction with flood control measures.
e. If it is necessary in creating solid foundations for placement of concrete,
5 riprap, and otherbuilding materials.
6 f. If it is necessary in containing peat and peat moss.
g. If it is necessary to facilitate channel clearance and improvement.
7 h. If it is necessary to remove roots, logs, brush, grasses, and other material
to create access from the shore to navigable water.
8 i. If it is necessary in certain shellfish farming, harvesting, and protection
9 operations.
10 4. The proposal is necessary to deepen a navigation channel and to facilitate
channel clearance and improvement. Dredging of this manmade channel has been
11 performed every decade on average to remove eroded material from the mouth of
Rendsland Creek. The material is placed downstream where it will continue to
12 nourish down-drift beaches.
13 MCC 17.50.060, Dredging (5):
14
For all Environments. Dredging restrictions are as follows:
15
a. Dredging operations shall not cause damage to adjacent shorelines or
16 marine developments.
17 b. Dredging operations shall be self-monitored to control to a feasible
minimum any leaks or spillage of dredged materials fi-om pipes,
18 machinery, dikes, or bulkheads.
c. Dredging machinery or vessels shall use reasonable precautionary
19 measures to prevent petroleum from entering the water.
d. Dredged material, if deposited within shoreline boundaries, shall be
20 contained by bulkheading, diking, or other acceptable methods, to prevent
21 undesirable erosion or shifting after operations and related monitoring
are needed.
22 e. Dredged material, when not deposited on land, shall be placed in spoils
deposit sites in water areas to be identified by the County. Depositing of
23 dredge material in water areas shall be allowed only for habitat
improvement, to correct problems of material distribution affecting
24 adversely fish and shellfish resources or where the alternatives of
25 depositing material on land are more detrimental to shoreline resources
than depositing in water areas.
5. Dredging as proposed will be accomplished in an alignment away from
the Ordinary Mean High Water level (OMHW) and away from the edge of the
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
developed portion of adjacent residential properties. The HMP is designed to evaluate
1 and mitigate impacts upon shoreline critical functions as well as fish and wildlife
2 habitat. The HMP recommended mitigation addresses all adverse impacts for these
environmental elements. No other potential shoreline damage is discernable from the
3 record. The best management practices in the HMP, as well as the additional
conditions of approval, address dredging equipment leaks and spillage and erosion of
4 dredged materials as required above. Dredged material will placed where it will
continue to nourish down-drift beaches to the south and southeast. A condition of
5 approval will require the DNR approve the location and manner of dredge spoils
6 deposition.
7 Mason County Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX ("MCCP IX"),Dredging Policy
No. 1:
8
Upstream migration and downstream escapement of migratory fish should be
9 considered. If dredging operations wholly involve a creek, stream, or river channel,
10 or other recognized fish migration route, these operations should be restricted to 12
hours per day to allow for successful passage of these fish.
11
6. The HMP provides that no threatened fish use Rendsland Creek but there
12 is nothing in the record that indicates whether other fish use the Creek. As noted in
the Testimony Summary above, Rendsland Creek is an intermittent stream that was
13 dry at the time of the habitat survey. Nonetheless, Rendsland Creek is classified as a
14 Type F Fish-bearing stream. As conditioned, dredging will be limited to 12 hours per
day.
15
MCC 17.50.060,Landfill:
16
17 1. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on
biological wetlands, except that they may be permitted as a conditional
18 use for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland
or structural alternative is possible. Fill necessary for erosion control
19 bulkheads shall not be considered under landfill. Landfill in biological
wetlands (excluding bogs, marshes, swamps, marine and estuarine shore)
20 for non-water dependent uses may be permitted Such fill may be
21 considered as a conditional use provided the applicant can demonstrate
the following: (1) Extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the
22 property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2) No
viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists.
23 2. Landfills are not permitted on estuaries, tidelands, marshes, ponds or
swamps, except that they may be allowed for water dependent uses as a
24 conditional use.
25 3. Landfills are not permitted in floodplains unless it can be clearly
demonstrated that the geohydraulic and floodplain storage capacity will
not be altered to increase fiood hazard or other damage to life or
property.
4. Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage.
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5. Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation
1 to prevent erosion.
2 6. Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information
(at a minimum):
3 a. Character and source offill material;
b. Method of placement and compaction;
4 c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any;
d. Method ofperimeter erosion control;
5 e. Proposed use offill area;
6 f. Location offill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns;
g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping.
7 7. Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation, retaining walls, or
other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or adjacent to a
8 tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion.
8. Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation
9 of water quality.
10 9. Sanitary landfills and solid waste disposal sites are prohibited uses within
the shoreline jurisdiction.
11
7. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 above, the dredge spoils will be placed
12 waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), within the tidelands and on a
floodplain. However, landfills may be placed waterward of the OHWM and within
13 tidelands for water dependent uses in the Urban Residential shoreline designation
14 under MCC 17.50.080 with approval of a conditional use permit. Conditional Use
Permit approval is described in Conclusion of Law 11 below. Landfills may be
15 permitted within floodplains if it can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulic
and floodplain storage capacity will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other
16 damage to life or property. As noted above, the amount of fill material (1,166 CI) is
17 very small with respect to the overall size of the floodplain and alluvial plain. No
impacts to the geohydraulic flow or floodplain storage capacity are anticipated. The
18 proposal will not adversely affect normal surface water drainage. As conditioned, if
required by the DNR, the spoils deposition site will be planted with vegetation to
19 prevent erosion. The design of the spoils deposition site is intended to allow down-
drift beach nourishment. As conditioned, all of the criteria of MCC 17.50.060 are
20 met.
21 MCCP IX Landfill Policy No. 1:
22
Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage
23 to existing ecological values or natural resources, or alteration of local currents will
occur, creating a hazard to adjacent life, property, ecological values, or natural
24 resources.
25 8. As noted above, the dredge spoils deposition site will be designed to
preserve existing ecological values and natural resources. The channel will be
deepened to allow navigation, but the local currents will not be altered. The project
will not create a hazard to adjacent life or property.
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I MCCP IX Landfill Policy No. 2:
2 Priority should be given to landfills for water dependent uses.
3
9. The purpose of the project is to maintain an existing channel for navigable
4 use, by definition a water dependent use.
5 MCCP IX Landfill Policy No. 3:
6 In evaluatingfill projects and in designating areas appropriate or Zl, such actors
.f P J 8n 8 aPP P f .f f
7 as total water surface reduction, navigation restriction, impediment of water flow and
circulation, reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be
8 considered.
9 10. The project will not alter the water surface. A navigation restriction will
10 be removed. Deepening the channel will not impede the flow of water in Hood Canal
or from Rendsland Creek. Water quality will not be altered. No habitat destruction is
11 anticipated. The habitat survey found very little vegetation and no shellfish in the
project vicinity.
12
13 MCC 17.50.080 Conditional Uses:
14 Uses which are classed or set forth in the master program as conditional uses may
be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
15
• That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCRl'90.58 and the
16 policies of the master program;
17 . That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the
18 shorelines;
19 • That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible
with other permitted uses within the area;
20
21 That the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the
shoreline environment in which it is to be located;
22
• That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
23
11. The placement of landfill in tidelands and waterward of the OHWIv1 is
24 permissible as a conditional use for water dependent uses in Urban shoreline
25 environments. The Applicant has worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Mason County Department of
Community Development while designing the proposed channel dredge maintenance
project near Rendsland Creek.
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
The proposal will protect the values of Hood Canal, a Shoreline of Statewide
1 Significance, so that fish and wildlife, recreation, residential uses, and aesthetic
2 values are maintained. The proposed channel maintenance dredge project will protect
the normal public use and access in the vicinity of the saltwater shoreline. The
3 proposal is consistent with adjacent uses.
4 The dredge deposit area adjacent to the deepened channel project will improve the
navigability of the channel along Hood Canal, provide materials for deposition in the
5 drift cell, and, following buffer vegetation replanting, enhance fish and wildlife
6 habitat and access to the stream and saltwater shoreline.
7 As proposed and conditioned, the project will cause no adverse effects to the
shoreline environment and no detrimental effect to the public interest.
8
MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
9 proposed development according to the following criteria:
10 1 The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
11 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
12 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
13 in the public interest.
14 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
15 Comprehensive Plan.
16 12. As noted in the application of comprehensive plan policies above, the
17 project is consistent with and satisfies the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Title
16 does not apply to the project. SEPA review has already been completed for the
18 project, and a DNS has been issued. As discussed at length in other parts of this
decision, all adverse impacts have been mitigated under the conditions of approval,
19 and the project will avoid impacts to habitat while providing for private benefits to
the property owners. For these reasons, the project will not adversely impact the
20 public health, safety, and welfare and is in the public interest. As further noted in the
21 Staff Report, the proposal will not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
22 Comprehensive Plan.
23 DECISION
24 The Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit is approved,
25 subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall secure all necessary project approvals from state
and federal agencies to include a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW),
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
authorization from the Washington Department of Natural Resources
1 (DNR), approval from Washington State Department of Ecology
(DOE), and approval by the US Army Corp of Engineers prior to
project commencement.
3
2. Dredging spoils shall be deposited at a location and manner acceptable
4 to DNR and shall provide for nourishment of the down-drift beaches
while avoiding impacts to state or tribal shellfish beds. Unless
otherwise required by DNR, the disturbed areas on the higher areas of
6 deposit materials must be re-planted with native riparian vegetation.
7 3. Dredging during an extreme low tide event with an excavator at the
site of the historical salt water channel, as proposed, is acceptable
8 unless otherwise required by DNR. Dredging operations shall not
cause damage to the adjacent shoreline, to shellfish beds or marine
9 developments.
10
4. Construction staging areas shall have proper erosion control in place
1 1 during their usage and the site shall be restored to a natural condition
shortly after abandonment by construction activity. Precautionary
12 measures must be employed to prevent petroleum or other
contaminants from entering the water.
13
14 5. Excavation and deposition activity shall be limited to 12-hours per
day.
15
16 6. The recommended mitigation measures of the HMP, Ex. 9, are
adopted as conditions of approval.
