HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2000-00004 Replace Culvert Staff Report - SHR Letters / Memos - 5/31/2000 MASON COUNTY
�1\ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
-O
BUILDING I . 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
SHELTONj WASHINGTON 98584 . (3.60) 427=9670
May 31, 2000
TO: Mason County Shoreline Advisory Board _
FROM: Planning staff- Shandra O'Haleck
• BE'IKE1`T IN THE
j �
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR2000-00004) PA RC E L FILE
STAFF REPORT 0�1 0-1 w 30 - C)OO ` 0
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a culvert replacement where Mason Lake Drive
West crosses over Shumocher Creek.
U. Applicant. Mason County Public Works.
III. ' Property Location. The property is located at milepost 0.90 of Mason Lake Drive
West. Township 21N, Range 2 W, Section 7.
IV. Project Description. The applicant has proposed two plans to replace a failed culvert.
Proposal 1 would replace the failed culvert with a 23 foot 8 inch by 10 foot aluminum plate box
culvert and provide three weirs. The second proposal would replace the failed culvert with an
open bottomed structure 34-40 feet in width set on pile foundations.
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. This site is relatively pristine surrounded by large coniferous
trees located within Simpson Timber lands and Simpson's recreational park. The Mason County
Soil Survey for this area lists a mixture of Everett-gravelly loam and riverwash. Geotechnical
Laboratories performed one soil boring, in the vicinity of the road, that indicated gravelly silty
sand fill material to a depth of 10 feet at which point it changes to native soil. Ground water is
located at this level. An ENSR report, for a different project one mile upstream, reported a thin
layer of Mulketeo peat over glacial till material. Soil probings by Public Works staff, reported
varying layers of deep silt in the immediate area.
B. Characteristics of the area. Shumocher Creek is composed of a relatively flat drainage
basin sloping from the northwest to the southeast. The National Wetland Inventory classifies
Shumocher Creek as upper perennial riverine with open water that is intermittently
exposed/permanent. Shumocher Creek begins at the exit of a large wetland north of Sandy Lake
and flows for 5 miles before discharging into Mason Lake. Several small seasonal creeks and
wetlands flow into Shumocher along its meandering course. Water flows all year under normal
precipitation patterns, fluctuating in volume with the amount of rainfall and runoff. Adjacent
II
upstream to the proposed road project, the creek flows into a large palustrine wetland
approximately 56 acres in size. This wetland is classified as a fen which is suggestive of a
groundwater fed system. Fish species resident to Mason Lake which may utilize this creek,
' identified by Washington State Department of Fisheries (1984) include kokanee, cuthroat trout,
rainbow trout, and sculpins. Darters were observed during July 1995 field surveys. Water from
Mason Lake flows into Sherwood Creek and eventually into the North Bay of Case Inlet.
Chinook, coho, and chum salmon still spawn in Sherwood Creek but have been unable to make it
up to Shumocher because of a fish passage culvert barrier downstream. Sockeye salmon were
known to have existed historically within this watershed. Mason Lake, a highly residential area, is
four miles long and is the largest (1000 acres) and deepest (90 feet at the )
dee est lake in Mason
deepest)
County.
C. Shoreline desi_nation. The shoreline designation of this site is Conservancy.
D. Comprehensive 121an designation. The comprehensive plan designation is Rural.
VI. SEPA Compliance. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on
January 14, 2000 for a 21 foot 2 inch by 8 foot 10 inch culvert. The South Puget Sound Salmon
Enhancement Group commented that the proposed design failed to meet fish passage criteria and
that the preferred Default Design method required the culvert to be 1.2 times as wide as the
channel bed (in this case bed width = 30' to 40'). The Department of Ecology commented that
the preferred alternative was a bridge. The Department of Fish and Wildlife commented on the
relatively pristine nature of the Schumocher Creek watershed and, since the average stream width
is 32 feet, any culvert or bridge installed here would need to meet that width dimension. The
WRIA 14 Salmon Restoration Committee commented that a grant had been applied for to
upgrade this proposal to one that may be more consistent with long-term salmon recovery efforts.
