HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2012-00008 Relocate Winter Creek Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 5/31/2012 STAT,O
o 6�:i_ y
�s
yy�7AAfl��y�
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775• Olympia,Washington 98504-7775• (360) 407-6300
April 22, 2013
Lilliwaup Falls Generating Company
Attn: Craig Norsen
1191 Second Avenue, STE 1500
Seattle,WA 98101
Re: Mason County Local Permit SHR2012-00008
Lilliwaup Falls Generating Company -Applicant
Filed Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SDP) and Approved Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr.Norsen:
On April 1,2013,the Department of Ecology(Ecology)received the Mason County decision on
your Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permits for re-channelization of
Winter Creek to protect the intake facility for the Lilliwaup Falls hydroelectric plant from flood
waters and associated erosion. The project is within shoreline jurisdiction of the Lilliwaup
River.
By law, local governments must review all SDPs for compliance with the following:
• The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW)
• Ecology's Substantial Development Permit approval criteria(Chapter 173-27-150 WAC)
• The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program
Local governments, after reviewing the SDP for compliance, are required to submit the SDPs to
Ecology for filing.
Your approved SDP has been received and filed by Ecology
By law,Ecology must review Conditional Use Permits for compliance with:
• The Shoreline Management Act(Chapter 90.58 RCW)
• Ecology's Conditional Use Permit approval criteria(Chapter 173-27-160 WAC)
• The Mason County Local Shoreline Master Program
After reviewing Conditional Use Permits for compliance,Ecology must decide whether to
approve,approve with conditions,or disapprove them.
4
Our Decision:
Ecology approves your Conditional Use Permit provide d your project complies with the
conditions required by Mason County. Please note,however,that other federal, state and
local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit.
What Happens Next?
Before you begin activities authorized by this permit,the law requires you to wait at least 21
days from the date of this letter,which is the "date of filing". This waiting period allows anyone
(including you)who disagrees with any aspect of this permit to appeal the decision to the state
Shorelines Hearings Board. You must wait for the conclusion of an appeal before you can begin
the activities authorized by this permit.
The Shorelines Hearings Board will notify you by letter if they receive an appeal. We
recommend you contact the Shorelines Hearings Board before you begin permit activities to
ensure no appeal has been received. They can be reached at(360) 664-9160 or
http://www.eho.wa.gov.
If you,want to appeal this decision,you can find appeal instructions(Chapter 461-08 WAC) at
the Shorelines Hearings Board website above. They are also posted on the website of the
Washington State Legislature at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac.
If you have any questions,please contact Rick Mraz at(360)407-6221.
S' erely,
P J Lund,Unit Manager
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
By certified mail 7011 1150 0000 7881 7841
cc: Grace Miller,Mason County
Aeon COUN�A. MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352
y BUILDING•PLANNING• FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352
` -- Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street
''• 54 PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us
March 27, 2013
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION
Case Number: SHR2012-00008— Shoreline Substantial Development Permit/Conditional
Use for Lilliwaup Falls Generating Company.
Notice is hereby given that Lilliwaup Falls Generating Company, applicant for the above
referenced shoreline permit, has been conditionally granted approval of the permit which
includes re-channelizing of a portion of Winter Creek as well as streambank armoring
and addition of ecology blocks.
If you have any questions or require clarification on this issue, please contact Grace
Miller, Planner with the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360)
427-9670,x 360.
This is a final decision. This approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development and
Conditional Use Permit is final and subject to appeal to the Washington State Shoreline
Hearings Board as governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW. Appeal deadlines are short and
procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file an appeal of this decision should
consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied..
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3
4 RE: Lilliwaup Falls Generating FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
Company OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
5
Shoreline Substantial
6 Development/
Conditional Use Permit
7 (SHR2012-00008)
8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The Applicant has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit and
conditional use permit to re-channelize 100 feet of Winter Creek stream bed
11 approximately 25 feet west from its current location where it connects with Lilliwaup
12 Creek, near SR 101. The Lilliwaup Creek connection is at the location of an intake
facility for diversion of Lilliwaup Creek waters into the Lilliwaup hydroelectric
13 facility, a privately-owned hydroelectric power generating plant. Winter Creek has a
history of re-channelization at the project location and its waters have caused
14 significant damage to the intake facility, contributing to the fact that the power
generating facility is no longer functional. The proposed relocation project will
l5 involve the re-channelization of 100 feet of stream bed along with significant
16 "bulkhead type" armoring along the east bank of the new channel to prevent stream
avulsion back towards the intake structure. Ecology blocks will also be added to the
17 north end of the intake facility to further protect the intake facility from Winter Creek
flood waters. The proposal is part of a series of projects pursued by the applicant to
18 make the hydroelectric power generating plant functional again. The shoreline
substantial development permit and conditional use permit are approved subject to
19 conditions.
20
TESTIMONY
21
Ms. Grace Miller, senior Mason County planner, said the proposal for a Shoreline
22 Substantial Development Conditional Use Permit consists of relocating
23 approximately one hundred feet of Winter Creek and installing bank protection. The
purpose is to prevent future damage to the existing Lilliwaup Falls hydroelectric
24 facility intake area. She said the proposed activities include:
25 (1) The relocation of one hundred feet of the existing channel by moving it westward
up to approximately twenty-five feet.The new channel bed would vary between eight
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
feet and ten feet in length. The west bank would be laid back at a three-to-one slope
1 into the native soil, covered with biodegradable jute matting where appropriate and
2 replanted with native trees and shrubs; (2) the reconstruction of the stream bank with
protection for approximately one hundred feet of the newly relocated east bank of
3 Winter Creek using large granite rock; (3) at the northernmost end the installation of
an anchor point of large angular rock in order to prevent the stream from avulsing
4 behind the armoring. Native trees and shrubs would be planted between the anchor
point wall and the parking area; (4) the installation of several rock weirs in the new
5 channel to prevent head cutting and channel bed incision to replicate natural
6 conditions; (5) the placement of additional ecology blocks, or large angular rocks,
along the intake area to prevent erosion damage from heavy season flood flows that
7 would overspill the proposed rock armory; and (6) the installation of approximately
twenty-five feet of eighteen-inch pipe to extend an existing pipe between an existing
8 overflow channel to the east and the new relocated channel of Winter Creek.