17
18 Dated this 10th day of September, 2014.
20 1'1iil �ilhr
21 Mason County Hearing Examiner
22 Change in Valuation
23 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax
24 purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
25
Right of Appeal
This decision may be appealed to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board
as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW.
SSD and CUP—B&CPOA P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
CASEINDEX
Basin & Channel Prop. Owners
Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit
SHR2014-00009
Attachment# Date Description
1 Ku-gust 12, 2014 Staff Report
2 Aril 23, 2014 Shoreline Substantial Development Application
3 April 23, 2014 General Vicinity
4 April 23, 2014 Aerial Vicinity with nearby structures
5 April 23, 2014 Aerial Dredge and placement areas
6 July 14, 2014 SEPA review threshold page
7 June 26, 2014 Notice of Application
8 July 25, 2014 Affidavit of Posting
9 Feb. 5, 2014 Biological Evaluation // Habitat M mt Plan
Basin&Channel SHR2014-00009 case index
Mason County
Department of Community Development
Building 3 * 426 West Cedar Street
Shelton,Washington 98584
August 12,2014
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden; 360.427.9670 ext 365; ahbnco.mason.wa.us
RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit
(SHR2014-00009).
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates an application for a Shoreline Substantial
Development and Conditional Use Permit for the dredging of materials along Hood Canal
and the mouth of Rendsland Creek under the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter IX, Shoreline Management Program,Dredging and Landfill. Policies and the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program 17.50.060 Use Regulations Dredging and
Land zll, and Conditional Use criteria This maintenance dredge of the mouth of
Rendsland Creek in Hood Canal is part of a long-term goal to maintain navigation
channel configuration. It includes the excavation of channel materials,the deposition in a
dredge spoils area, and native plant revegetation of the project site. See attached Project
Description for more details (Exhibit 6). Staff recommends permit conditions.
II. Applicant: Basin & Channel Property Owners Assn.
III. Agent: Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys &Assessments.
IV. Date of Complete Application: April 23, 2014.
V. Site address and Project Location: North Shore Rd. between Mileposts 18 and 19.
Located at 18881 NE North Shore Rd.,4 miles west of Tahuya and just south of
Rendsland Creek. Parcel No. 32219-51-00001 (Exhibit 4)
VI. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site and area. The general area(exhibit 3 and 5) is
characterized by very low-density rural development consisting of single-family
residences along Hood Canal and North Shore Rd. Rendsland Creek, a Type F
stream flows under the county road and then southwest along the nearby properties
and into Hood Canal. The Hood Canal tides and the periodic high flows in the creek
have produced alluvial deposits in the area of the mouth and Hood Canal proposed for
dredging and material deposits as fill.
B. Shoreline Master Program Desianation. The Shoreline Master Program
environmental designation at the project site is Urban.
Basin&Channel Prop.Owners SHR2014-00009 cond use ]
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation surrounding the site is Rural Area.
D. Zonin . The surrounding properties are zoned as Rural Residential 5 (RR-5).
VH. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal was reviewed
under SEPA authority when a DNS was issued in early July 2014 (Exhibit 6). The
Shoreline Management Permit application for a Substantial Development/Conditional
Use Permit(SHR2014-00009)is attached(Exhibit 2) and a Notice of Shoreline
Management Permit(Exhibit 7)was issued on June 26, 2014. The Affidavit of
Publication of Shoreline Management Permit is attached (Exhibit 8).
VIII. Other Permits. The proposal will require an approved Shoreline Substantial
Development and Conditional Use Permit, Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)from
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and approvals from Washington
Dept. of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
IX. Analysis. The proposal is a maintenance dredge of the mouth of Rendsland Creek in
Hood Canal in order to remove build-up of 1,166 cu. yds. of material within a 12,281 sq.
ft. channel area to keep the channel along Hood Canal navigable for the public and
property owners. An excavator will perform work at extreme low water and the spoil
materials will be placed west of the dredged channel and remain in the shore sediment
drift cell. This project is within the jurisdiction of a Type 1 water(Rendsland Creek and
Hood Canal) and is reviewed with a submitted Mason Environmental Permit and habitat
management plan or biological evaluation; as well as under the Mason County Shoreline
Master Program review standards. Per the Mason County Development Code 15.09.055
A. 1.,this proposal requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SDP) due to
the cost exceeding$5,000 and a Conditional Use Permit for the excavation and dredge
deposit proposed. This SDP proposal is reviewed under Dredging Chapter,the Landfill
Chapter, and the Conditional Use Chapter of the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,
Chapter IX. Shoreline Management Program, and the Mason County Code, Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) Chapter 17.50.060. The applicable policies and use regulations
are the following:
The applicable policies and use regulations are the following:
Mason County Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX,, Shoreline Master Program Policies:
Landfill:
1. Any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage to
existing ecological values or natural resources,or alteration of local currents will occur,
creating a hazard to adjacent life,property,ecological values or natural resources.
The proposed fi% dredge materials at the deposit site will import such materials into the
littoral drift celleany materials to the beach areas to the south and east. Such deposits will
not affect the stability of channel or beach profiles in the vicinity.
2. Priority should be given to landfills for water dependent uses.
The deposits will help to maintain beach profiles, underwater and nearshore vegetation, and
the substrate for marine aquatic animal and plant species.
Basin&Channel Prop.Owners SHR2014-00009 cond use 2
3. In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill,such factors as total
water surface reduction,navigation restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation,
reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered.
The proposal will improve navigation for adjacent landowners and shoreline users, improve
the channel to convey the mixture of saltwater and freshwater flows, and improve shoreline
animal and vegetation habitats.
Chapter 17.50.060 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations:
Landfill:
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 aquacultural practices and water
dependent uses where no upland structural alternative is possible. Landfill in wetlands for non-
water dependent uses may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional Use
PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (1)Extraordinary or unique
circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2)
No viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists.
The Conditional Use Permit application was submitted due to the fills will be within
the approved deposit area waterward of the ordinary high water mark on the west side of
the dredge alignment. The channel capacity will be improved yet the proposed fill
will not affect the direction or volume of channel flows in the creek or Hood Canal.
2. Landfills are not permitted on estuaries,tidelands,marshes,ponds or swamps, except that they
may be allowed for water dependent uses as a Conditional Use.
The purpose of the proposal is to maintain the tidal channel for navigation and flow capacity,
both water dependent uses in the shoreline. The proposed fill deposit area will contribute
sediments to the littoral drift cell.
4.Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage.
Proposed fills will be provided with a slight grade and not affect the natural surface drainage
in the project area.
5.Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion.
Fills will be replanted at the highest grade and lower levels left to sorting by the diurnal tides
and wave action; these elements will be part of project best management practices.
6.Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information(at a minimum):
a. Character and source of fill material; The deposits will be from the excavated channel
nearby in Hood Canal and composed offines, sand, mud, gravels, and cobbles.
b. Method of placement and compaction; Fill materials will be placed by the excavator and
tractor during this operation.
c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any; No surfacing is proposed in this project.
d. Method of perimeter erosion control; Silt fencing and jute matting, and hydroseeding of
annual species and hand planting of shrub species to be done following grade..
e. Proposed use of fill area; Fill will be placed so the materials will be available for source
material in the littoral drift cell in the vicinity of Hood Canal.
f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns. Fill will be at the west edge
of the channel alignment in an area where erosion sediments have collected over the years.
g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping. Straw,jute-matting, hydroseeding of exposed
banks, and replanting of native plants.
7. Perimeters of fills shall be provided with vegetation,retaining walls,or other mechanisms for
erosion prevention.Any fill on or adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to
prevent erosion. These will be provided as needed as part of the construction best
management practices used by the applicant.
8.Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality. The
fill will be part of the materials that are excavated from the dredge channel just to the east and
will be materials native to the vicinity of Hood Canal.
Basin&Channel Prop.Owners SHR2014-00009 cond use 3
Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Shoreline Management Program Policies:
Dredging:
l. Upstream migration and downstream escapement of migratory fish should be
considered. If dredging operations wholly involve a creek, stream, or river channel,
or other recognized fish migration route,these operations should be restricted to 12
hours per day to allow for successful passage of these fish. The dredge alignment
will be monitored for the presence offish (migratory and groundfish) during the
periods of operations to avoid impacts to these species.
Chapter 17.50.060 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations:
Dredging:
2. Urban Residential and Urban Commercial Environments. Dredging shall be
permitted:
a. If it is necessary to deepen or widen navigation channels.
b. If it is necessary to deepen or widen commercial moorage.
c. If it is necessary to create settling lagoons.
d. If it is necessary in conjunction with flood control measures.
e. If it is necessary in creating solid foundations for placement of concrete,riprap, and
other building materials.
f. If it is necessary in containing peat and peat moss.
g. If it is necessary to facilitate channel clearance and improvement.
h. If it is necessary to remove roots, logs, brush, grasses, and other material to create
access from the shore to navigable water.
i. If it is necessary in certain shellfish farming,harvesting, and protection operations.
The proposal is in the Urban Residential Shoreline Environment, and the request
would meet criteria a. and,9. listed above. Sediment from the mouth of Rendsland
Creek has accumulated in the subject channel during storms and has been
maintained by tidal action in Hood Canal.
5. For all Environments. Dredging restrictions are as follows:
a. Dredging operations shall not cause damage to adjacent shorelines or marine
developments. The dredging by excavator will be accomplished in an alignment away
from the OHWM level along the shoreline and away from the edge of the developed
portion of residential properties.
b. Dredging operations shall be self-monitored to control to a feasible minimum any
leaks or spillage of dredged materials from pipes, machinery, dikes, or bulkheads.