Because potential upstream wetland impacts were unknown, a site visit was arranged with a US
Army Corps of Engineers wetland specialist. It was determined that, because of the extent of
upstream wetlands, there would be little impact to the adjacent wetland and that a bridge should
be installed without artificial weirs (no wetland mitigation required). The Department of Ecology
wetland specialist disagreed and stated that mitigation would need to be applied.
Due to the comments received, the applicant resubmitted the present two designs for review on
May 12, 2000. After review of the designs, the Department of Ecology wetland specialist
supported returning Schumocher Creek to a natural system although mitigation would still be
required for the present bridge design. The bridge design would be acceptable if it contained
appropriate grade control to protect the wetland. Mitigation would be unnecessary should the
applicant upgrade the bridge to a 100 foot span to allow for natural stream meanders (comments
attached). _
VII. Other Permits. This proposal will require a Hydraulic Project Approval from the
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a US Army Corps of Engineers Permit or Exemption.
VIII. Background. During heavy rains in December, the original 7 foot 5 inch by 12 foot 5
i
inch culvert failed and was swept approximately 50 feet downstream. Prior to this failure, the
WRIA 14 Salmon Restoration Committee had listed this culvert as top priority for replacement
due to the amount of fish habitat that was unusable because of this barrier. A temporary logging
bridge was placed at this site in January to provide residential access.
- Y
Because of concerns with the upstream wetlands and scour potential, initial designs tried to
provide structures that would act as though the original culvert were still in place. Mitigation for
wetland impacts can be costly and would be unable to be performed at this site due to private
property ownership outside the road easement. The US Army Corps of Engineers stated during
their site visit that although, in the immediate upstream vicinity, lower water levels could be
possible in the summer the area would remain a wetland and would operate with increased flood
capacity during winter months due to saturation factors. Due to this, planning staff determined
that mitigation for wetlands would not be required should a structure that supported a natural
system be placed at site. Because of the comments from the Department of Ecology wetland
specialist requiring mitigation, and the time constraints in meeting fish windows for construction,
the applicant chose to submit two designs; one would act as a structure control for the wetland
and one would allow for Shumocher to return to a natural aquatic system.
Due to its priority listing, the relatively pristine nature of the upper watershed, and the amount of
fish habitat that would be enhanced, the Governor's Salmon Recovery Funding Board awarded
$57,000 to upgrade the initial culvert proposal to a salmon friendly project in March of this year.
Future proposed projects which will enable salmon enhancement will be the replacement of two
culverts under a US Navy bridge on Sherwood Creek, restoration of an area on Shumocher Creek
utilized by off-road vehicles, examination of fish barriers between Trask Lake and the creek, and
the restocking of this watershed with sockeye.
IX. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas
Applicable Regulations
GA. Stream Crossings: All stream crossings should be discouraged and alternatives should be
explored. Any public or private road expansion or construction which is proposed and must cross
streams classified within this Ordinance, shall comply with the following minimum development
standards:
a. Bridges or arch/bottomless culverts shall be required for all Type 1, 2, and 3 streams
(whi
ch ch have anadromous fish habitat). Fish passage shall be provided, if necessary to address
man-made obstructions on site. Other alternatives may be allowed upon showing that, for the site
under review, the alternatives would be less disruptive to the habitat or that the necessary building
foundations were not feasible.
b. Crossings shall not occur in salmonoid spawning areas unless no other reasonable
crossing site exists. -
c. Bridge piers or abutments shall not be placed either within the floodway or between
the ordinary high water marks unless no other reasonable alternative placement exists.
d. All stream crossings shall be required to pass 100 year projected flood flows, even in
non-fish bearing Type 4 and 5 streams. In addition, crossings for Type 1, 2, and 3 should
allow for downstream transport of large woody debris.
e. Crossings shall serve multiple properties whenever possible.
f. Where there is no reasonable alternative to providing a culvert, the culvert shall be the
minimum length necessary to accommodate the permitted activity.
As a Type I stream, proposal 2 (bridge) meets the requirements of the Mason County Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ordinance while proposal 1 (culvert), being closed bottomed,
does not.. Alternative structures such as this culve
rt, are allowed upon showing that the required
structure was not feasible.