9 Ms. Miller said the shoreline designation was Urban Residential, and a SEPA
10 determination was issued. Comments were received from the Department of Ecology,
and a site inspection was conducted by the Department and by Mason County staff.
11 The proposal also requires a Mason environmental permit,hydraulic project approval,
and approval from the Corps of Engineers. The project was reviewed as a conditional
12 use permit under the landfill chapter but is an unspecified use within the shoreline
master program. The city staff went through the policies and the use regulations of
13 the landfill chapter and recommended conditional approval in the conclusion with
14 twelve conditions. Bio resources prepared a habitat management plan, and several
conditions refer to that.
15
Ms. Kim Schaumberg, Bio Resources, explained that, currently, part of the water in
16 the creek goes over the falls and part of the water goes into the intake area, passes the
17
power plant, and returns to Lilliwaup Creek. She said that previously they tried to
move the creek to the northwest, but that was too sharp a turn and was unsuccessful.
18 She explained that the stream gets a lot of snowmelt that goes into the intake area.
When the stream is rerouted, the armoring will be substantial enough to assure that
19 water from the creek always goes entirely into Lilliwaup and does not go over the top
into the intake area.
20
21 Ms. Schaumberg said they had not done any formal analysis of the impacts on
downstream properties due to increased velocities, because that is not expected to be
22 an issue since the stream is avulsing in that direction already. She said the sole
purpose of this creek is to provide Lilliwaup Creek with cold, clean water from rain
23 and snow melts, and they want to relocate the creek in such a way that most of the
cold, clean water actually reaches Lilliwaup Creek. The project would not impact the
24 flow. She clarified that the armoring might increase the flow, but that is why they
25 would install rock weirs that would slow down the flow.
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Mr. Craig Norsen explained several pictures of the creek (exhibit 9) to the Hearing
1 Examiner. Additionally, he said that, at the same time, as a separate project they plan
2 to repair the landslide near the power plant to create a stable condition that will carry
water back to the power plant.
3
Public Testimony
4
Mr. Wayne Marshall said that he has a vested interest in the project because he and
5 his wife have lived in the valley for almost thirty-five years and they own property
6 downstream from the situation. He said he is for the project, but he is concerned with
the possibility that further damage might occur in the Lilliwaup area below what is
7 going on.
8 Applicant Rebuttal
9 Mr. Norsen pointed out that the project to which Mr. Marshall referred is a third
10 project.
11 EXHIBITS
1 See Exhibit List attached to the March 4, 2013, staff report. In addition, Ex. 9 was
admitted from the Applicant during the hearing, composed of three 8x11 photographs
l' of the project site.
14
FINDINGS OF FACT
15 Procedural:
16 1. Applicant. The applicant is the Lilliwaup Falls Generating Company.
17 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
18 application on March 12, 2013, at or about 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County
Commissioners Meeting Room.
19
Substantive:
20
21 3. Site/Project Description. The applicant has applied for a shoreline
substantial development permit and conditional use permit to re-channelize 100 feet
22 of Winter Creek stream bed approximately 25 feet west from its current location
where it connects with Lilliwaup Creek, near SR 101. Winter Creek currently
23 connects with Lilliwaup Creek at the location of an intake facility for diversion of
24 Lilliwaup Creek' waters into the Lilliwaup hydroelectric facility, a privately-owned
25 ' Nothing in the written materials admitted into the record identifies whether the
intake is for Lilliwaup Creek waters as opposed to Winter Creek waters. Since
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I
hydroelectric generating plant. Winter Creek has a history of re-channelization at the
I project location and has caused significant damage to the intake facility, contributing
2 to the fact that the power generation facility no longer generates any power. The
proposed relocation project will involve the re-channelization of 100 feet of stream
3 bed along with significant "bulkhead type" armoring along the east bank of the new
channel to prevent stream avulsion back to the intake structure. Ecology blocks will
4 also be added to the north end of the intake facility to further protect the intake
facility from Winter Creek flood waters. The proposal is part of a series of projects
5 pursued by the applicant to make the hydroelectric power generating plant functional
6 again.
7 The channel bed of Winter Creek was previously modified (relocated) to discharge
approximately 90 feet upstream, but Winter Creek has since avulsed and changed
8 course to its present location. The previously relocated channel deviates from the
present channel in a northwest fork that is located approximately 70 feet upstream
9 from the intake area. In the winter of 1995 the structural integrity of the fill material
10 that redirected the stream into the modified channel failed and washed out. The
modified channel was repaired but failed again during heavy flows in the winter of
11 2005/2006. Presently, the failed modified channel is filled with course alluvial
sediments(cobble and gravel).
12
13 Proposed construction includes:
14 - Relocating approx. 100 feet of Winter Creek's existing channel by moving it
westward up to approx. 25 feet.Note: Winter Creek will confluence with Lilliwaup
15 Creek in approximately the same location. The new channel bed will vary between
8 feet and 10 feet in width. The west bank will be laid back at a 3:1 slope into the
16 native soil, covered with biodegradable jute matting where appropriate and
17 replanted with native trees and shrubs.