A condition of permit approval.
c. Dredging machinery or vessels shall use reasonable precautionary measures to
prevent petroleum from entering the water. A condition of permit approval.
d. Dredged material, if deposited within shoreline boundaries, shall be contained by
bulkheading, diking, or other acceptable methods,to prevent undesirable erosion or
shifting after operations and related monitoring are needed. The materials excavated
will be placed on the current deposit bar within Hood Canal west of the proposed
dredge alignment.
e. Dredged material, when not deposited on land, shall be placed in spoils deposit sites
in water areas to be identified by the County. Depositing of dredge material in water
areas shall be allowed only for habitat improvement,to correct problems of material
Basin&Channel Prop.Owners SHR2014-00009 cond use 4
distribution affecting adversely fish and shellfish resources or where the alternatives of
depositing material on land are more detrimental to shoreline resources than depositing
in water areas. The proposed spoil deposit site will be placed at the location where the
littoral drift sector will carry these materials to portions of the beach to the south and
southeast, in a pattern as drift materials typically move in this area.
Chapter 17.50.080 Mason County Shoreline Master Program Conditional Use
Evaluation:
Uses which are classified or set forth in the Shoreline Master Program as conditional uses
may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
1. "The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58 and the policies of the
Master Program."
The applicant has worked with the Army Corps of Engineers, WA. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
and Mason County Dept. of Community Development while designing the proposed channel
dredge maintenance project near Rendsland Creek The proposal will protect the values of
Hood Canal, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance, so thatfish and wildlife, recreation,
residential uses, and aesthetic values are maintained
2. "The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the shoreline."
The proposed channel maintenance dredge project will protect the normal public use and
access in the vicinity of the saltwater shoreline. The dredge deposit area adjacent to the
deepened channel project will improve the navigability of the channel along Hood Canal,
provide materials for deposition in the drift cell, and,following buyer vegetation replanting,
enhance fish and wildlife habitat and access to the stream and saltwater shoreline.
3. "The proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted uses in the area."
The proposed channel maintenance dredge project is compatible with continuing the area
use for residential and recreational activities along Hood Canal. Providing better
navigation access to properties and a safe source of drift materials will enhance user access
to shoreline properties and improved natural values in the vicinity of the proposal.
4. "The proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline
environment in which it is located."
The current channel alignment has long provided the needed access through the area to
properties along Hood Canal. The proposed dredge material deposit areas on the west side
of the excavated channel will enable the work to be done mostly at low water periods.
Sediment and erosion control practices will limit water turbidity during the project, and on-
site plant restoration will take place once the deposit work is completed.
5. "That the Public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect."
As on going maintenance activities, the proposed channel excavation and dredge deposit
areas nearby will assure continued use of the channel by landowners, visitors, and
recreational users along the shoreline areas of Hood Canal. Permit conditions will assure
that impacts to the shoreline areas are minimized during preparation and completion of the
proposed work along Hood Canal and Rendsland Creek
Basin&Channel Prop.Owners SHR2014-00009 cond use 5
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate the
proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and
regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following
review criteria:
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code(MCC), especially Title 6, 8 and 16.
This staff report served to review the conditional use request from the MCC Shoreline
Master Program Chapter. The development being reviewed does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements and intent of the MCC, including the
Shoreline Master Program Chapter 17.50.080 Conditional Use standards. There are no
adverse effects to critical values or environmental areas.
2. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
the public interest.
The request evaluates the proposed dredge maintenance work and the use of dredge
materials as a sediment source. The development proposal will not impact the public
health, safety or welfare because the project proposes to maintain an existing
navigational access along Hood Canal, is compatible with surrounding land uses, and
does not adversely affect the natural environment (re-establish channel capacity and
provide a source of sediments along the shore).
3. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal does not lower the Level of Service for transportation or neighborhood
park facilities, as it is a reasonable effort to maintain channel capacity along residential
properties in Hood Canal.
X. Conclusions. Staff finds that the proposal as proposed and conditioned is consistent with
the Mason County Comprehensive Plan Chapter IX. Shoreline Management Program
Policies, and Mason County Code, 17.50.060 Shoreline Master Program Dredging and
Landfill Chapters, and the criteria of the Conditional Use Chapter. A decision made on
this request should include the conditions listed below:
1. Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA) shall be obtained from the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to beginning any site preparation and
construction work.
2. The applicant shall secure the evaluation and permitting from the Army Corps of
Engineers prior to beginning any site preparation and construction work.
3. Debris, overburden, and other waste materials from excavation will be disposed of in
such a manner as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage into any water body.
4. All excess debris/fill not required for the project design must be removed from the
site after project completion. Such debris or soil materials may not enter or cause
water quality degradation of State waters.
Basin&Channel Prop.Owners SHR2014-00009 cond use 6
5. Fill materials for the dredge deposit location shall be clean and of such quality that
they will not cause degradation of water quality.
6. Silt fencing, straw, or jute matting to be installed and maintained for erosion control
in all disturbed deposit areas. Erodible cuts shall be protected by planting or matting
immediately following construction.
7. Construction staging areas shall have proper erosion control in place during their
usage and the site shall be restored to a natural condition shortly after abandonment
by construction activity.
8. The disturbed areas on the higher areas of deposit materials must be re-planted with
native riparian vegetation.
9. Excavation and deposition to occur during daylight hours and at low water periods to
minimize potential impacts
P P
XI. Choices of Action.
1. Approve.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 15.09.090 of Title 15
Basin&Channel Prop.Owners SHR2014-00009 cond use 7
------ ,� � --------
AGENCY USE ONLY
sf Date received:
US Army Corps ,
WASHINGTON STATE of Engineers•
Seattle District �
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Agency reference#:6 rTC �U(`1 'i.L�Uq
Application (DARPA) Form'°2 Tax Parcel#(s):
USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW.
r ,
,
L--------------------------------------'
Part 1—Project Identification
1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) h[ pm
Tahuya Maintenance Dredge
Part 2—Applicant
The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [hell
2a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Sollars, Linda
21b. Organization (If applicable)
Basin & Channel Property Owners Association
2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
22402 66th Ave. West
2d. City, State, Zip
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
2e. Phone(1) 2f. Phone(2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail
(206) 276-4801 lincolnsollars@comcast.net
Additional forms may be required for the following permits:
• If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit(RGP),contact the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers for application information(206)764-3495.
• If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act,you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form(SPIF)or
prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at
http://www.nws.usace.armv mil/Missions/CiviIVVorks/Regulatory/PermitGuidebook/EndangeredSpecies aspx.
• Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline pen-nits. If you need a Shoreline permit,contact the appropriate city or county
government to make sure they accept the JARPA.
2To access an online JARPA form with[help]screens,go to
http://www.epermitting.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenter/iarpa iarpa form/9984/iarpa form aspx.
For other help,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at(800)917-0043 or help(cb-ora.wa.gov.
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 14
Part 3—Authorized Agent or Contact
Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this
application.) hf eV
3a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
Leitman, Amy
3b. Organization (if applicable)
Marine Surveys & Assessments
3C. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
521 Snagstead Way
3d. City, State Zip
p
Port Townsend, WA 98368
3e. Phone(1) 3f. Phone(2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail
(360) 385-4073 (360) 301-0262 marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com
Part 4—Property Owner(s)
Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both
upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [tgjPJ
X Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.)
❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights-of-way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.)
❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for
each additional property owner.
X Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know,
contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E
to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization.
4a. Name (Last, First, Middle)
4b. Organization (If applicable)
4c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box)
4d. City, State, Zip
4e. Phone(1) 4f. Phone(2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 2 of 14
Part s 5—Project Location
1 ( )
Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [heel
❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear )ectsjro . Complete the section below and use JARPA
p P
Attachment B for each additional project location.
5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (Check all that apply.) [hell
X Private
❑ Federal
❑ Publicly owned (state, county, city,special districts like schools,ports,etc.)
❑ Tribal
X Department of Natural Resources (DNR) —managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E)
51b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) h[ elp]
18881 NE North Shore Road
5c. City, State, Zip(If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) hf elal
Tahuya, WA 98588
5d. County n[ eIA
Mason
5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. h[ eld
Y4 Section Section Township Range
NW 19 T22N R03W
5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [helVi
• Example:47.03922 N lat./-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees-NAD 83)
Lat: 470 23' 08.42" N; Long: 1230 06' 49.19" W
5g. List the tax parcel number(s)for the project location. [helpi
• The local county assessor's office can provide this information.
32219-51-00001 through 2; 32219-52-11 through 20; 32219-52-00022 through 23 and 32219-52-00025 through
28.
5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space, use JARPA Attachment C.) LtLeM
Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel #(if known)
Mason County P.O. Box 2286 32219-52-00029
Parks & Recreation Dept. Shelton, WA 98584
Kristopher& Barbara Gebow 18711 NE North Shore Road 32219-51-00006
—.............---------
Tahuya, WA 98588
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 3 of 14
5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. hem
Rensland Creek delta is shown on the National Wetlands Inventory Map.
5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. [tPjPJ
Hood Canal
5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? hem
X Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know
51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [tgjpJ
A habitat survey was conducted on July 24, 2013 to identify flora, fauna and substrate. The following is a
combined list of substrate and species found on 15 transects in the proposed dredge area: Substrate- mud,
sand, pea gravel, cobble, rock and oyster shell; flora/fauna - Fucus, Salicornia, Ulva, Cystoseira, Marsh Jaumea,
Purple Varnish clams and barnacles.
5m. Describe how the property is currently used. LtLeM
The properties associated with the dredge are used as single-family residences.
5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. h�ei
All parcels in the BCPOA are combination of single-family residences and undeveloped land.
5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current
condition. hem
There are single-family homes and scattered pier, ramp and float structures within the basin.
5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. hem
From Shelton, take WA-2 N for approximately 21.8 miles. Turn left onto WA-300 W and drive 3.3 miles to NE
North Shore Road. Drive for 15 miles on NE North Shore Road. The site will be on the left.
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 4 of 14
i
Pa —Part 6 J Pro'ect Description
P
6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. [tPipi
Maintenance dredge of Tahuya Basin.
6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [beiw
The purpose of the project is to remove a build-up of sediment and keep the Tahuya Basin and Channel
navigable for the public and property owners.