X. Analysis. This proposal needs a Substantial Development Permit due to values in excess of
$2,500 and a Conditional Use Permit due to transportation activities within a Conservancy
designation.' Mason County Shoreline Master Program Flood Protection and Shoreline
Stabilization Chapter 7.16.150, Transportation Facilities Chapter 7.16.160, and Conditional Use
Chapter 7.28.010 provides guidance for review.
Applicable Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization Policies are:
l. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection planning should be undertaken in a
coordinated manner among affected property owners and public agencies and should consider
entire systems or sizeable stretches of rivers, lakes or marine shorelines. Thus planning should
consider the off-site erosion, accretion or flood damage that might occur as a result of
stabilization or protection structures or activities.
2. Shoreline stabilization and flood protection works should be located, designed, constructed and
maintained to provide:
- Protection of the physical integrity of the shore process corridor and other properties
which may be damaged by interruptions of the geohydraulic system;
- Protection of water quality and natural ground water movement;
- Protection of valuable fish and other life forms and their habitat vital to the aquatic food
chain;
- Protection of valuable recreation resources and aesthetic values such as point and
channels bars, islands and other shore features and scenery.
3. Non-structural flood control solutions should be used wherever possible, including prohibiting
or limiting development in historically flood prone areas, regulating structural design and limiting
increases in peak flow runoff from new upland development. Structural solutions to reduce
shoreline damage should be allowed after it is demonstrated that non-structural solutions would
not be able to reduce the damage.
4. Substantial stream channel modification, realignment and straightening should be discouraged
as a means of shoreline stabilization and flood protection.
Applicable Flood Protection and Shoreline Stabilization Use Regulations are:
1. The County shall require and utilize the-following information during its review of shoreline
stabilization and flood protection procedures:
- River channel hydraulics up stream and downstream from the project area;
- Existing shoreline stabilization and flood protection works within the area;
- Physical, geological and soil characteristics of the area; and
- Predicted impact upon area shore and hydraulic processes, adjacent properties and
J
shoreline and water uses.
2. Conditions of Hydraulic Project Approval, issued by Washington State Department of
Fisheries, may be incorporated into permits issued for flood protection and shoreline stabilization.
3. The County shall require professional design of shoreline stabilization and flood protection
works where such projects may cause interference with normal river geo hydraulic processes,
leading to erosion of other upstream and downstream shoreline properties, or adverse effects to
shoreline resources and uses.
Transportation Chapter:
Applicable Policies
1. Roads should be located on stable soils, back from a water channel using routes that avoid
slumps, wetlands, and natural drainage areas. When this is not possible,corrective stabilization
measures should be used.
6. Roads located in wetland areas should be designed and maintained to prevent erosion and to
permit the natural flow of ground water.
7. Location of roads and railroads should not require the rerouting of stream and river channels.
8. Roads and railroads should be designed, constructed and maintained to minimize erosion and
to permit natural movement of ground water and flood waters to the extent practical.
9. All debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction should be disposed of in
such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage, high water, or other means into any
surface water body. -
10. Waterway crossings should be designed and constructed to maintain normal geohydraulic
processes, as well as to minimize interruption of flood water flow.
13. Trail and bicycle systems should be encouraged along shorelines to the maximum extent
feasible.
14. All transportation facilities in shoreline areas should be located, designed, constructed and
maintained to cause the least possible adverse impacts on the land and water environments, should
respect the natural character of the shoreline and should make every effort to preserve wildlife,
aquatic life and their habitats.
Applicable Use Regulations _
1. Application for roads and railroads must adequately address the following:
- Need must be shown for a shoreline location and that no reasonable upland alternative
exists.
- The construction is designed to protect the adjacent shoreline against erosion,
uncontrolled or polluting drainage and other factors detrimental to the environment both
during and after construction.
- That the project will be planned to fit the existing topography as much as possible, thus
minimizing alterations to the natural environment.
- That all debris, overburden and other waste materials from construction will be disposed
of in such a way as to prevent their entry by erosion from drainage into any water body.