18 - The construction of stream bank protection for approximately 100 feet along
the newly relocated east bank of Winter Creek, using large (three to five man)
19
20 Winter Creek is a winterboume stream and the applicant is trying to keep the creek
away from the intake facility, it appears that the intake is for Lilliwaup Creek waters.
21 Although this conclusion is readily apparent once the general parameters of the
22 project are understood, it most certainly is not apparent as one tries to decipher the
project drawings, which depict a maze of current, former and proposed stream beds
23 with no simple, color-coded depiction showing the current relationship between the
Winter and Lilliwaup streams and their relationship to the intake facility and
24 associated hydroelectric generating facility. Although the project application was
certainly well done from a technical and professional standpoint, it is likely
25 incomprehensible to the general public and any member of the general public
reviewing the project file would not have a clue as to what was being proposed.
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
angular granite. The rock will be placed at approximately a 1:1 slope and backed
I with quarry spalls and filter fabric.At the northernmost end, an anchor point will be
2 installed by burying large angular rock for approx. twenty feet. The purpose of the
anchor point is to prevent the stream from avulsing behind the armoring. Native trees
3 and shrubs will be planted between the anchor point wall and the parking area.
4 - The installation of several rock weirs in the new channel to prevent
headcutting and channel bed incision. The weirs will be constructed of two to three
5 man round granite rock and will be installed in a manner that replicates natural
6 conditions.
7 - The placement of additional concrete ecology blocks (or large angular rock)
along the intake area structures north border to alleviate or prevent erosion damage to the
8 structure in the vent that heavy seasonal flood flows from Winter Creek overspill the
9 proposed rock armoring.
10 - The installation of approx. 25 feet of 18" pipe to extend an existing pipe
between an existing overflow channel to the east and the new relocated channel of
1 1 Winter Creek.
12 The proposal also includes some fill. The staff report and application materials make
13 very little mention of this aspect of the proposal, even though the landfill is the only
part of the project subject to specific shoreline regulations. The only mention of fill is
14 in the geotechnical report, which notes that the project will involve backfilling the
existing channel (approx. 100 If) to restore an access/parking area that has been
15 damaged by Winter Creek storm waters. This conflicts somewhat with a comment in
the environmental checklist that no filling of surface waters is proposed. The
16 environmental checklist also notes that approximately 188 cubic yards will be cut and
17 relocated. It is presumed that this "cut" will comprise the new stream channel.
Hidden in the submittal checklist of the geotechnical report, it is noted that for the
18 stream relocation "no clearing is required& the fill will become parking area'. The
shoreline armoring could involve some fill, but as far as can be ascertained from the
19 written exhibits the armoring will be cut into native soils and will not necessitate any
20 backfill. From this information it can only be speculated that the only fill proposed for
the project will be used to repair a parking lot and that the fill will be acquired from
21 cutting the new stream bed. The record does not contain any information on whether
the parking lot is located within shoreline jurisdiction.
22
Winter Creek only flows in winter months during heavy rains.
23
24 In addition to the damaged hydroelectric facility, the property includes a single-family
residence and a salmon hatchery facility that is operated by Long Live the Kings.
25
4. Characteristics of the Area. The project site is located at Lilliwaup Falls
near SR 101, which consists of a series offish impassible waterfalls that drop over
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
300 feet in elevation on Lilliwaup Creek. Below the falls, the stream's lower reach
I supports several ESA listed salmon species. Lilliwaup Creek is a Type S (shoreline,
2 fish-bearing) stream and its tributary, Winter Creek, a Type F (potential fish-bearing)
water body are located in the project area.
3
5. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation is "Urban Residential"
4
6. Adverse Impacts. Overall, the project will create beneficial impacts with
5 no significant adverse impacts.
6 The project has been subject to rigorous environmental review through the
7 preparation of a habitat management plan and geotechnical report. Those reports
included recommendations to ensure that the proposal will not result in any
8 significant adverse impacts and that it results in no net loss of fish habitat as required
by WDFW regulations. The recommendations of those studies will be imposed
9 through the conditions of approval of this decision.
10 As noted in the habitat management plan, downstream portions of Lilliwaup Creek do
11 accommodate fish runs of several protected fish species. Those fish species have
been adversely affected by aggradation in the lower Lilliwaup stream reaches
12 resulting in increases in stream bed elevation of five to eight feet. The habitat
management plan also recognizes that environmental conditions have been worsened
13 by shoreline hard armoring caused by upstream development. The "bulkhead-type"
14 armoring proposed for this project could contribute to this aggradation by increase
Winter Creek stream velocities. However, Kim Schaumberg, a qualified biologist
15 who prepared the habitat management plan, testified that a series of weirs will be
included in the stream re-channelization that will dissipate any increased energy
16 caused by the armoring. Further, the habitat management plan notes that the absence
17
of erodible soils along the eastern bank of the re-channelized area may produce a net
benefit by reducing the potential for aggradation.
18
The staff report notes that the project area is not within a floodplain. No other
19 adverse impacts are discernible from the record. Facilitating the re-opening of the
clean energy operations of the power generating facility should be considered a major
20 positive impact of the proposal.
21
22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
23 Procedural:
24 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9) authorizes the
25 Examiner to review and issue a final decision regarding shoreline substantial
development permit requests and shoreline conditional use permits.