6C. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [beipl
❑ Commercial X Residential ❑ Institutional X Transportation X Recreational
X Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement
6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help]
❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall
❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam/Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland)
❑ Boat House ❑ Dike/ Levee/Jetty ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road
❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Scientific
❑ Boat Lift Measurement Device
❑ Dock/ Pier El Marina/ Moorage
❑ Bridge X g El Dredging in ❑ Stairs
❑ Bulkhead ElStormwater facility
❑ Fence ❑ Outfall Structure
❑ BuoyEl swimming Pool
Ferry Terminal El
X Channel Modification hw Fi ❑ Utility Line
❑ s ay ❑ Raft
❑ Other:
I
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 5 of 14
6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction
methods and equipment to be used. net
• Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody.
• Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain.
The proposed work is to dredge up 1,166 cubic yards of material from an approximate 12,281 ft2 area along the
channel connecting the Tahuya basin to Hood Canal. An excavator will be used during an extreme low tide to
perform the dredge. The dredge spoils will be disposed of on a bank that is directly adjacent to the dredge areas
so that the dredged sediments will continue to nourish the same drift cell. (See Biological Evaluation)
6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) hf elal
• If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or
stage.
Start date: After July 16th End date: Before January 14th ❑ See JARPA Attachment D
6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [help]
$35,000.00
6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? heI
• If yes, list each agency providing funds.
❑ Yes X No ❑ Don't know
Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation
X Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area.
(If there are none, skip to Part 8.) heI
7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hf el
Not applicable
The area to be dredged and the disposal site are located to the W/SW of the boundary of the mapped wetland.
Only accumulated sediment at the basin entrance will be moved, and no sediment will be placed within the
wetland area.
7b. Will the project impact wetlands? heI
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 6 of 14
❑ Yes X No ❑ Don't know
7c.Will the project impact wetland buffers? [nei]I
❑ Yes X No ❑ Don't know
7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? tLeM
• If Yes,submit the report, including data sheets,with the JARPA package.
❑ Yes X No
7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating
System? [heel
• If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package.
❑ Yes ❑ No X Don't know
7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? [L@jPJ
• If Yes,submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g.
• If No,or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
❑ Yes X No ❑ Not applicable
There should be no impact to the mapped wetland as the proposed dredge and disposal of sediment will take
place outside of the boundaries. Dredge spoils will be placed on the bank directly opposite where they are taken
from the channel and will continue to nourish the same drift cell.
7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was
used to design the plan. [neel i
Does not apply.
7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the
impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a
similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. n[ glo
Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland
drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact3 mitigation mitigation area
flood, etc.) rating ft. or type (sq. ft. or
categoryz Acres) acres)
If no official name for the wetland exists,create a unique name(such as"Wetland 1' . The name should be consistent with other project documents,such
as a wetland delineation report.
2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System.Provide the wetland
rating forms with the JARPA package.
3 Indicate the days,months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity.Enter"permanent"if applicable.
°Creation(C),Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R),Enhancement(E),Preservation(P),Mitigation Bank/ln-lieu fee(B)
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 7 of 14
Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available:
7L For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic
yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. hei
Does not apply
7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in
cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. h[ elpl
No material will be removed from the mapped wetland.
Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation
In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non-wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [tpipj
X Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.)
8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
hf elpl
❑ Not applicable
Work will only be conducted within a specific work window (July 16 to January 14) to avoid migrating and
spawning activities by salmon and forage fish species. The method of dredging with an excavator only during
extreme low tides will minimize impacts from turbidity and siltation. WDFW `Best Management Practices'will be
followed.
8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? hel
X Yes ❑ No
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 8 of 14
8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non-wetland
waterbodies? [help'
• If Yes,submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d.
• If No, or Not applicable,explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required.
❑ Yes X No ❑ Not applicable
The impact should be minimal, and for a short period of time.
8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used
to design the plan.
• If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [hell ]
Does not apply.
8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [hell
Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or
dredge, fill, pile name' location of impact3 (cubic yards)to be linear ft.) of
drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody
removed from directly affected
waterbody
Dredging Hood Canal In water& 2 days 1,166 Cubic yards 12,281 sq. ft.
on bank removed from channel
& placed on bank.
If no official name for the waterbody exists,create a unique name(such as"Stream 1")The name should be consistent with other documents provided.
2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent,provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and
indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain.
'Indicate the days,months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent"if applicable.
8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards)
you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. h( elo
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 9 of 14
There will be no fill.
8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging,
type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. bgjpj
An excavator will be used during an extreme low tide to move 1,166 cubic yards of sediment from the channel
and placed directly opposite on the channel bank so that it may continue to nourish the same drift cell.
Part 9—Additional Information
Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of
this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question.
9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. hel
Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent
Date of Contact
9b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington
Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? Lqgjpj
• If Yes, list the parameter(s)below.
• If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/.
❑ Yes X No
DARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 10 of 14
9c. Wha
t U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? of elpl
• Go to http:Hcfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm to help identify the HUC.
17110018
9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number(WRIA#) is the project in? ne[eMi
• Go to hftr)://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/wria/wria.htm to find the WRIA#.
#16
9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for
turbidity? h[ pM
• Go to http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swgs/criteria.html for the standards.
X Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable
9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment
designation? [Leg
• If you don't know, contact the local planning department.
• For more information, go to: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/211 designations html.
X Rural ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ❑ Conservancy ❑ Other
9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? n[ eM
• Go to http://www.dnr wa gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pages/f) watertypinq aspx for the Forest Practices
Water Typing System.
❑ Shoreline X Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal
9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual?
h[ elpl
• If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet.
Yes ❑ No X Does not apply
Name of manual:
9i. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [hell
• If Yes, please describe below.
❑ Yes X No
9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. of eM
Single family residences and recreation.
9 Y
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 11 of 14
9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help]
• If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package.
❑ Yes ❑ No X Unknown
91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project
area or might be affected by the proposed work. hel
Please see the Biological Evaluation.
9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and
Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. hf elpl
Please see the Biological Evaluation.
Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits
Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for.
• Online Project Questionnaire at http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/.
• Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help _ora.wa.gov.
• For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA.
10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) hel
• For more information about SEPA,go to www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review html.
❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application.
X A SEPA determination is pending with Mason County (lead agency). The expected decision date is
unknown:
❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in yob.) hf eM
❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below).
❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt?
❑ Other:
❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law.
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 12 of 14
10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) h[ elPJ
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Shoreline permits:
Substantial Development OXConditional Use ❑ Variance
❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain):
Other City/County permits:
❑ Floodplain Development Permit ❑ Critical Areas Ordinance
STATE GOVERNMENT
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife:
X Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption—Attach Exemption Form
Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for$150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash.
Check the appropriate boxes:
X $150 check enclosed. Check#
Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
❑Charge to billing account under agreement with WDFW. Agreement#
❑My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption)
❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff.
Agreement#
❑ Mineral prospecting and mining.
❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land.
(Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor, or other proof of current land use.)
❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012.
HPA#
Washington Department of Natural Resources:
X Aquatic Use Authorization
Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for$25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
Do not send cash.
Washington Department of Ecology:
X Section 401 Water Quality Certification
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
United States Department of the Army permits (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers):
X Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ❑ Section 10 (work in navigable waters)
United States Coast Guard permits: ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects)
JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 13 of 14
Part 11—Authorizing Signatures
Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The DARPA package includes the
JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. Et,?p
11a. Applicant Signature (required) heir
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true,
complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I
agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits.
I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to
this application. (initial)
By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent
to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or
any work related to the project. _ (initial)
4-nda- Q.i"S
Ap
plicant Panted Name Applicant Signature Date
11 b. Authorized Agent Signature hei
I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true,
complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to car. -on the proposed activities
a ree t y ry P P t es and I
g o start work only after a necessary permits have been Issued.
Authonzed Agent Printed Name 4f A zed Agent Signature ate
11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) nei
Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements.
I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the
project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior
notice to the landowner.
Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date
18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that:Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States
knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false,fictitious, or
fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
If you require this document in another format, contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance(ORIA)
at(800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call
877 833-6341. ORIA publication number: ENV-019-09 rev.08/2013
e5(4-�,7,6 t4 - U606 7 Pry avne�
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Bldg. 1, Second floor.
32219-21-00020 Aleita }�set al� c� J
C/0 Betty Lou-f-&-�.t- ,�� Dee5 '�
1321 W 72nd Circle
Anchorage,AK 99518
32219-51-00003 Mark John Testu
11231 First Ave.NW
Seattle,WA 98177
32219-51-00005 Carl man
18721 NE Nortli`S`�1ore Road
Tahu a,WA 98588
32219-52-00029
Mason County
Parks&Recreation Department
P.O. Box 2286
Shelton,WA 98584
32219-52-00030 State of WA
Department of Natural Resources
State Land Division
P.O.Box 47016
Olympia,WA 98504
fimot- i,4,Pwwl.� SutfrVU10
erg V A qC,6 fss
f ac5
MIC"A,f-fake_ 1el(mtc-e OVA- `760
Shoreline 2011 app.doc
T23NR4
F p '
I
1 1 �
o !�
I
NE'CA LN
T22NR4W
� I
CA
1 � I
sn,o
p TE RO
, U
� E 4TH 51 '—`uu
LUJ
e lam. ��® _ I `�: _ �1 E ���.I�a;l, �♦
/� a ,t'1`/��. i+ �iED,4tBYRD ��rr-! f�)I �!(!I �,if�i ��IIRE�II � � ��C I I-i�•�,II��{�7���'rj"I I't ,
C'W
E MANZANfTA DR . ER j
1 0
.wl E TACOMA POW
1 .:m
t 00001 C�609WI)fq9,
1 inch =4,000 feet
W E
1 inch = 1 miles
S
t ,
T2 Nf2 k �O
�4
y;) b pp
IN
+c• a
t a e
{ Source. Esri, nigitalkVlcbz, GeoEye, i-cubed, U'SD USGS,AE�X,
Get aPping, erognd, IGN. IG'. wiss4opo, and fhe GIS ser Co unit,
N
1 inch = 100 feet
W E
1 inch = 0 miles
S
Ey(I
I 'a lntty p=Tahu rlH'm o'Po' I'Icr
11 _
`. I.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
ew. a z0
Er N1
1=At Ain
fi
Figure 2. proposed project dredging and placement area.
