Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP2000-00012 Construct and Install Creek Crossing - SEP Determinations - 1/27/2000 �ON.ST,,rF MASON COUNTY o I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i= Planning Division P O Box 678, Shelton, WA 98584 1864 (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2000-00012 Description of Proposal: Construction and installation of a permanent creek crossing with a 21'-2"X 8'-10"structural aluminum plate box culvert including a full corrugated invert (bottom), artificial streambed, headwalls, wingwalls, reconstruction of road through embankments, application of an asphalt concrete pavement, guardrails, and hydroseeding. Proponent: MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS Site Address (If Assigned): 1050 E MASON LAKE RD GRAPEVIEW Directions to Site: Milepost 0.90 of Mason Lake Road West Parcel Number: 221073000010 Legal Description: TR 1 OF SW1/4 Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverser impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED. Please contact 3hc rd rc� at ext. �9S with any questions. This DNS is issu90d under 197-11-340(2), the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Commgrds must be s4nitted W2JI012000. i ture of Responsible Official Date tvnF Lk)- Mcar) 19, Tb-Qx1n l ribe —(�l,c.h�llam_ S1cv'i OOE ArPllccn-t 0 S,t6k- .O E ,Sp,P,5,t Saurd SQ rr,Q V1 (Fn h4 nc.eryi e.n—t n �. I (� h r� i�„r.l ('ic{Sor) C,sfric+ — B, 11 LIoun,� STAT y0 O STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY P.O. Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 February 10, 2000 FEB 14 2000 Ms. Shandra O'Haleck Mason County Department of MASON CO.PLANNING DEPT Community Development PO Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Ms. O'Haleck: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the construction and installation of a permanent creek crossing with a 21-foot 2-inch by 8-foot 10-inch. structural aluminum plate box culvert including a full corrugated invert, artificial streambed, headwalls, wingwalls, reconstruction of road through embankments, application of an asphalt concrete pavement, guardrails, and hydroseeding(Case No. SEP2000-00012) located at 1050 East Mason Lake Road in Grapeview as proposed by Mason County Public Works. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments: Federal Permit Coordinator: A water quality certification may be required from the Department of Ecology in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'permit for this project. Water Quality: "The preferred alternative should be a bridge." Constructing another culvert could cause degradation of the stream channel and adjacent wetlands. If another culvert is constructed it would need to be bottomless, arched and the width of the existing channel at least 35-feet wide. The creek would need to pass at 100-year flood and should be at least a 10-foot culvert. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please call Ms. Helen Pressley (Federal Permit Coordinator) at(360) 407-6296, either Mr. Charles Toal (Water Quality) at(360)407-6297 or Ms. Kerry Carroll (Water Quality) at(360) 407-6294 or with any other questions regarding this proposal Ms. Kari Rokstad (SEPA Coordinator) at(360)407-6787. i cer ly, bbe White SWRO Administration AW: (00-0633) cc: Kerry Carroll, SWRO/WQ Helen Pressley, SWRO/SEA Kari Rokstad, SWRO/SEA Charles Toal, SWROAVQ I A�{TArrO o E SN �� State of Washingb n DEPARTMENT OF FISH Al D WILDLIFE Region 7 Mailing Address: 600 Capftol Way N-Olympia,Was ngton 98501-1091 -(360)902-2808 Region 7 Office location:Natural Resources Building-1111 Wast tgton Street SE-Olympia,Washington January 31, 2000 Department of Community Development Planning Division Shandra O'Haleck P.O. Box 1850 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Ms. O'Haleck: SUBJECT: State Environmental Policy Act Docum( it, SEP2000-00012; Mason County Department of Public Works Proponent Schumocher Creek Restoration, Schumocher Creek, Tributary to Mason Lake, SW 1/4, Section 02, Township 21 North, Range 07 West, Mason Count , WRIA 14.0094 The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFM has reviewed the above-referenced State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document receive I on January 28, 2000, and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may bt offered as the project progresses. Schumocher Creek has a relatively pristine upper watersh( i and provides habitat for coho and chum salmon. The wetland immediately above the road cr ssing provides extensive habitat for fish and many wildlife species. Every effort should be ma- t to enhance, conserve and protect this habitat. The average channel width of Schumocher Creek below t - culvert is approximately 32 feet this would be the recommended minimum size for a