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 6 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
Substantive:
1
2 2. General Review Criteria for Shoreline Permits. The applicant is required
to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit for any substantial development
3 within the shoreline jurisdiction. MCC 15.09.055(a). Applications for substantial
development permits are subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MCC
4 15.09.055(f). The Hearing Examiner bases a decision on a substantial development
permit application on the Shoreline Master Program for Mason County ("SMP"), and
5 the policies and procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act
6 ("SMA"). MCC 15.09.055(f)(2)(C). A "substantial development" is any
development of which the total cost for market value exceeds $5,000 or any
7 development that materially interferes with any normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the state. MCC 17.50.040. As noted in the staff report, the proposal
8 will exceed $5,000 in cost. This proposal is reviewed under the SMP Section for
Landfill. Consistent with the staff report, the proposal will not be reviewed under the
9 SMP's shoreline stabilization policies and regulations because Winter Creek is not
10 itself a shoreline subject to SMP policies and regulations. The landfill activities are
subject to the SMP because they are located within the shoreline jurisdiction of
11 Lilliwaup Creek, which itself has the 20 cubic feet per second flows that qualifies it
as a shoreline of the state subject to SMP regulation. See RCW 90.58.030(2).
12
As determined in Finding of Fact No.4,the fill activities associated with the proposal
13 are very poorly defined in the record and necessitate some fairly loose speculation as
14 to what is involved by cobbling together small pieces of information from the
environmental checklist and geotechnical report. Unfortunately, one important fact
15 that cannot be guessed at from the record is whether the fill that is apparently
associated with the proposal is located within shoreline jurisdiction. The fill will be
16 used for a parking lot, but none of the drawings or written materials indicated how
close the filled areas of the parking lot will be to Lilliwaup Creek. MCC
1 17.50.032(b) provides that "aspects of a development lying outside the shorelines"
18 may not be conditioned under the Shoreline Management Act. If the parking lot is
located outside shoreline jurisdiction, there is no authority to impose conditions
19 through this decision and there is no reason to apply the landfill shoreline policies and
regulations. Consequently, any conditions pertaining to the parking lot fill work shall
20 be qualified as only applying if the fill work is located within shoreline jurisdiction.
21 A conditional use permit is required for the proposal because the stream relocation
22 qualifies as an unclassified use under MCC 17.50.050 and MCC 17.50.80.
MCC17.50.050 also requires conditional use permits for non-water dependent fill
23 activities on waterfront properties located in Urban shoreline designations.
24 Applicable review criteria are quoted below in italics and applied to the proposal via
25 corresponding conclusions of law.
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 7 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
Landfill Policy No. 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.
3. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, no adverse impacts area
4 associated with the proposal, which includes damage to ecological values, natural
resources or alteration to local currents. The proposal will reduce hazards to adjacent
5 property by reducing adverse impacts to the Lilliwaup power generating stream
6 intake facility.
7 Landfill Policy No. 3: In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas
appropriate for fill, such factors as total water surface reduction, navigation
8 restriction, impediment of water flow and circulation, reduction of water quality and
9 destruction of habitat should be considered.
10 4. It is self-evident that the proposal will not affect navigation. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not impede water flow and
11 circulation or adversely affect water quality. The habitat management plan includes
several measures to mitigate for the loss of habitat.
12
Landfill Use Regulation No. 1: Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary
13 high water mark except that they may be permitted as a Conditional Use for
14 aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural
alternative is possible. Landfill in biological wetlands for non-water dependent uses
15 may be permitted. Such fill may be considered as a Conditional use PROVIDED the
applicant can demonstrate the following: (I) Extraordinary or unique circumstances
16 relating to the property exist which require the proposed shoreline location; (2) No
17 viable alternative using a different method or structural solution exists.
18 4. No filling is proposed waterward of the ordinary high water mark of
Lilliwaup Creek. The use regulation does not apply to Winter Creek since it does not
19 qualify as a shoreline of the state. See RCW 90.58.030(2).
20
21 Landfill Use Regulation No. 3: Landfills are not permitted in jloodplains unless it
can be clearly demonstrated that the geohydraulic and floodplain storage capacity
22 will not be altered to increase flood hazard or other damage to life or property.
23 5. The staff report notes there is no floodplain mapped for the project area.
24 Landfill Use Regulation No. 4: Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water
25 drainage.
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 8 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
6. The purpose of the project is to disrupt stormwater surface drainage so that
1 it no longer damages the intake facility. This would not be considered "normal"
2 surface drainage under the criterion about and there is no evidence that normal
drainage would otherwise be disrupted to any significant degree by the re-
d channelization.
4 Landfill Use Regulation No. 5: Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and
5 planted with vegetation to prevent erosion.
6 7. It appears that the only filling involved for the project will be for the
parking area. The project will be conditioned to require planting and appropriate
7 sloping of fills that do not involve the fill areas used for parking to the extent those
fill areas are within shoreline jurisdiction.
8
Landfill Use Regulation No.6: Applications for landfill projects shall include the
9 following information(at a minimum):
10 a. Character and source offill material;
b. Method of placement and compaction;
11 c. Type of surfacing proposed, if any;
d. Method of perimeter erosion control;
12 e. Proposed use of fill area;
f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns;
13 g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping.
14
8. The geotechnical report and other application materials submitted into the
15 record contain virtually no direct information required by the criterion above. As
discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4, the fill proposed for the project is apparently
16 limited to filling a damaged parking lot. Except for mentioning that this work is part
17 of the project, the geotechnical report makes no mention of the parking lot fill work
and the fill work is not identified anywhere else in the application materials except for
18 a brief mention of quantity in the environmental checklist. The character and source
of fill material or the parking lot can be inferred from the geotechnical report
19 discussion on the soil characteristics of the new streambed location, since the fill
derived from digging out the new streambed will be used for the parking lot.