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 57
sTAr MASON COUNTY
oN F
BPS oil
c �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
s°o Planning Division
~ o T �? P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
J Y (360)427-9670
7864
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-340)
SEP2014-00019
Description of Proposal: Maintenance dredge of the mouth of Rendsland Creek in Hood
Canal in order to remove build-up of sediment and keep the
channel along Hood Canal navigable for the public and property
owners. Spoil materials will be placed east of the dredged
channel and in the shore sediment drift cell.
Proponent: BASIN & CHANNEL OWNERS
Location of Proposal: 18751 NE NORTH SHORE RD TAHUYA
Parcel Number: 322195100001
Legal Description: NELSON'S WATERFRONT TRACTS TR 1 1/2
Directions to Site: INTEREST
North Shore Rd. 18,8 miles west of Belfair and 4 miles west of
Tah uya.
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request.
Please contact Allan Borden at ext. 365 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC
197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown
below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community
Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 7/28/2014. Appeal of this determination
must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County
Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals
Authori ed Local Government Official Date
tAt b t f 7
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Bog 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
SHR2014-00009 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT.
Notice is hereby given that Basin& Channel Property Owners Assn., the applicant of the
described property below, has filed an application for Shoreline Substantial Development and
Conditional Use Permit for the development of:
Maintenance dredge of the mouth of Rendsland Creek in Hood Canal in order to
remove build-up of sediment and keep the channel along Hood Canal navigable
for the public and property owners. Spoil materials will be placed east of the
dredged channel and in the shore sediment drift cell.
Parcel Number: 32219-51-00001, 32219-51-00002, 32219-52-00011 thru 32219-52-00020.
Site Address: 18881 NE North Shore Rd., Tahuya, WA.
Location of Project: Along Hood Canal 4.5 miles west of Tahuya WA.; within the southeast 1/4
of the northwest 1/4 of Section 19, Township 22 N., Range 3 W. in Mason Co. WA.
Said proposed development is subject to shoreline management permit review(M.C.C. 17.50) and
associated Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
426 WEST CEDAR ST.
SHELTON,WA 98584
The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-
14-020. The final date of publication, posting or mailing of notice is July 3, 2014.
A Threshold Determination will be issued the week of July 7, 2013 under WAC 197-11-340.
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday
August 12, 2014; 1:00 PM. in MASON CO. BLDG. 1. [411 No. 5' St., Shelton]. Contact this office at
(360) 427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
yh b, IF
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTIC
STATE OF.WASHINGTON ) /3��`
ss. /
COUNTY OF MASON )
do hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached'' cx�ly1 a"'''t
on day of 20 H in 2 public places.as follows:
one at
one at
one at
In.witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posti-ng Notice this. (sue day
iof , 20 -
Address: `t
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this 4 8ay of �'7 20 e� /
Notary Public f
State of Washington No ry Public for�the State of Washington
DEBBERA COKER eliding atU
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
1 111 5/20 1 4 Commission Expires 1/-IS
i
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Bldg. 1,Second floor.
32219-21-00020 No et al cPos�
C/O Betty Lou-fwnber .t- ri� jJ�e �j
1321 W 72nd Circle
Anchorage,AK 99518
32219-51-00003 Mark John Testu
11231 First Ave. NW
Seattle,WA 98177
32219-51-00005 Carl R Ra*wir-iA Aman
18721 NE Nortl`i�S110 4 Road
Tahu a,WA 98588
32219-52-00029 Mason County
Parks&Recreation Department
P.O. Box 2286
Shelton,WA 98584
32219-52-00030 State of WA
Department of Natural Resources
State Land Division
P.O. Box 47016
Olympia,WA 98504
Shoreline 2011 app.doc
E Sv
ESSI�
Tahuya Boat Basin
Maintenance Dredge Project
Tahuya, Mason County
February 5th, 2014
For:
Basin & Channel Property Owners Association
c/o Linda Sollars
22402 66th Ave. W.
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Prepared by:
Marine Surveys&Assessments
Office: 627 Hudson St.
Mailing: 521 Snagstead Way.
Port Townsend,WA 98368
Phone: (360) 385-4073
Email: marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com
Table of Contents
I. Project Information.............................................................................3
A. Project Location...............................................................................3
B. Project Description.......................................................................3-4
C. Action Area......................................................................................4
II. Habitat and Species Information....................................................4-7
A. Habitat Description..........................................................................4
B. Species Description......................................................................4-5
1. Puget Sound Chinook............................................................6-7
2. Hood-Canal Summer Chum.......................................................7
3. Bull Trout...................................................................................7
4. Puget Sound Steelhead...........................................................7-8
5. Rockfish.....................................................................................8
6. Marbled Murrelets .....................................................................8
7. Forage Fish.................................................................................9
8. Humpback Whales.....................................................................9
9. Leatherback Sea Turtle..............................................................9
10. Southern Resident Killer Whales...............................................9
III.Effects Analysis of Proposed Action........................................... 10-12
A. Direct Effects........................................................................... 10-12
B. Indirect Effects...............................................................................12
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects................................................12
D. Take Analysis.................................................................................12
IV.Mitigation and Management Measures
toMinimize or Avoid impacts..................................................... 13-14
A. Work Windows........................................................................13
B. Dredge Guidelines ...................................................................13
C. Siltation Management........................................................ 13-14
V. Determination of Effect.....................................................................15
References........................................................................................... 16-19
Marine Surveys &Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 1
Figures
1. Vicinity Map........................................................................................20
2. Site Plan: Proposed Dredge Area.........................................................21
3. Site Plan: Bathymetry Survey..............................................................22
4. Site Plan: Dredge Cross-section and Thickness Estimates..................23
5. Site Plan: Dredge Material Disposal Site.............................................24
6. Site Plan: Aerial Photo of Project Site.................................................25
7. Site Plan: Potential Forage Fish Spawning Habitat in Action Area....26
Attachments
1. Habitat Survey Results.....................................................................27-43
2. Habitat Survey Transect Map................................................................44
3. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook,
Hood Canal Summer Chum and Puget Sound Steelhead....................45-46
4. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Coastal - Puget Sound
BullTrout ............................................................................................47-49
5. Assessment of Impacts to Proposed Critical Habitat for Georgia Basin
(Bocaccio, Canary and Yelloweye) Rockfish......................................50-54
6. Sample and Analysis Plan Memo....................................................55-57
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 2
TAHUYA BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
1. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Project Location:
Section Township 22 North, Range 03 West.
Tahuya, Mason County, Washington, 98588
Latitude 47023'08.42"N Longitude 123°06'49.19"W
Please note that the Tahuya basin in this project refers to the boat basin of the Tahuya Basin and
Channel Property Owners Association and is different from that of the Tahuya River which is
located three mile east of this project site. The project location can be seen in the vicinity map in
Figure 1.
B. Project Description:
The Basin& Channel Property Owners Association of Tahuya is proposing to perform a
maintenance dredge at the Tahuya basin, located on the Hood Canal in Mason County. Since the
last maintenance dredge in 2005, a significant portion of the basin has been backfilled in by
sedimentation. The previous dredge was approved by U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permit
number 200300812 and Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Right of Entry
Agreement number 20-076066. This maintenance dredge will serve to keep the Tahuya basin and
channel navigable and accessible to the public and stakeholders of the basin. This biological
evaluation will discuss the potential impacts of this maintenance dredge as well as provide
recommendations to minimize these potential impacts.
The proponents of this project are proposing to dredge up 1,166 cubic yards of material from an
approximately 12,281 ft2 area along the channel connecting the Tahuya basin to Hood Canal
(Figure 2). The desired elevation of the channel after the dredge is +4 MLLW(with 1'
overdredge), with 6'wide sloped sides (2:1 slope).A bathymetry survey was conducted to
measure current elevations and to estimate the dredge material thickness (Figures 3 and 4). A
summary of the bathymetry survey data and dredge volume estimates are available in Table 1.
Similar to the previous maintenance dredge, an excavator will be used during an extreme low
tide to perform the dredge. The dredge spoils will be disposed of on a bank that is directly
adjacent to the dredge areas so that the dredged sediments will continue to nourish the same drift
cell (Figure 5). The U.S. Army Corp of Engineer's Dredge Material Management Office in
Seattle has been contacted,the sediments are not contaminated and due to the relatively small
volume of the dredge, a sample and analysis plan is not necessary (Attachment).
C.Action Area:
The action area should include the area within a one half-mile radius of the project site for
turbidity impacts and construction related noise impacts.
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 3
i J
Table 1. Summary of estimated dredge areas and volumes.
Total Area of
Bathymetry Survey Channel Sloped
Area 53,980 ft2 7,676 ftz 4,605 ftz 12,281 W
Average Elevation -7.68' -7.10'
Minimum
Elevation -3.89' -3.89'
Maximum
Elevation -14.45' -13.34'
Average Dredge
Thickness 3.10' 3.35'
Minimum Dredge
Material Thickness -0.11, 1.70'
Maximum Dredge
Material Thickness 9.34' 9.13'
Volume 881 cubic yards 285 cubic yards 1,166 cubic yards
Elevations are in MLLW
*6'wide sloped sides(2:1 slope with average dredge material thickness of 3
)
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 4
H.HABITAT AND SPECIES INFORMATION
A.Habitat Description
The Tahuya basin is an intertidal estuarine habitat(WDFW 2014) with deeper areas within the
basin and a shallow channel leading to Hood Canal (see Figure 6). Please note that the proposed
dredge will only be in the area of the channel (Figure 2). A habitat survey was conducted on July
24a', 2013 and the detailed findings of this survey can be found in Attachment 1. In general the
tidal areas adjacent of the channel were barren with small isolated patches of Salicornia and
Marsh Jaumea; the substrate consisted of cobbles and some oyster shell on the eastern slope of
the channel. The channel contained relatively low area coverage of Ulva, Fucus and Cystoseira,
with its substrate consisting of pea gravel.
Rendsland Creek, a fish bearing stream is located directly north of the dredge disposal site
(Figure 6). The documented fish in Rendsland Creek are identified in the Species Description
below. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified potential forage fish
spawning habitat within the one half-mile radius of the action area, approximately 600' south of
the dredge south(Figure 7). This area is located within WRIA 15 the Kitsap basin.