culvert or )ridge crossing. The proposal calls for a 21 foot culvert which causes concern for the water,, Iocity inside the culvert, dewatering of the upstream wetlands and capacity of the culvert at flood Stage. The proposed culvert and bed would be installed on a flat gradient but the hydraulic gra( ent (slope of the water) needs to be determined. Given the width of the wetland above the cu pert and the size of the stream below the culvert, a backwater model such as HEC RAS, should :)e used to show the velocity inside the culvert would not interfere with fish passage. If the prop( ied culvert is in fact too small, the velocities inside the culvert could scour the bed material c it. This could also cause the water in the wetland above the culvert to drop. A profile of the stream through the reach above and belo-, the proposed project needs to be completed. This is in order to determine what is needed I rdraulically at this location. The Public Works Department may have a concern that 1 e price of a bridge is prohibitive for this site. The South Puget Sound Salmon Enhancement ( coup may be able to provide additional I �s v� Ms. O'Haleck January 31, 2000 Page 2 funds in order to restore the creek using a bridge crossing this would be the preferred alternative. Bridge crossings allow the stream be behave in a more na iral manner than do culverts, have less likelihood of future failure and thereby provide a more"p -nanent fix". There are several companies that construct bridges that could be compared or this project. The cost of a future failure should also be considered if the proposed culvert is in fact too small. Another cost that is almost never factored into project consideration is that to he fish and wildlife habitat lost every time a project similar to this fails and needs to be fixed. T to risk to our natural resources are continually overlooked in project planning and cost analy; s. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comment,, If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 427-2179. Sincerely, Margaret Schirato Area Habitat Biologist MS:ms:SchumMDNS cc: SEPA Coordinator, WDFW SEPA Coordinator, DOE cnumoc er yreeK urpssing draftt comments Page 1 From: "Boeholt, Ann" <aboe461@ECY.WA.GOV> To: "'slo@co.mason.wa.us"' <slo@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 5/26/00 2:41 PM Subject: Schumocher Creek Crossing draft comments Shandra, Here are my comments, attached within the body of this message, and as a Word Perfect attachment (whichever works best for you). Ann Boeholt, Wetland Specialist Department of Ecology, SWRO (360) 407-6221 aboe461@ecy.wa.gov «Schumocher Creek WP.doc>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- DRAFT May 26, 2000 Ms. Shandra O'Halek, Senior Planner Mason County Department of Community Development PO Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: East Mason Lake Road Crossing of Schumocher Creek. Dear Ms. O'Halek: The question has been asked whether Ecology would permit lowering the water level in the Schumocher Creek wetland upstream of the East Mason Lake Road stream crossing. Ecology's authority to require protection of, or compensation for impacts (direct or indirect) to, the Schumocher Creek wetlands comes from RCW 90.48 and 90.58. According to the state Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58), these wetlands are within shoreline jurisdiction--they are associated wetlands. A review of the bridge construction or culvert installation project must therefore consider any impacts to this wetland. The goals and policies of the SMA and Mason County SMP regarding protection/management of wetlands must be abided to. Schumocher Creek, upstream of Mason Lake, including its associated wetlands, are within the Shoreline Conservancy environment (Mason County Shoreline Master Program). Conservancy environments are those for which the objective is to "protect, conserve, and manage existing natural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational benefits to the public and to achieve sustained resource utilization". The goal of shoreline management within conservancy environments is to maintain the existing character of those areas. Preferred uses are those which are by nature I iavrraiccrc-.�rrunrv�ricrt+r c non-consumptive of the physical and biological resources of the area. (Emphasis added). The protection for wetlands pursuant to the State Water Pollution Control Act (RCW 90.48) is found, primarily, in the antidegradation policy (WAC 173-201A-070) of the implementing administrative code. This says, essentially, that existing beneficial uses (AKA functions) of the wetland cannot be degraded. Or, if they are, they must be compensated, such that there is no net loss of wetland beneficial uses. Ecology is charged with ensuring that RCW 90. 