20 Proposed use is also covered. Nothing else is addressed. The project will be
21 conditioned upon the provision of this information, if the parking lot work will be
done within the shoreline jurisdiction of Lilliwaup Creek.
22
Landfill Use Regulation No. 7: Perimeters offills shall be provided with vegetation,
2 3 retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or adjacent
to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion.
24
25
9. As conditioned, if the parking lot is located within shoreline jurisdiction.
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Landfill Use Regulation No. 8: Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will
1 not cause degradation of water quality.
2 10. As conditioned, if the parking lot will be located within shoreline
3 jurisdiction.
4 Conditional Use Permit
5 MCC 17.50.080(1): That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of
6 RCW 90.58 and the policies of the master program;
7 11. The policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW, as detailed in RCW 90.58.020, are
well served by the project. The public interest is served by a proposal that protects
8 existing hydroelectric power generating facilities with no associated impacts to
environmental resources. Lilliwaup Creek is not a shoreline of statewide significance
9 so the Chapter 90.58 RCW policies identified in the staff report do not apply. The
10 proposal has been found to comply with all specifically applicable Mason County
master program policies in the preceding conclusions of law, so it can also be
11 concluded that the proposal is consistent with the Mason County master program.
12 MCC 17.50.080(2): That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public
13 use of the shorelines;
14 12. No aspect of the proposal could be reasonably construed as having any
impact on normal public use of the shorelines.
15
MCC 17.50.080(3): That the proposed use of the site and design of the project will
16 be compatible with other permitted uses within the area;
17 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any
18 adverse impacts. Since it will not adversely impact neighboring properties, it will be
compatible with them.
19
MCC 17.50.080(4): That the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse
20 effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located;
21 14. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no significant adverse
22 environmental impacts are associated with the proposal.
23 MCC 17.50.080(5): That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
24 15. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, no significant adverse impacts are
25 associated with the proposal and the proposal will provide for the rehabilitation of a
hydroelectric facility, which is in the public interest. The public interest will suffer
no substantial detrimental effect from the proposal.
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 DECISION
The shoreline substantial development and conditional use permit applications, SHR
2012-00008, are approved subject to the following conditions:
4 1. Staff shall determine whether the proposed fill, if located within shoreline
jurisdiction, is appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion
and shall require redesign as necessary to comply with Landfill Use Regulation
6 No. 52.
7 2. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 8, the applicant shall provide all
information required by Landfill Use Regulation No. 8 for the proposed parking
8 lot fill if located within shoreline jurisdiction. From this information staff shall
verify whether the proposal is consistent with applicable shoreline regulations and
9 shall impose additional conditions of approval as necessary to achieve
10 compliance.
11 3. Perimeters of fills within shoreline jurisdiction shall be provided with vegetation,
retaining walls, or other mechanisms for erosion prevention. Any fill on or
12 adjacent to a tideland or shoreline shall be designed to prevent erosion.
13
4. All work to be done and maintained as specified within the Best Management
14 Practices and Conservation Measures that were recommended within the Habitat
15 Management Plan prepared by Bio Resources,dated 12/26112.
16 5. Planting Plan recommended within the Habitat Management Plan is to be
implemented as proposed. The Planting Plan within HMP shall be monitored by a
17 qualified biologist, forester or landscaper for three years following installation. In
the event that the planting plan fails, the Contingency Plan specified within the
1 HUT must be implemented.
19
20
21 Z It is recognized that the entire fill for the parking lot may be located under parking
stalls and access roads where vegetation is not feasible. This condition should be
22 read as requiring vegetation to the extent required by Landfill Use Regulation No. 5.
2;
24
25
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation P. 1 I Findings, Conclusions and Decision
6. An inspection report shall be submitted to verify compliance with the approved
2 Habitat Management Plan. The report shall be signed and stamped by the author
` of the plan or their designee and submitted to the Mason County Department of
Community Development prior to final permit approval. Copies of the inspection
report shall be made available at the time of county inspection.
4
7. Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from
5 the area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the state.
6 Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as
a result of this project.
7
8. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading or
8 construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater
runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or storm drains
9 that lead to waters of the state. Sand, silt, clay particles and soil will damage
10 aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
11 9. During construction, all release of oils, hydraulic fluids, fuels, other petroleum
products, paints, solvents, and other deleterious materials must be contained and
12 removed in a manner that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the
13 state. The cleanup of spills should take precedence over other work on the site.
14 10.All work to be done and maintained in accordance with recommendations made
within the Geotechnical Report prepared by Jacobs Associates, dated December
15 2012.
16 11.The approval is subject to the recommendations and specifications in the
17 Stormwater Report prepared by Jacobs Associates, dated Apri12012 and
compliance with Ecology's Stormwater Manual,
18
12. Compliance with the geotechnical report and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention
19 Plan shall be subject to on-site inspections by the Engineer of record or an
authorized representative. Said inspections shall be performed in accordance with
20 the approved plan and prior to any modification that would make a determination
21 of compliance possible. An inspection report shall be submitted to verify all
prevention and mitigation recommendations have been completed in accordance
22 with the approved report. The inspection report shall be signed and stamped by
the geotechnical engineer and submitted to the Mason County Department of
23 Community Development prior to final permit approval. Copies of the inspection
24 report shall be made available at time of county inspection.
25
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 12 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
1
2 13.All applicable state and federal approvals/permits shall be obtained.
3
Dated this 26th day of March, 2013.
4
6 Phil A. O1brechts
7 Mason County Hearing Examiner
8
9
10 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
11 Appeals of this decision are governed by Chapter 90.58 RCW.
12 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SSD/CUP—Stream Relocation p. 13 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
March 4,2013 EXHIBIT 1
TO:Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM:Planning staff,Grace Miller
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit#SHR2012-00008 request by
Lilliwaup Falls Generating Company for the Lilliwaup Falls Power project-Winter Creek Relocation.