According to NOAA Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA)the project
site is located in an area where there is a south to north net shore drift.
B. Species Description
Priority listed species located within the vicinity of the action area Coast Resident Cutthroat
Trout, Chum Salmon, and Coho Salmon, as well as oyster beds and wintering concentrations of
waterfowl (WDFW 2014). The Coho Salmon is a candidate species for federal listing and the
Hood Canal Summer Chum are federally listed as threatened species (Salmon Conservation
Reporting Engine—SCoRE). Given the location of the proposed maintenance dredge, it is
possible that the species and habitats listed above will be affected by dredging activities.
However, potential impacts can be minimized or prevented by following the measures suggested
in Section IV of this biological evaluation document.
Near the project area, the Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)is listed under the
Endangered Species Act as a threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries
Service(NMFS)(Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations).
On May 11, 2007. NMFS also listed the Puget Sound steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss) as a
threatened species under the ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 91 /Friday, May 11, 2007/
Rules and Regulations). On September 2, 2005, NMFS issued the final rule designating critical
habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast salmon,including the Puget
Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in
an area designated as critical habitat for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU (Federal Register/Vol
70, No.170/Friday, September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations).
Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus) were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service(USFWS)in October of 1999. The project site is not located on a shoreline
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 5
designated as critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout(Federal Register/Vol. 70, No.
185/September 26, 2005/Rules and Regulations).
On April 27, 2010, NOAA listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of yelloweye and
canary rockfish as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and listed the
Georgia Basin DPS of bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /April 28,
2010/Final Rule). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound,including the area around the
San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the mouth of the Campbell River in British
Columbia. The western boundary of the Georgia Basin runs from east of Port Angeles to Victoria
in the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
On November 15, 2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale (Orcinus orca) as
endangered under ESA(Federal Register/Vol. 70,No. 222/November 18, 2005 /Rules and
Regulations). NOAA Fisheries has designated critical habitat for killer whales (Federal Register/
Vol. 71,No. 229/November 29, 2006/Final Rule). "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than
20'relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water. The project site
is not located in the critical habitat foi the Southern Resident killer whale.
NMFS also listed both the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and the Pacific
leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea) as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.
Marbled murrelets (Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the
USFWS since 1992.
There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site (Federal Register/
Vol. 61,No. 102/ 1996). There is no designated critical habitat for leatherback sea turtles in
Washington and no designated critical habitat for humpback whales at this time.
1.Puget Sound Chinook: Puget Sound chinook, also called the king salmon, are
distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size. Most chinook in the Puget
Sound are"ocean-type" and migrate to the marine environment during their first year
(Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from
March to May at a length of 40 mm, or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts
during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook
fry in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans
(gammarid amphipods,mysids, and cumaceans). As they grow and move into neritic
habitats,they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish,drift insects, and
euphausiids (Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing
areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival.
The project site is located in WRIA 15.
According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2003):
A small number of Chinook spawn in Union and Tahuya Rivers. Naturally
spawning Chinook generally have not met escapement goal of 400 fish over the
long-term(late 1960s to early 1990s). With the exception of Skokomish River
runs, the Hood Canal stock is rated as "depressed"
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 6
According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps,no Puget Sound chinooks are
present near the project site or the action area(WDFW 2014).
2.Hood-Canal Summer Chum: Chum salmon are also known as dog salmon. Like other
anadromous salmonid, chums utilize freshwater streams for spawning after spending
three to five years at sea. The abundance of chum salmon in Puget Sound tends to
fluctuate naturally during even/odd cycles, suggesting a possible competitive interaction
with pink salmon in estuary or nearshore habitats (McHenry, et al. 1996). Hood Canal
Summer-run Chum: NMFS has listed the Hood Canal summer run Chum ESU
(Oncorhynchus keta)as threatened under the ESA (Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 123 /
Tuesday, June 28, 2005). The project site is in an area designated as critical habitat for
the Hood Canal summer run Chum ESU(Federal Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday,
September 2, 2005/Rules and Regulations).
According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2003):
The majority of Hood Canal Summer Chum spawn in rivers on the west shore of
the Hood Canal. Escapements of Hood Canal Summer Chum have.been
chronically low since the 1980s with escapements goals reach only three times
between the years of 1968 to 1991.
According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps, only Hood Canal Fall Chum are
present near the project site or the action area(WDFW 2014).
3.Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern
California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,
and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea. Bull trout are members
of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to
November in streams and migration to the open sea(for anadromous populations)takes
place in the spring. Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.
Temperatures in excess of about 15 degrees C are thought to limit bull trout distribution
(Rieman and McIntyre 1993). They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to
larger rivers (fluvial), lakes (adfluvial), or saltwater(anadromous)before returning to
smaller streams to spawn. Others (resident bull trout) complete all of their life in the
streams where they were reared. Habitat degradation, dams and diversions, and predation
by non-native fish threaten the Coastal-Puget Sound population. The Coastal-Puget
Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only anadromous forms of bull trout
in the contiguous United States (Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/ 1999).
Although it is possible for bull trout to be present in the Hood Canal, according to
WDFW priority habitat and species maps as well as Washington State Conservation
Commision, no Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout are present in WRIA 15 (WDFW 2014,
WSCC 2003).
4.Puget Sound Steelhead: Steelhead is the name given to the anadromous form of the
species O. mykiss. The freshwater residents are called Rainbow trout. Steelhead can
return to the ocean after spawning and migrate to freshwater to spawn again, unlike
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 7
Pacific salmon. Steelhead fry can spend one to two years in freshwater before heading to
the open ocean, where they may stay for two to four years before returning to Washington
streams.
According to the Washington State Conservation Commission (2003):
Winter Steelhead are present throughout west WRIA 15 with Dewatto, Tahuya,
and Union Rivers as the main production areas. The stock is rated as"depressed"
According to WDFW priority habitat and species maps, no Puget Sound Steelheads are
present near the project site or the action area(WDFW 2014).
5.Rockfish: Bocaccio rockfish are found more often in South Puget Sound, whereas
Yelloweye are more prevalent in North Puget Sound. All three species of rockfish remain
close to the surface as larvae and pelagic juveniles. As juveniles they settle to benthic
environment.They prefer to settle in rocky reefs,kelp beds,low rock and cobble areas
(Love et al. 2002). Yelloweye juveniles are also found in sponge gardens.As the three
species grow larger they move into deeper waters. Adults are found around rocky reefs
and coarse habitats. Yelloweye rockfish are commonly found at depths from 300'to 590'.
Canary rockfish usually habitat the area between 160'to 820' and Bocaccio rockfish are
usually found between 160'and 820'. All three species are opportunistic feeders,with
their prey dependent on their life stage. Predators of the adults of these species include
marine mammals, salmon, other rockfish, lingcod and sharks (Love et al. 2002).. NOAA
has listed the distinct population segments (DPSs) of Yelloweye and canary rockfish as
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA)and listed the Georgia Basin
DPS of Bocaccio as endangered(Federal Register/Vol. 75,No. 81 /Wednesday, April
28, 2010/Rules and Regulations.). The Georgia Basin refers to all of Puget Sound,
including the area around the San Juan Islands, and the Strait of Georgia north to the
mouth of the Campbell River in British Columbia. This project site is located in NOAA's
recently proposed shallow water critical habitat for juvenile Bocaccio and canary rockfish
(Federal Register/Vol. 78,No. 151/Tuesday,August 6, 2013/Proposed Rules).
The effects of this project on adult rockfish are expected to be minimal,if they occur at
all, because adult rockfish are commonly found in much deeper water than exists at the
project site. If juvenile or pelagic rockfish are present,the direct and indirect effects of
this project are expected to be similar to those discussed in this document for salmon
because juveniles are found closer to shore in shallow waters.
6.Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family. They
spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical
nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the
survival and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). Adult birds are found within or
adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch, Pacific
herring, surf smelt,other small schooling fish and invertebrates. There is no critical
habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests close to the project site
(WDFW 2014).
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 8
7.Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring (Clupea harengus
pallasi), sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus) and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus) as
prey resources. These forage fish form a very important trophic link between plankton
resources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for
marbled murrelets and bald eagles. WDFW SalmonScape maps (WDFW 2014)indicate
the presence of potential forage fish spawning habitat in the southern portion of the action
area(see Figure 7), the activities associated with the proposed project has the potential to
impact this forage fish habitat. Suggestions for minimizing and mitigating for such
impacts are listed in Section IV.
8. Humpback Whales: Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are
rarely seen in Puget Sound, even though in the past they were much more prevalent
(Angell and Balcomb 1982). According to Osborne et al. (1988), there were only three
sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound from 1976 to 1988. However,more
recently, a juvenile humpback whale was sighted near Johnson Point(NE of Olympia),
with several fresh injuries (Orca Network Sighting Report-July 10, 2006). Another
sighting was made in Dalco Passage between Gig Harbor and Pt. Defiance on June 23,
2011 (Orca Network Sighting Report). Due to the location of the project site being in the
nearshore and the fact that it is highly unlikely that Humpback Whales will be found in
the southern reaches of Hood Canal, no Humpback Whales are expected to be impacted.
9. Leatherback Sea Turtle: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,
even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994). They are
rarely seen in Puget Sound (McAllister,pers. comm.). Again,it seems highly unlikely
that these turtles would be found in Hood Canal or the action area.
10. Southern Resident Killer Whales: The Southern Resident population consists of three
pods: J, K and L. According to Wiles (2004), "While in inland waters during warmer
months, all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro Strait, Boundary Passage, the
Southern Gulf Islands, the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities
in the southern Georgia Strait."During early autumn,these pods, especially J pod, extend
their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook salmon
runs. Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter
water less than 5 meters deep(Baird 2001). According to information provided by
NMFS, no Southern Resident killer whale critical habitat is present in the Hood Canal or
near the action area
(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/Criticalhabitat/killerwhale_Sr.pdf).
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 9
M. EFFECT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION
The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided. The proposed project
has been described and the action area defined. A habitat survey has been provided. When
reviewingall the data the potential direct and indirect of f p effects o the proposed action on the listed
species and their critical habitat should be considered.