48 and its implementing WACs are honored. Degradation of wetland beneficial uses of the Schumocher Creek wetland could result in a water quality notice of violation. Our Shoreline oversight role enables us to consider and to condition the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for the road crossing in order to ensure that the existing character of the Schumocher Creek wetland is maintained. This could result in the requirement of specific minimization or compensation measures. My bottom line is threefold. First, I am not convinced that all potential wetland impacts from the stream crossing will be adequately compensated by the improvement of fish passage to this wetland system. There are two competing interests with respect to this stream crossing: 1) maintain existing wetland conditions, while continuing the interruption of salmonid access to this system, or 2) restore fish passage while disturbing wetland area and wetland functions to an undetermined degree. The degree of disturbance to the wetland has not yet been defined. However, neither has the success or the value of restoring fish passage to this wetland system been quantified in any way. In order to fully restore salmonid access to the Schumocher Creek wetland, numerous passage issues lower in the watershed must first be addressed. My second point then, is that a passage option should be selected which does not favor salmonid habitat benefits over all other wetland beneficial uses. The with-grade-control option presented by Rich Geiger(May 5, 2000 memo to you) appears to meet this objective: it minimizes additional wetland impacts, while still provided fish passage (though not, evidently, the most ideal fish passage). Finally, I support the concept of restoring this reach of Schumocher Creek to a natural condition. A natural condition would not include in-stream engineered structures. A natural stream would be wide enough to allow the stream to meander, such that flood bars and spits would form. This would result in a natural and gradual re-grading of the stream channel which would occur in such a way that the water level within the wetland would be naturally stabilized. However, the without-grade-control option does not result in a restoration of such natural stream conditions. A field assessment of the historic flood channel of the creek indicates that it is more on the order of 100 feet. A 34 ft. wide open-bottomed culvert will still result in a constricted, incised stream reach. There is some evidence to suggest that the glacial till was consolidated enough at the current location of the East Mason Lake Road crossing of Schumocher Creek (Rich Geiger, personal communication) that this formed a natural geologic sill, a barrier to fish. One anecdotal story claims that Schumocher Creek historically dropped over this sill--forming a natural fish � � a ",,ar��n .��riurrrvLrr�r�i��r.�ios�, Page 3< ............. i barrier. Others claim that this was not a barrier to anadromous fish--that Kokanee historically entered this stream and wetland habitat. Given this, it has not yet been demonstrated to me whether the issue at hand is one of introducing or re-introducing Kokanee to a stream reach and off-channel wetland habitat. That aside, the wetland at issue is a Category II scrub-shrub and emergent wetland. It has peat soils greater than 16 "deep. This is not a bog. It would be considered a fen. This wetland provides breeding habitat for Northwestern salamander and likely other species of native amphibians. The wetland is significant in size--several miles long. I have seen no calculation of acres or square footage e. q 9 9 There is no question of whether the wetland was present prior to the construction of East Mason Lake Road. It certainly was. However, depending on whether the road impounded water or not, the wetland may or may not have been increased in size and it's hydrology altered in the 1930s. It is clear that the average water level of(at least the lower portion of) the wetland lowered when the culvert blew. This will result in some amount of wetlands around the very edge of the wetland drying up and ceasing to be wetlands. The hydroperiod of the remaining wetlands has changed. These wetland areas will retain less standing water and become invaded with scrub/shrub vegetation, disturbing some wetland functions (such as amphibian breeding). It is still not clear to me whether this returned the wetland's water level to where it had been prior to road construction in the 1930s or if the original geologic sill, which might have been weakened with road construction and culvert installation was lowered, resulting in a wetland water level lower than historic levels. The peat deposition is actually evidence of the latter. A culvert replacement design, which results in further disturbance of the wetland, should