STAFF REPORT
I. APPLICANT. The applicant is Lilliwaup Falls Generating Company. Their representative is
Craig Norsen of Seneca Group.
II. PROPERTY LOCATION.The site is located off Hwy 106,west of Lilliwaup,at the end of
Lilliwaup Street.The address is 501 N Lilliwaup Street.
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Lot 2 of the NW 1/4 of Sec 19,Twn 23 N,R 3 W.Parcel Number
32319-23-00000.
IV. EVALUATION.
PROPOSAL:The proposal consists of relocating approximately 100'of Winter Creek and
installing bank protection.The purpose is to prevent future damage to the existing Lilliwaup Falls
hydroelectric facility intake area.
The channel bed of Winter Creek,which presently discharges into Lilliwaup Creek in the vicinity
of the hydroelectric facility's intake area,was previously modified(relocated)to discharge
approximately 90 feet upstream,but Winter Creek has since avulsed and changed course.The
previously relocated channel deviates from the present channel in a northwest fork that is located
approximately 70 feet upstream from the intake area.In the winter of 1995 the structural integrity
of the fill material that redirected the stream into the modified channel failed and washed out.The
modified channel was repaired but failed again during heavy flows in the winter of 2005/2006.
Presently,the failed modified channel is filled with course alluvial sediments(cobble and gravel).
To alleviate erosion and aggradation of sediments at the intake area,approximately 100 feet of
Winter Creek's present channel,upstream from its discharge point into Lilliwaup Creek,will be
relocated approx.25 feet westward,away from the intake area.
Proposed Activities Include:
- Relocating approx. 100 feet of Winter Creek's existing channel by moving it westward up to
approx.25 feet.Note:Winter Creek will confluence with Lilliwaup Creek in approx.the same
location.The new channel bed will vary between 8 feet and 10 feet in width. The west bank will
be laid back at a 3:1 slope into the native soil,covered with biodegradable jute matting where
appropriate and replanted with native trees and shrubs.
- The construction of stream bank protection for approximately 100 feet along the newly relocated
east bank of Winter Creek,using large(three to five man)angular granite.The rock will be placed
at approx.a 1:1 slope and backed with quarry spalls and filter fabric.At the northernmost end,an
1
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc
-b
.s�.t.G,o��SJ� Q'Y� ��"a�'9 u�'Zr����n�' -rcz7oZv��"
anchor point will be installed by burying large angular rock for approx.twenty feet.The purpose
of the anchor point is to prevent the stream from avulsing behind the armoring.Native trees and
shrubs will be planted between the anchor point wall and the parking area.
- The installation of several rock weirs in the new channel to prevent headcutting and channel bed
incision.The weirs will be constructed of two to three man round granite rock and will be installed
in a manner that replicates natural conditions.
- The placement of additional concrete ecology blocks(or large angular rock)along the intake
area structure's north border to alleviate or prevent erosion damage to the structure in the vent that
heavy seasonal flood flows from Winter Creek overspill the proposed rock armoring.
- The installation of approx.25 feet of 18"pipe to extend an existing pipe between an existing
overflow channel to the east and the new relocated channel of Winter Creek.
A Characteristics of the site and area:
In addition to the damaged hydroelectric facility,the property includes a single-family residence
and a salmon hatchery facility that is operated by Long Live the Kings.The project site is located
at Lilliwaup Falls which consists of a series of fish impassible waterfalls that drop over 300 feet in
elevation on Lilliwaup Creek.Below the falls,the stream's lower reach supports several ESA
listed salmon species.Lilliwaup Creek is a Type S(shoreline,fish-bearing)stream and its
tributary,Winter Creek,a Type F(potential fish-bearing)water body are located in the project
area.
Winter Creek has its name because the stream flow in the creek is only visible during the winter
when it is raining heavily. This typically means that rain is its major source of the creek's water
and it flows only during the wet time of year.
B.Shoreline Designation.
The shoreline environment of Lilliwaup Creek is Urban Residential.That portion of Winter Creek
that is within 200'of Lilliwaup Creek is within shoreline jurisdiction.There is no mapped
floodplain along this section of Lilliwaup Creek.
C.Zoning.
The zoning is Rural Residential 10(RR 10).
D. SEPA.
A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued by Mason County on January 18,2013.
Comments were received from the Department of Ecology.A site inspection was conducted on
2/11/13 by Ecology and Mason County staff.
E.Other Permits.
The project will require an approved Mason Environmental Permit and Hydraulic Project
Approval from the Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife.Approval from the Corps of
Engineers and Ecology must be obtained by the applicant.
2
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc
ANALYSIS.
Project Details:
Purpose: The purpose is to relocate approximately 100 feet of the channel of Winter Creek as part of a
previously submitted project to repair an existing privately owned hydroelectric facility that was rendered
inoperable by storm damage during the winters of 2005/2006 and 2007/2008.In addition to the damaged
hydroelectric facility,the property includes a single-family residence and a salmon hatchery facility that is
operated by Long Live the Kings. The project activities consist of three elements that are being permitted
separately:
1. Landslide and conveyance pipe repairs.
2. Intake area repairs.
3. Intake area preventative action.
Element numbers one and two have been approved through exemptions.The intake area repairs were
completed in the Fall of 2012,while the landslide conveyance pipe repairs are scheduled to commence in
the summer of 2013.