2. Bridge construction shall conform to the following:
- Excavation for and placement of the sills or abutments and outside placement of the
stringers or girders shall be accomplished from above the Ordinary High Water Mark,
as a Conditional Use.
- Bridge approach fills shall not encroach in the floodway of any stream or river.
- All bridges shall be high enough (minimum of three feet above 100-year flood elevation)
to pass all expected debris and anticipated high water flows from a 100-year flood.
5. Requirements for culvert installation in streams used by anadromous fish are defined by the
Washington State Department of Fisheries and culvert installation may require a hydraulic permit.
The Conditional Use Chapter criteria require that the proposal be reviewed for consistency, its
impact on public use, compatibility with other uses, and for any adverse or detrimental effects. In
authorizing a Conditional Use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by local
government or the Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use.
The applicant's responses are attached.
XI. Conclusions. Flood Protection Policies #2, #3, #4, Transportation Chapter Policies#6,
#7, #8, #10, #14, and Transportation Use Regulation#1 of the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program establishes guidelines for projects to protect the natural geohydraulic and aquatic
systems. Designing projects around natural processes provides long term benefits for the
resources and for road projects. The initial cost of providing an adequate structure is regained
over time due to less maintenance of debris or sediment clogged culverts/bridges or the need for
replacement of a structure that cannot handle the natural processes.
4
Proposal 1, the culvert, fails to meet the policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program
due to modification and alteration of a natural system. As a 23 foot structure, it provides a
constriction at this point as it fails to meet minimum stream width and provides a barrier for the
flow of groundwater. The bridge proposal meets stream width criteria and provides for a more
natural aquatic habitat. Concerns about wetlands may be addressed within the bridge proposal
with adequate grade control. Because the bridge proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Master
Program, staff recommends approval of the bridge proposal subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant acknowledges this permit is for the submitted bridge design. Modifications are
allowed within this design to provide grade control or to meet state and federal regulations.
2. The applicant shall comply with the specifications and conditions of the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval for this project.
3. A US Army Corps of Engineers Permit or Exemption in conjunction with a WA State
Water Quality Certification shall be obtained prior to the performance of any activities waterward
of the Ordinary High Water Mark.
4. An erosion and sediment control plan shall be developed and submitted by the applicant
prior to final project authorization by Mason County Planning Department. This plan must be
designed to protect the creek, wetlands, and lake.
5. All dredged materials shall be moved to an upland site outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
6. All areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities must be revegetated, use
bioengineering techniques, use clean durable riprap, or some other equivalent type of protection
against erosion.
7. The project must be consistent with all the applicable policies and other provisions of the
Shoreline Management Act, its rules, and the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
XH. Choices of Action.
1. Recommend approval of the SDP/CUP request.
2. Recommend denial of the SDP request.
3. Recommend conditional approval of the SDP request.
4. Recommend postponement of the decision for further information.
FOREST
PRACTICE BASE MAP
TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH , RANGE 02 WEST ( W . 14 . ) , SECTION 07
APPLICATION
tt7 -
-
I
31 [B48 ®s
30 47 64
` - - - -zoo -®
9 6
SCALE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 60CA1
FEET 1 Mi!e I'm n)
MAP DATE: F&wy 23, 1997
CONTOUR INTERVAL : 40 Feet LEGEND : See Instructions
NAD 21 DISCLAIMER : See Legend
water/wetlands including their location and class may be incorrectly displayed or not shown
on the Base Map. Applicants are responsible for verification and correction.
MASON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
Shelton,Washington 98584
DATE: May 5, 2000
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Shandra O'Halek, Shoreline Planner - DCD
FROM: Rich Geiger, Engineering Services Manager - PW
SUBJ: REVISED DESIGNS FOR SHUMOCHER CREEK, WITH AND WITHOUT
GRADE CONTROL
Enclosed are revised designs for this stream crossing. At this time, it is unclear
whether or not Department of Ecology will permit lowering the water level in the wetland
upstream of this stream crossing. Due to the lack of time available to process permits
between now and the closure of the allowable fisheries construction window, we are
submitting two alternatives. One alternative provides positive grade controls to
maintain the upstream wetland water elevation. The second alternative has no grade
controls and would allow for a natural stream bed that could regrade itself through the
structure and upstream into the wetland. The second alternative is presented with the
assumption that the natural stream regrading would provide adequate mitigation for
anticipated and unforseen impacts to the upstream wetland complex. For this reason,
no wetland mitigation is proposed for the second alternative.