A. Direct Effects: When considering the direct effects of the proposed dredging project on the
P P g gP J
listed species and habitats one must determine if the proposed project will immediately reduce or
destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential, direct impacts caused by the
proposed project include: (1) increased turbidity from dredging, (2) entrainment of juvenile
salmonids and (3) increased noise.
Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by dredging could have adverse effects on salmon and
bull trout. The impact level depends on duration of exposure, concentration of turbidity, the
life stage during the increased exposure and the options available for the fish to avoid the
plumes. The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal, sublethal or behavioral (Nightingale
and Simenstad 2001 and Simenstad, editor, 1988).
Lake and Flinch (1999) found 20% mortality in coho salmon at concentrations of
anthropogenically-derived sediments of 100 g/L(96 hour exposures). Sherk et al. (1974)
studied sublethal effects of fuller's earth suspensions on estuarine fishes.The lowest
concentration x duration dosage that elicited a sublethal responses occurred at 650 mg/1 for 5
days in white perch (elevated hematocrit level). Servizi (1990) found no impairment of
osmoregulatory capacity in coho exposed to suspended sediment concentrations of 14,400
mg/l for less than 4 days. Coho did exhibit gill damage at exposures of 3,100 mg/1 over 96
hours (Servizi 1990).
One of the major problems with laboratory tests like those cited above-is that the
applicability of the information is highly subjective - results vary according the experimental
design. For example, Newcombe and MacDonald (1991) found some mortality of chinook
and coho smolts duringshort-term exposure to suspended sediment levels of 500 mg/l to
P P g
1,400 mg/1 while LeGore and Des Voigne (1973) found no acute effects on juvenile coho
exposed to concentrations of 28,800 mg/l. Clarke and Wilber(1999) observed that in field
dredging operations, fish and other motile organisms encounter localized suspended-
sediment plumes for minutes to hours, not days,because they can avoid unstable conditions.
Adult fish responses to duration of less than one day at concentrations of 1,500 mg/l
(conditions relevant to most actual dredging conditions) have not been studied enough to
reach definite conclusions.
Turbidity generated by hydraulic dredging (cutterhead and hopper types) is generally less
than that generated by clamshell dredges (LaSalle 1989). LaSalle reported suspended
sediments of several hundred mg/l within 3 meters from the draghead in cutterhead hydraulic
dredges (cutterhead hydraulic dredges use a rotating cutter device at the draghead in addition
to suction) and little suspension in surface waters.
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 10
The following discussion will provide some insight into the turbidity increases associated
with the use of a clamshell dredge. Choker Research at Grays Harbor College (Phipps et al.
1992 as discussed in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 2000 Programmatic Biological
Evaluation) conducted water quality measurements during clamshell dredging in the inner
harbor in 1990. Samples were taken at 34 sites. At each site three samples were taken at three
different depths (top,middle and bottom) and at three different locations around the
clamshell dredge- one as close to the clamshell as possible, another at 100 to 150 meters
down-current from the dredge and one upstream of the dredge location to represent ambient
conditions. The investigators made every effort to collect to samples at the worst time, such
as during a slack tide. They found that out of a total of 600 samples, "only 23 had a total
suspended solids (TTS)value higher than 500mg/l and 7 of these were measuring ambient
conditions. The highest TSS measurement was 3000 mg/1 (the ambient condition at this time
was 700 mg/l, and most were below 1000 mg/l."
In their analysis of the turbidity impacts associated with the Grays Harbor project, The U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) went on to state that," In addition, given the flushing
rates calculated for Grays Harbor, sediment plumes created by both clam shell and hopper
dredges are thought to dissipate rapidly. Therefore any biological effects of dredging plumes
would be generally short lived."
Based on the above discussion, it is possible that dredging activities in the outer channel area
in the vicinity of the macro algae beds will have some impact on these beds. However, a
Biological Opinion was written by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 2006)
concerning a small dredging project(550 cubic yards)in Cultus Bay in Island County, WA.
A clamshell dredge was used in that project also. Regarding the dredging impacts on water
quality, it was stated, "The increase in turbidity should be localized and short-term, and
should be dissipated with a few hours following construction each day. Effects are expected
to short-term effects that subside over short time frames (pulse effect)." One could assume
that the same statement can be made about the impacts of the proposed project.
Entrainment: McGraw and Armstrong (1990) conducted entrainment studies for hopper and
pipeline dredging activities in Grays Harbor,WA over a ten-year period. Most of the
dredging was conducted outside of peak salmonid migration periods and it was reported that
only one juvenile chum was entrained.
Noise Impacts: Noise associated with dredging operations might affect migrating salmonids
and foraging murrelets.Although Feist et al. (1992) concluded that pile driving noise (as
opposed to dredging operations) alters the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and
chum salmon, Nightingale and Simenstad(2001)have concluded that, "Further research into
the effects of noises specific to dredging are required to conclude the effects dredging noises
may have upon salmonids and other fishes."
Marbled murrelets spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting.
In the critical nesting areas, fragmentation and loss of old growth forest have a significant
impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW 1993). There is no critical
nesting habitat within close range of the project and there are no nests (Federal Register,Vol.
61,No. 102, 1996).Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets (Figure 6)indicate that very
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 11
few murrelets have been seen in the marine environment near the project area in the summer
months. Because of this, construction during the work window mentioned below would cause
few, if any, impacts on murrelet foraging.
B. Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. Potential
indirect effects of the proposed project are: 1) the alteration of benthic salmonid habitat and 2)
Alteration of forage fish spawning substrate.
Salmonid Habitat Alterations: As seen in Figure 2 and 5, the proposed dredging project
footprint and disposal site is adjacent to Rendsland Creek, but will not extend into the
creek. As mentioned above there may be some brief turbidity impacts on action area, but
these are not expected to cause long term impacts. As quoted above in relation to the
Cultus Bay dredging project, "The increase in turbidity should be localized and short-
term, and should be dissipated with a few hours following construction each day. Effects
are expected to short-term effects that subside over short time frames (pulse effect)."
Forage Fish Substrate Alterations: As seen in Figures 2 and 7, the dredge footprint will
not extend into the potential forage fish spawning habitat in the southern portion of the
action area. Additionally by timing this dredge to occur during extreme low tides and
within the suggested work window, any impacts on potential forage fish spawning habitat
can be minimize.
C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects: Completion of this project will not promote future
construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur without its completion. Therefore,
no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species regulated under ESA
will occur because of this project.
D. Take Analysis: The ESA (Section 3) defines "take" as to "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct."The USFWS further
defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury
to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or
sheltering." It is likely that no "take" will result from this
project.
Marine Surveys &Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 12
IV. MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO MINIMIZE OR AVOID
IMPACTS
A. Work Windows: As ESA listed species are found within the proposed project's
action area, construction should only take place during work windows when these species
are not migrating or spawning near the action area. The approved work windows are as
th th st th
follows: Jul 16 to February 15 for salmonids and April 1 to January 14 for forage
Y �'Y P �'Y g
fish. Thus the best time for construction during which impacts to both salmonids and
forage fish can be minimized is from July 16`h to January 141h
B. Dredge Guidelines. Several recommendations for dredge operation practices have
been highlighted in the Executive Summary of the White Paper"Dredging Activities:
Marine Issues" (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001) submitted to Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
1. The recommendations made in the White Paper are as follows:
■ Reducing the volumes of dredged materials removed
■ Reducing the frequency of dredging
■ Avoiding projects that convert intertidal to subtidal habitat
■ Requiring that dredges and barges completely contain dredged material
to minimize turbidity increases
■ Employing best management practices to reduce changes to ambient light
conditions
■ Avoiding geoduck losses by avoiding dredging in geoduck tracts.
Technological tools such as the "Silent Inspector" should be considered
whenever particularly sensitive habitats or organisms are at risk due to
dredging proximal to sensitive habitats or in projects where sediments
both suitable and unsuitable for unconfined open water disposal will be
dredged adjacent to each other.
2. Additionally, due to the mechanical method of dredging (excavator) in this
project, turbidity and siltation impacts can be minimized if dredging was done at
only during extreme low tides when the dredge area is emersed.
C. Siltation Management: Several methods are suggested to prevent siltation. In 1998
Mason County adopted Washington State Department of Ecology's STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE PUGET SOUND BASIN, often termed "the
Technical Manual". (WSDE 2012).
The following precautions for siltation prevention during construction processes
are suggested in Volume II "Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention" in
the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. These Best
Management Practices (BMPs) are as follows:
Marine Surveys &Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 13
I
■ BMP C 101: Preserving Natural Vegetation
■ BMP C102: Buffer Zones
■ BMP C103: High Visibility Fence
■ BMP C105: Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit
■ BMP C 106: Wheel Wash
■ BMP C 107: Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization
■ BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding
■ BMP C 121: Mulching
■ BMP C122: Nets and Blankets
■ BMP C123: Plastic Covering
■ BMP C124: Sodding
■ BMP C125: Topsoiling/Composting
■ BMP C126: Polyacrylamide (PAM) for Soil Erosion Protection
■ BMP C 130: Surface Roughening
■ BMP C131: Gradient Terraces
■ BMP C 140: Dust Control
■ BMP C150: Materials on Hand
■ BMP C151: Concrete Handling
■ BMP C 152: Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention
■ BMP C 153: Material Delivery, Storage and Containment
■ BMP C 154: Concrete Washout Area
■ BMP C 160: Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead
■ BMP C 162: Scheduling
Please refer to Volume II "Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention"in the
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington for BMP details.