also provide compensation for those further disturbances. The County has suggested that (re)introduction of Kokanee to this stream reach could constitute adequate mitigation for whatever impacts befall the wetland. Given the size and gradient of this wetland, even a minor additional lowering of the water level could impact a large amount of wetland area. While this wetland would indeed provide wonderful juvenile salmonid rearing habitat, this would not be provided without the loss of other wetland functions. Kokanee are not T&E listed in this watershed (perhaps because they have simply been extirpated). Kokanee, which spawn in lake habitats, would be the primary salmonid to benefit from juvenile salmonid passage. Without even having an estimation of the quality and quantity of wetland functions that would be disturbed by further lowering the wetland water level, I am unable to concede that (re)introduction of Kokanee to this wetland would result in a net gain of wetland beneficial uses. A culvert replacement design, which would in all likelihood result in further lowering the wetland water level, should be accompanied with a report that illustrates: The net benefit: the number of stream miles and wetland area that would be made available to which salmonid species. What other restoration measures must be accomplished in the watershed before this (re)introduction 01 Id1 luwe lurnucilei e 4 i of salmonids would be effective (i.e. what other passage barriers must be improved; piscivores controlled; etc.). * The Washington State Wetland Function Assessment Method should be applied to this wetland. This method can be used to anticipate impacts to functions that could be expected to result from lowering of the wetland water level. I can help apply this method. It will take about 3 field days. Depending on the outcome of the function assessment, it will be necessary to identify mitigation measures that would be appropriate. The goal of mitigation should, generally, be to compensate for those functions that are lost. If however, the argument can be made that some other wetland function is limiting in this watershed, then out-of-kind mitigation may be considered. It is feasible that restoration of salmonid fish passage could be considered adequate mitigation, but not without a better evaluation of the full spectrum of existing wetland functions and of how the stream crossing option would affect those functions. The function assessment method can be used to evaluate the net benefit from (re)introducing Kokanee to this stream reach. This method would also reveal what other functions are adversely impacted. Depending upon the outcome a wetland function assessment, appropriate mitigation measures may include: * restoring a portion of the emergent wetland fringe around Mason Lake, * restoring scrub-shrub/emergent wetland fen habitat in the vicinity of the Schumocher Creek wetland, * enhancing the Schumocher Creek wetland by planting an area with vegetation known to have a particular value to wildlife (such as willow, aspen, cottonwood, and red alder, which are all favored by Beaver for food), * removing additional salmonid blockages downstream, or * buying credits at a regional wetland mitigation bank (when and if one becomes available in this vicinity). Again, if the County desires to avoid the burden and uncertainty of wetland mitigation, a win-win design could be implemented which allows fish passage while minimizing additional impacts to the wetland (such as the grade-control option proposed, or ideally, a third option which hasn't yet been proposed: replacing the blown culvert with a bridge approximately 100 feet wide that would allow the stream to naturally meander and to naturally stabilize the wetland). I would also like to take this opportunity to pass on a couple of significant comments raised by our Hydrogeologist, Al Wald. He cautioned that since the original crossing washed out because it couldn't pass floodflows, the county needs to document the conveyance capacity of the proposed alternatives to assure that they are large enough to pass high flows without lateral scour in the opening and without "hosing"the downstream channel with high velocity discharge. One advantage of a bridge alternative is the additional flow capacity is offers, particularly for woody debris and sediment as well as high water. Since this creek crossing is between a large, significant wetland upstream and a large, significant lake downstream, Public Works should model the water surface profiles for these alternatives. wrrr lie[ILb Pale 5< j Cc: Rich Geiger, Dept. of Public Works Margie Shirato, WDFW Lori Morris, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dept. of Ecology: Charles Toal, Kim VanZwalenburg, and Al Wald CC: "Wald, Al" <alwa461@ECY.WA.GOV>, "Vanzwalenburg, K...