WATERSHED DESCRIPTION
The watershed feeding Schumocher Creek encompasses an area approximately 5800
acres in size. This watershed is characterized by uplands with second growth forest
lands, the majority of which appears to have been logged within the last 20 years, some
urban development in the vicinity of the Alderbrook Golf Course. The lowlands of this
watershed are characterized by a series of very large scrub-shrub wetlands linked with
heavily forested streams, with a considerable amount of slope wetlands located
intermittently in the stream's riparian areas along and above the streambanks.
The basin's topography is generally a very large basin. The rim of the basin is a rough
terrain plateau, descending to the wetlands at the center of the basin with well-defined
drainages. There are scattered, isolated wetlands located throughout the basin at
elevations above the basin floor.
The soils above the basin floor are primarily alderwood series, the soils in the basin
floor are a series of mukeltio peats and other wetland soils.
Immediately upstream of the Schumocher Creek crossing is a large wetland,
approximately one mile in length and up to 1000 feet in width. This wetland was
formed, at least in part, by a glacial till "sill" at the outlet of the wetland, at the location of
the stream crossing. Upstream of the wetland, the only impediments to flow are
wetland plant root structures and small logjams located in a well-defined stream
channel that flows through the wetland. The gradient of this stream is very flat and is
controlled by these flow impediments. The soil in the streambed is a saturated silt with
considerable depth.
The stream crossing at the wetland outlet has had a series of culverts installed under
the County road for several decades. These culverts have been installed with the inlet
above the floor of the upstream wetland, causing water to back up in the wetland and
metering flow downstream of the culvert. During extreme storm events, water has
overtopped the County Road with depths estimated at 15' above the wetland floor
upstream of the culvert.
The stream channel downstream of the road crossing is well-defined with an average
width of 32'. The stream banks are vegetated with brush and mature trees. Many trees
have fallen into the channel, some of which span the channel. The stream has an
average gradient of 1.1% and flows to Mason Lake at through Simpson Employee's
Recreation Center.
DESCRIPTION OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
Two design alternatives are proposed, one featuring grade control, and one without
grade control.
The grade control alternative includes three weirs and a 23.87' by 10.08' closed-
bottomed box culvert. These structures provide positive streambed grade control within
the project area, maintain the elevation of the upstream wetland, and meet the current
state criteria for fish passage.
The alternative without grade control includes an open-bottomed culvert, 34' to 40' in
width, with a pile foundation. This structure would allow the stream bed to regrade well
upstream through the structure and into the wetland.
ADVANTAGES AND POSSIBLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
The grade control structure would maintain the upstream wetland in it's current state
and would allow upstream fish passage. However, according to recent research by the
WDFW, it would be difficult for juvenile fish to migrate upstream using standard weirs,
as they require flow velocities of 1.0 fps or less to swim upstream. These reduced
stream velocities might be achieved by modifying the weirs with installation of heavy
stream cobble rock at notch locations to simulate a small, natural channel at low flows.
The bottom of the box culvert would also be filled with heavier, natural streambed
materials.
The open-bottomed structure would provide a natural stream channel for fish passage.
However, it would allow the stream channel to regrade.
Field investigation shows the channel through the wetland upstream of the crossing has
already been impacted by regrading since,the original culvert's failure. This has already
caused the water level to draw down below the vegetation line in the wetland stream
channel for a distance of approximately 1780' upstream of the stream crossing. A
natural grade control is currently maintaining the stream in its original condition further
upstream. This wetland channel is bedded with silt somewhat stabilized by the large
root structures of Nuphar luteum and abundant Potamogeton natans. A few, small log
jams were observed, consisting mostly of cut timber which has fallen or floated into
place and are anchored in the silt soil streambanks.