The channel bed of Winter Creek,which presently discharges into Lilliwaup Creek in the
vicinity of the hydroelectric facility's intake area,was previously modified,relocated,to
discharge approximately 90 feet upstream,but Winter Creek has since avulsed and changed
course.The previously relocated channel deviates from the present channel in a northwest
fork that is located approximately 70 feet upstream from the intake area.In the winter of
1995 the structural integrity of the fill material that redirected the steam into the modified
channel failed and was washed out.the modified channel failed an was repaired but failed
again during heavy flows in the winter of 2005/2006.Presently,the failed modified channel is
filled with course alluvial sediments(cobble and gravel).To alleviate erosion and
aggradation of sediments at the intake area,approximately 100 feet of Winter creek's
present channel,upstream from its discharge point into Lilliwaup Creek,will be relocated
up to approximately 25 feet westward away from the intake area
Proposed activities include:
-Relocating approximately 100 feet of Winter Creek's existing channel by moving it
westward up to(approx)25 feet; however,Winter Creek will confluence with Lilliwaup
Creek in approx.the same location.The new channel bed will vary between 8 feet and 10
feet in width.The west bank will be laid back at a 1:1 slope and backed with quarry spalis
and filter fabric.At the northernmost end,an anchor point will be installed by burying large
angular rock for approx.twenty feet.The purpose of the anchor point is to prevent the
stream from avulsing behind the armoring.Native trees and shrubs will be planted between
the anchor point wall and the parking area.
-The installation of several rock weirs in the new channel to prevent headcutting and
channel bed incision.The weirs will be constructed of two to three man round granite rock
and will be installed in a manner that replicates natural conditions.
-The placement of additional concrete ecology blocks(or large angular rock)along the
intake area structure's north border to alleviate or prevent erosion during damage to the
structure in the event that heavy seasonal flood flows from Winter Creek overspill the
proposed rock armoring.
-The installation of approx.25 feet of 18" pipe to extend an existing pipe between an
existing overflow channel to the east and the new relocated channel of inter Creek.
All equipment and materials will be driven to the site using existing roads.The equipment
shall consist of heavy machinery and hand tools.Project construction is tentatively
3
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc
scheduled to begin,after the receipt of all required permits and approvals in the dry season.
Construction will be completed during daylight working hours normal to a rural
neighborhood.No construction shall take place when Winter Creek is flowing.
The project requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit because the value exceeds
the threshold$6,416.00.It requires a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit because it is
considered to be an Unspecified Use with the most relevant category being Landfill.Chapter
17.50.034 Unspecified Uses is used when a use or development is proposed which is not
readily classified within an existing use or development category.The unspecified use must
be reviewed as a Conditional Use and Performance Standards relating to the most relevant
category shall be used.
The Utilities criteria of the master program do not specifically address hydroelectric
facilities or this project.
Landfill Chapter:
A geotechnical report was prepared by Jacobs Associates to identify site conditions related to
channel side slope stability and provide design parameters and recommendations for the following
relocation tasks.:Temporary cut slope angles,construction material compaction recommendations
and foundation design pressure for blocks or large rocks.The report provides geotechnical
recommendations for earthwork construction as well.The detailed plan view of the project and the
channel cross section are presented within Appendix A(Exhibit 8)on two of the construction
drawings.
The geologist reviewed the Winter Creek Channel Relocation Project consistent with the
requirements of the Landfill Chapter and the Landslide Hazard Area Chapter of the Resource
Ordinance.The specific areas addressed within their report were as follow:
1) Relocate approximately 100 lineal feet of the existing Winter Creek channel by moving it
westward up to 25'.
2) The location where Winter Creek ends and then enters Lilliwaup Creek will remain at the
current location.
3)New channel bottom will vary between 8'and 12'in width.
4) New channel will be armored along the east bank for a length of approximately 100 If,using 3-
to 4-man angular rocky stones.This rock will be placed at approximately 1:1 (horizontal:vertical)
slope.The armor rock will be underlain with quarry spalls and filter fabric.
5)The west bank will be laid back approximately at a 3:1 (horizontal;vertical)slope into the
native soil and replanted with native vegetation that replicates a natural,undisturbed riparian
condition. Some scour and deposition is anticipated to occur along this bank.
6)Approximately three(3)grade control rock weirs,6'in width,will be located across the channel
bottom to control potential downcutting during high flows.Weirs will be constructed of 2-man
round rocks.
7)Backfill the existing channel approximately 1001f to restore the access/parking area.
The mitigation proposed within the Habitat Management Plan is meant to prevent water pollution
and to re-vegetate disturbed areas of the buffer of Winter Creek.Large angular rock will be used
for bank protection to keep Winter Creek from avulsing to the east and damaging the intake
facility.Approx. 188 cubic yards of alluvial material will be moved by a truck excavator.Material
will form west channel bank.
Policies:
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.
4
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc
2. Priority shall be given to landfill for water dependent uses.
3. In evaluating fill projects and in designating areas appropriate for fill,such factors as total
4. water surface reduction,navigation restriction,impediment of water flow and circulation,
reduction of water quality and destruction of habitat should be considered.
Use Regulations:
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 or structural alternative is possible.
(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.
(4) Landfills shall not disrupt normal surface water drainage.
(5) Permitted fills shall be appropriately sloped and planted with vegetation to prevent erosion.
(6) Applications for landfill projects shall include the following information(at a minimum):
a. Character and source of fill material;
b. Method of placement and compaction;
c. Type of surfacing proposed,if any;
d. Method of perimeter control;
e. Proposed use of fill area;
f. Location of fill relative to natural or existing drainage patterns;
g. Proposed revegetation and/or landscaping.
7.Perimeters of fill shall be provided with vegetation,retaining walls or other mechanisms for
erosion prevention.