Marine Surveys&Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project:Biological Evaluation Page 14
V. DETERMINATION OF EFFECT:
After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys, the determination of effect is:
1. Puget Sound Chinook - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect"
2. Hood Canal Summer Chum - "May affect, not likely to adversely affect'
3. Bull Trout- "No effect'
4.Puget Sound Steelhead- "May affect, not likely to adversely affect'
S. Bocaccio, Yelloweye and Canary Rockfish —"May affect, not likely to adversely affect'
6. Marbled Murrelet—"May affect, not likely to adversely affect'
7. Forage Fish — "May affect, not likely to adversely affect'
8. Humpback Whale - "No effect'
9. Leatherback Sea Turtle - "No effect'
10. Southern Resident Killer Whale - "No effect'
Marine Surveys &Assessments Tahuya Maintenance Dredge Project: Biological Evaluation Page 15
�► � h 16
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Caring for
Natural Resources RECEIVED your natural resources
PeterGoldmark-Commissioner of Public Lands AUG 14 20% now and forever
426 W. CEDARS
August 13, 2014
_ CEIVED
4 2014
+✓. CEDAR STI
Allan Borden, Senior Planner
Mason county Planning Department
Courthouse Building 1
411 N 5t'Street
Shelton,WA 98584
Subject: DNR comments to SHR2014-00009 regarding the dredging proposal at Rendsland
Creek
Dear Allan Borden:
Please accept the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) comments to SHR2014-00009
regarding the dredging proposal at Rendsland Creek. DNR is responsible for the management of
the state-owned aquatic lands where the project is proposed. The project proponent must receive
authorization from DNR to conduct the proposed work. The following comments are based on
our review of the project proposed in the JARP application signed by Linda Sollars on April 1,
2014.
DNR will not authorize the dredge project as it is currently proposed. DNR would consider
authorizing this dredge proposal under the following conditions and requirements:
1) The project must not impact the recreational shell fish beach or restrict public access and
enjoyment of the site(see attached photo).
2) DNR would consider a proposal to dredge the existing salt water channel that currently
flows out of the lagoon (see attached photo) contingent on WDFW and Army Corps
approval (This channel does slightly encumber the edge of the recreational shell fish
beach).
3) DNR is concerned about the current proposal to operate dredging equipment sitting
directly on the recreational shell fish beach. DNR would prefer that any approved
dredging to occur from a barge floating at high tide.
4) DNR will not approve the proposed dredge spoil deposition site. DNR will only approve
a dredge spoil location that will contribute to nourishment of the down-drift beaches.
The proposed deposition site does not. The location should also avoid impacts to state
and tribal shellfish resources (and not into the creek channel, see attached photo) and is
contingent on WDFW and Army Corps approval.
5) Contingent on project approval, DNR proposes that the proponent remove the creosote
piles (old pier, see attached photo) situated near the mouth of Rendsland Creek as 1/, r
mitigation for the project. �-i
1111 WASHINGTON ST SE 1 MS 47000 1 OLYMPIA,WA 98504-7000
TEL(360)902-1000 1 FAX(360)902-1775 1 TTY(360)902-1125 1 TRS 711 1 WWW.DNR.WA.GOV
` 00— EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER RECYCLED PAPER
Allan Borden
August 13,2014
Page 2 of 4
6) The project proponent must have all local, state and federal permits.
Thanks for the opportunity to provided comments on this project. Please contact me at 360-902-
1069 or at david.palazzi@dnnwa.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
11a21
David Palazzi
DNR-Aquatics Program
Planning Program Manager
Enclosures (2)
C: Shannon Soto,DNR Shoreline District
Hugo Flores,DNR Shoreline Planner
Leonard Machut;WDFW Region 6
Darren Habel,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District
Allan Borden
August 13,2014
Page 3 of 4
Ap� IT
..... a..
v
_l
J} -
Sediment transport along Rendsland Creek adjacent to proposed dredge deposition site.
h
Poo
' f
i
- r k
`y r ._ � 4 �~ Y ... may. "♦ ♦'? i � .•� i S "�^.'iT
Allan Borden
August 13,2014
Page 4 of 4
Existing saltwater channel that drains lagoon. Piles proposed for removal as mitigation in the
back ound.
ChAnis as
Open
Oysters Open 1 \
L \ .
IN
R \
Ifish Program has
Planted a number or public
Ixaches with oyster,clam and
yeoduck seed to increase han cs[ \
\
opportunity. Thee arras are r \
marked by vello\\litxrela s_., post.: � \
and sign,as pictured at the left. Yc u , \
N hen the beach i,open harvest Are Her.,
k encouraged within the area
marked by thee puts
snc.. rt
, . R,ay a.W 1
Nn+ t
P/cucr Rrepr<•I Prfrarr Pruprrq•ac slrntiw on rnup
Shellfish Rogrulatiozlinu
1 .866-880-
a'
Rendsland Creek Recreational Shellfish beach sign
rF SU
(360) 385-4073 521 Snagstead Way
marine.surveys.inc@gmail.com Port Townsend WA 98368
�SSESSM�'r
August 21, 2014
Allan Borden, Senior Planner
Mason County Planning Department
Courthouse Building 1
411 N 5h Street
Shelton,WA 98584
Re: Response to DNR comments to SHR2014-00009 regarding dredging proposal at Rendsland
Creek
Dear Allan,
Please find below our responses to the DNR comments to SHR2014-00009 regarding dredging
proposal at Rendsland Creek.We believe that many of the comments are a result of
misunderstanding some components of the project. We hope that our responses to the DNR
comments will help clarify any confusion. In addition to our responses,we are scheduling a site
visit at the project location to address any issues on site and in person.We hope that both Mason
County and WDNR representatives will attend this site visit.
1)The project will not impact recreational shellfish beach and will not restrict public access or
enjoyment of the site.The proposed dredge and dredge spoil disposal areas are mostly(90%)
above+5,with the lowest elevation in impact footprint is+4.45 MLLW.None of these areas are
in elevations that are suitable for shellfish,and additionally no shellfish were observed during the
habitat survey.None of the activities proposed in the project will affect public access of
enjoyment of the site.The shellfish beds are considerably further out waterward near the MLLW.
2)The dredge footprint is in the historical location of the saltwater channel,however the present
channel has meandered and migrated east due to the influx of sedimentation from the adjacent
Rendsland Creek.Again no shellfish resources are expected to be impacted(see 41 above).
3)There is no shellfish in the vicinity of the footprint of the dredge and disposal areas where the
excavator would be operated(see#1 above). Please note that this is a maintenance dredge and
the previous dredges have all been done with an excavator.The proponents are working on a
limited budget and dredging from a barge is outside of their budget. Of the 15 member
households, 7 are households where both people are retired on fixed incomes; in 4 of the others,
one person is retired and/or on fixed income.
4) The proponents are open to suggestions in regards to the location of dredge spoil disposal
areas. We hope that this will be a topic addressed in the upcoming site visit.
�lv
5)Again due to budgetary constraints,the proponents of this project are not able to afford the
removal of the pilings.Additionally,the proponents have stated that most of the local people are
opposed to removing them because of their historical interest.
6)We are in the process of obtaining all federal, state, and local permits for this project.
Again, we believe that many of the comments arose out of confusions about details (elevation,
habitat, and presence of resources)pertaining to this project.We hope that the upcoming site visit
will allow the proponents, consultants (us), and agency representatives to clarify any
misunderstanding and address any issues directly.
Cordially,
Amy Leitman
Marine Surveys&Assessments
From: Allan Borden
To: MSA
CC: Allan Borden; Phil Olbrechts
Date: 8/19/2014 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: DNR letter of comment for Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SHR2014-
00009
Amy:
Sorry that I did not answer yesterday. Ariane, who was the clerk at the meeting, looked at
her notes from the public hearing and found that Phil Olbrechts stated that WA Dept. of
Natural Resources had until Mon. August 18th to provide their comments, and the applicant
had until the following Wednesday (which would be August 27th) to examine the comments
sent in and to respond to Mason County and be provided to the Hearing Examiner.
Providing your responses by Friday August 22nd would be timely.
Allan Borden
Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection
426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>>> MSA <marine.surveys.inc(a)gmail.com> 8/19/2014 12:58 PM >>>
We can have the responses to you by this Friday, is that soon enough?
Thanks,
MSA
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM, MSA <marine.surveys.inc(a'bgmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Allan,
> When do you need our responses. by(deadline)?
> Cheers,
> MSA
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Allan Borden <ahbCa>co.mason.wa.us> wrote:
>> Phil Olbrechts:
>> Today Monday Aug. 18, 2014 I am re-sending this letter of comments from
>> WA Dept. of Natural Resources which I sent on Friday Aug. 15, 2014 as part
>> of the record for this Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SHR2014-00009 by
>> the Basin & Channel Property Owners.
>> Allan Borden
I
>> Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection
>> 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584
>> (360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Allan Borden" <ahb(a)co.mason.wa.us>
>> To: "Linda Sollars" <lincolnsollars(a)comcast.com>, "Leonard Machut" <
>> leonard.machut(a)dfw.wa.gov>, "Amy Leitman" <marine.surveys.inc(a)4mail.com>,
>> "Phil Olbrechts" <olbrechtslaw(a)gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Allan Borden" <Ahb(@co.mason.wa.us>
>> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 10:29:09 -0700
>> Subject: DNR letter of comment for Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
>> SHR2014-00009
>> Phil Olbrechts:
>> Washington Dept. of Natural Resources Aquatic Program has submitted
>> written comments on the proposal by Basin & Channel Property Owners Assn.
>> for channel dredging and spoil deposition along Hood Canal near Rendsland
>> Creek. As noted by you in the Tuesday August 12, 2014 public hearing on
>> this case, WDNR had a deadline to comment by Monday August 18, 2014; these
>> comments are submitted in time for consideration.
>> Allan Borden
>> Planner - Long Range & Site Inspection
>> 426 W. Cedar St., Shelton, WA 98584
>> (360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>
> *Marine Surveys &Assessments*
> *Email: marine.surveys.inc(a)gmail.com <marine.surveys.inc(a)gmail.com>*
> *Web: marinesurveysandassessments.com
> <http://marinesurveysandassessments.com>Office: 360 385-4073
> <360%20385-4073>Cell: 360 301-0262 <360%20301-0262>
*Marine Surveys & Assessments*
*Email: marine.surveys.inc(a)gmail.com <marine.surveys.inc(a)gmail.com>*
*Web: marinesurveysandassessments.com 26
<http://marinesurveysandassessments.com>Office: 360 385-4073Cell: 360
301-0262
�l3