Preliminary calculations show that regrading at the existing stream crossing of one foot
or more will result in continuing regrading well upstream into the wetland channel'. It is
expected the channel will become dynamic, and silt in quantities exceeding 2000 cubic
yards will be washed downstream and deposit in Mason Lake at the mouth of
Schumocher Creek. Given normal flows, this process will likely be gradual. A large
storm event, however, could cause dramatic changes in the upstream wetland and
move a large quantity of silt soils out of the wetland.
As these changes occur, the channel will likely move through the wetland area.
Currently, there are some sand deposits and some small gravel deposits in the existing
wetland channel. There is no sediment source currently identified within the wetland.
As the channel becomes dynamic, the existing silts, sands and small gravel deposits in
the wetland will likely serve as the only replenishment for displaced stream bed
sediments in the migrating channel.
CONCLUSION
This information is provided to DCD and other reviewing agencies to assist them in
reviewing the two design alternatives. These design alternatives have very different
implications for the system, especially the wetland upstream of the stream crossing.
We look forward to review comments from reviewing agencies and will ask that they
communicate directly to reach a consensus on which design alternative is the best
solution for Mason County's transportation needs and the watershed's environmental
functions.
If you have an ues ' ns, call me at extension 531.
RICHA J. GEIG , P.E.
1 The wetland channel is lined with a non-colloidal, alluvial silt. Given a silt-laden flow(highly likely)these soils will
erode at stream velocities in excess of 3.5 fps. Calculations with Mannings values in a range of 0.018 (smooth,
natural earth channel)to 0.06 (natural channel with heavy debris), the existing stream length of 1780'currently
influenced by the stream crossing, and slope increases of even foot increments show these velocities will be
achieved with regrading at the stream crossing as follows: 1.0'with n=0.018 to 0.025, 2.0'with n=0.035, and 5'with
n=0.06.
y,Aw I w '
J;j�3�ham. �-i', t' �,. ., •' "�' 'vim � �' � _
A I ,'..
_ ma � t i►4 _
�.}"`.-1 ;Y• �� ` '- r r •,� ^yy, f ' �'(" __ - 7 � 1M1 .fit
-r�ar`ay}•f•• �•`%Af~ ~ , a �,. �•
_, �
..• y, ), ..,r -.� _ .-_ '� •-y'.aoi_ '".'t• tr .^ _. Via_-. :a't0•.. s 4 �" . - • r i
PPS; F3 ___p { •(^•- � .•Y_�• 2'�• �.f^ � I ''+�,�
-4
r
y
,Ir y_. , ��t' �T �,` 1• i1•f IA 1.
.
'`- ,,a'�' • !.�• � ..'Y`'' - tit
JWL
ft a .. Yd' �' 'aO'-:{ •r ,.. - — t ♦ 'K(Z'." 7�-•:/ .
� o
4 j >r v•
*` '�.iF � t�`i}�. '.x♦' s;�!.;N���q�'_'�''�S`��:> y•4. �- 1�:.' �' ,,..:� � • _; — a { 'fit '�.`Y'—c � �
fit. }y. e .:. Yr � 4 � yE a•�j,ary� {' a, R�,�x M� �� � Js'� � �
s.y ice• '�'. ' � ♦ �7 .�•s �.I �.�, t ac • y't°„r�` �
cwr
Oj;r � *.Yy �''t�Y' :r �C1r.� vie *yF,^'.;`. •a+„' �'�a` S:- ems' `sh
r }Pee{. ... a t f ?_ ��_SSA-,.{ •• r 4 c _. r 1.°�S
s,}+6- ..1 4 •;+J
...sue` • _ � �
,Yv_x�,t,<w.•TY -�'E^ �.r._a'_ _"� .�Jr'
. _''� 'R 'r.�`.y. ? {'!"�'> _ •.•��.+.• .�•C• ...�-+mot.'.F-
Ar
t�
. �t � �'i rC •"� .y a-. :� ��'F'� "� 'fir F;.� ,'��. � _�� +�}.*�� ,,¢� ..r..