8.Fill materials shall be of such quality that they will not cause degradation of water quality.
The Geotechnical Report provides geotechnical design parameters and recommendations for
the earthwork construction to relocate the creek. The Geotechnical Report and the Habitat
Management Plan combined meet all of the policies and use regulations of the Landfill
Chapter of the Master Program.
Conditional Use Permit Criteria:The relocation of Winter Creek is an Unspecified Use
requiring a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.The upland landfill for the project requires a
Conditional Use Permit.Uses which are classified or set forth in the Master Program as
Conditional Uses may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
1. Show that the proposed use will be consistent with the policies of the RCW 90.58 and the policies
of the Master Program.
The relocation of Winter Creek is consistent with the policies of the Master Program and the following
policies of the RCW 90.58:
-Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest.
The intent and completion of the Lilliwaup Falls Power Project will restore hydropower generation at the
Lilliwaup hydroelectric facility.
-Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
The relocation of the creek should not diminish the shoreline's natural character.
-Result in long term over short term benefit:
The project will result in long term benefits to the ecology and economy of Mason County and Washington
State.
-Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline:
The project will have minimum impact on Lilliwaup Creek and Hood Canal.
5
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc
-Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines:
This criteria is not applicable to this project as the facility is privately owned.
- Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline.
The project does not increase recreational opportunities for the public.
2.Show that the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the shoreline.
The project area is not open to public use due to safety and security concerns associated with hydropower
operations.
3.Show that the proposed use of the site and design of the project will be compatible with other permitted
uses within the area.
The Mason County Shoreline Master Program is intended to protect against adverse effects on the public
health, on the land and its vegetation and wildlife and the waters and their aquatic life. The operation of
the facility is consistent with these objectives by reestablishing natural ecological processes that have been
lacking a.in this are
4. Show that the proposed use will cause no unreasonable adverse effects to the shoreline environment in
which it is to be located.
The Habitat Management Plan mitigates for potential impacts with conservation measures, BMP's and a
Planting Plan with Monitoring.
5. Show that the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect by the project because it is located in an
area inaccessible to the public.
GENERAL REVIEW CRITERIA MC CODE 15.09.055:
The Hearing Examiner shall review a proposed development according to the following criteria:
1) The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and
intent of the Mason County Code,especially Title 6, 8 and 16. The proposal does not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan. Title 6 and 16 do not apply to this proposal.
2) Development does not impact public health,safety and welfare and is in the public interest. The
proposed project should not impact public health, safety and we fare and is the public interest.
3) Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities
Below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and
intent of the Mason County Code. The proposal will not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan.
CONCLUSION.
No public comments regarding the proposal were received.Based upon the policies and regulations,the
project is consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program as referenced under Mason County
Code Title 17.50 Zoning—Shoreline Master Program and Mason County Comprehensive Plan Shoreline
Management Program Policies IX-2.
Submitted with the application is a Habitat Management Plan,dated 12/26/12,prepared by BioResources
and a Geotechnical Report,dated December 2012,prepared by Jacobs Associates.The HMP was sent to
the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Dept of Fish&Wildlife for their comment on 1/18/13.To date,no
comments have been received.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following conditions:
1. All work to be done and maintained as specified within the Best Management Practices and
Conservation Measures that were recommended within the Habitat Management Plan prepared
by BioResources,dated 12/26/12.
6
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc
2. Planting Plan recommended within the Habitat Management Plan is to be implemented as
3. proposed. The Planting Plan within HMP shall be monitored by a qualified biologist,forester
or landscaper for three years following installation.In the event that the planting plan fails,the
Contingency Plan specified within the HMP must be implemented.
4. An inspection report shall be submitted to verify compliance with the approved Habitat
Management Plan. The report shall be signed and stamped by the author of the plan or their
designee and submitted to the Mason County Department of Community Development prior to
final permit approval.Copies of the inspection report shall be made available at the time of
county inspection.
5. Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the area and
project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the state.
6. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of
this project.
7. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,grading or construction.These
control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other
pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state.Sand,silt,clay
particles and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
8. During construction,all release of oils,hydraulic fluids,fuels,other petroleum products,
paints,solvents,and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner
that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state.The cleanup of spills should
take precedence over other work on the site.
9. All work to be done and maintained in accordance with recommendations made within the
Geotechnical Report prepared by Jacobs Associates,dated December 2012.
10. The approval is subject to the recommendations and specifications in the Stormwater Report
prepared by Jacobs Associates,dated April 2012 and compliance with Ecology's Stormwater
Manual.
11. Compliance with the geotechnical report and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall
be subject to an on site inspections by the Engineer of record or an authorized representative.
Said inspections shall be performed in accordance with the approved plan and prior to any
modification that would make a determination of compliance possible.An inspection report
shall be submitted to verify all prevention and mitigation recommendations have been
completed in accordance with the approved report.The inspection report shall be signed and
stamped by the geotechnical engineer and submitted to the Mason County Department of
Community Development prior to final permit approval.Copies of the inspection report shall
be made available at time of county inspection.
12. All applicable state and federal approvals/permits shall be obtained.
CHOICE OF ACTION:
1. Approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development/Conditional Use Permit#SHR2012-
00008.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny permit(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted)
4. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with section
15.09.090 of Title 15.
7
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc
EXHIBITS for Lilliwaup Falls Power Project,Case#SHR2012-00008:
1. Staff Report.
2. Shoreline Permit Application.
3. JARPA
4. Public Notice.
5. Site plans and drawings.
6. SEPA w/comments.
7. HMP with Notice for review.
8. Geotechnical report.
H:\sdpcuplillwaup.doc