f
COUNTY ROAD PROJECT # 1630
MASON LAKE RD WEST
SCALE County Road Number 60310
909 Mason County, Washington
9L54 69.76
• p to 3e 40 00 90.91/ 3+27.39 0913
_B9.33
\ 3+4L76 8`j9`1 69.40 Date Approved
i 3 89-08 8870 For Right of Way COUNTY ENGINEER
\ / 3+75
9LZ6 2+34.84 3+50 Date Approved CHAIRPERSON OF
2+75 90 89.50 / 4+00 For Construction COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/ 4 98
7
90.69 SHT_1 OF-2—
88.75
.4+25
2+5o ` 9L35 44ZZ,, 8.29
\ I 487.816 87.89
t
1 O 9 7 8725 F 87 80
4+ 4+BLIO
1 2+25 8723
5+00 87b1
8825 5+25 B6b5
5+50
1. { . .. . 5+75
87S
l 2.56
i
1+50
0+5. 0+75 1 00 1}}0p99.74' t4%
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .�. . . . . . . . . .1.__.4 :. . 9219
9zss UPSTREAM N❑TEi �(������ftj C�G3�
SCHUMnCNER CREEK FLOWS INT❑ A WETLAND
% SITUATED WESTERLY OF THE ROAD G CULVERT THE DATE:PLAN AND p�OG LE Revised 0�18/00 by AAT
WETLAND FEEDS THE ROAD CROSSING RJG
%
OPT ON W10 63R A DC �ONlI G-;' �
TOWNSHP 21 NORTH, RANG-LE, 2 WEST, SECTM 7, W.M.
CROVN OF CULVERT 98,W to 100-W, nependlnp on Structure
Level Nees. 3/13/00
(NTS)
Ma. 34' to 40' Open Bottomed Culvert. I
Set on Pile Foundations,
9252 Bates Natural Bed
92.00 S~ve
d 31 5/ 2.0' 130 CFS DEFT
GIN TH5' KIN OVER s.AL 7•s'X12 5, ARC S� Levet Hen 3/IS/OD 92 _. 92.00
91.00
M
' 91
91.00
R -de FILL. PLUNGE 0.4
90.00 to + POOL AFTER Note: C Cwe span ct al this locavon
INSTALLATION
FOR EVEN REGRADE 90
3A
_ 90.00
CREEK B❑T ❑M UN TERED
89.00 ORIGINAL CREEK rl TLE
89 FLAT 89.00
88.00 t
—ft'Q a
88 VERTICAL SCALE 12x HORIZONTAL 88 00+
tton elev, deeper, t d not be e.sir•eeD
87.00
an of Foo 85A0', on .
0+50 0+75 1+00 87.00 1+25 1+50 1+75 2+00 2+25 2t50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+75 4+00
B "ram
toe - - — — — — — -- ,- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - SCALE
102 ASSUMED
0 10 20 30 40 50
106 104 �
0+25
i
0+50 r..
_ 0+75 1+ 1+25 1+50 1+7 I 2+25 2+50 2+75 3+00
3+2
3+50
MASON AK L E RD WEST
-3+75
l it
4+00
- - - - - - - -- ,p - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
PLAN VIEW
SCALE FILL/DREDGED QUANTITIES:
2+00 ORIGINAL PIPE LOCATION
0 5 I 10 1s ROAD SURFACE PROPOSED EXCAVATION,
34' to 40' x 40' 160 C.Y. TO BE EXCAVATED FROM BELOW OHL FOR FOOTING AND CULVERT INSTALLATION
CONC. OR METAL BOX CULVERT 535 C.Y. TO BE EXCAVATED ABOVE OHW FOR CULVERT INSTALLATION
Irp
100 FILL QUANTITIESi
31 C.Y. CONCRETE FOR PILE CAP BELOW OHW
/plc �� \ I I 10 CC.Y.CRUSHED
ILL SURFACING
TOP COURSE
O RBELO ORf7PI E CAP LEVELING COURSE BELOW OHW
BEHIN
95 160 C.Y. BACKFILL BEHIND ABUTMENTS ABOVE OHW
D=D. 5• VDFLw SSIOH —NATURAL URAL STREAMBED 200 C.Y. BACKFILL OVER METAL CULVERT AB=VE OHW CMETAL CULVERT OPTION ONLY)
I/ 100 C.Y. HEAVY LOOSE RIPRAP ARMORING AT CULVERT INVERTS BELOW OHW
Y
T t.` POTENTIAL SCOUR EL-66.00'
VIEW A - A 85
LJ
SCALE o 40'
19'
0 5 10 is Z i
oc
3% CROVN 102�0
` 1OL73 ___......... _.__---• _.
10173
R
COUNTY ROAD PROJECT # 1630
D=5.00' -
f63 rR v - F'_OV DIRECTION MASON LAKE RD WEST
CREEK BED County Road Number 60310
ss;vitFav Revs=ss7al — __ _
NA sTRErw sEn
Mason County, Washington
Data ApproveE
85M For Right of Way COUNTY ENGINEER
VIEWB — B For Co^st�ruct��io n COUNTY COM14rna+AIRPERSON �
SNT:2_DF_Z_
' COUNTY ROAD PROJECT # 1630
MASON LAKE RD WEST
County Road Number 60310
SCALE 90.99 Mason County, Washin ton
9L54 g
• Y m �a M y89.76
�'-2'3'-9� 8913
_0933 q9 89.40
t \ 3+4L76 Date Approved COUNTY ENGINEER
B9AB 88.70 For Right of Way
3+75
9126 2+34-K�..- 3+� Dot Approved e CHAIRPERSON OF
2+75 B9.50 - 4+00 4+09 For Construction COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
90.69 �E.07 1' 8948 SHT._1_OF_2__
88.75
'6p ��
9 2+50 L35 /3 87.89
�\
9 87.85 . . , 4+75
0 87.80
8723
C 2+95 :1.87 5+00 87.61
88.25 5+25 BQ 8
9z2s z,ao:: 1- s+so
1 � .�. . . . 5+75
87.5
+ 1+50
ltr
. . .0t . . . . . . .0'50. . . . . ..0 75. . . . . . . o9J4
Itoo_It ':
1 tt 9219 8C�[�UM0Cf�E C�G3C�I
9z3s UPSTREAM NOTE,
SCHUM❑CHER CREEK FLOWS INT❑ A WETLAND
SITUATED WESTERLY OF THE ROAD - THE n� n (�� (��D ��0���� Revised: (IQ��� AAT
by�G
WETLAND FEEDS THE ROAD CROSSING CULVERT Il"L�li=�N (j�1N l(J
A
Op�DO� �� C� DL CC"ONTIRIO
s
TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANCC-,7':-: 2 WIEST, SECTION 7, W.M.
130 CFS Level CROWN OF CULVERT 9928'
Level Meas. 3/15/00 130 CFS Level
(NTS) 93.52 FISH FLOW
<�23.83'x10.08' alum. box cutv.
Batton
92.52 QR GI with full plate invert
92-00 Serve I lVq� 7 S 12
d s/ Weir Et. - 92.00 Z0 w'S' X S' gRCN C
M 92
Level Meas. 3/15/00 92.00
9L51
91.00 -91
We EL 912
90.45
91
•r' - -9020 0.4 - 91.00
L •
90.00 _ WNING GRAVE .:�•' elr Nota:EL 'ee'ur L epan de N this
90.00
89.00
Armor wet t ou8et =':•• ; _�- •,'...' ,.:' : CRE K B❑T ❑M UN TERED
_ :. .. ��
�9M y -e92o ILL PLUNGE ORIGINAL CREEK
Notr see s se POOL AFTER 89 8933 FLAT 89.00
for f tton foo INSTALLATION 89.0e
88.00 rehforc t13F FAR D.S.
Tod PlatoEIR -88.42
Qj
es VERTICAL SCALE 12x HORIZONTAL
87.00 telattomgg 00�
-B 83 Qlo eiev. deeper. c ur d rat be aseco
0+50 0+75 1+00 87.00
1+25 1+50 1+75 2+00 24 25 2+50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+75
4400