Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SHR2007-00002 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 7/27/2007
SON co pfyA MASON COUNTY � ,. Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 July 27, 2007 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION Case Number: Shoreline Substantial Development SHR2007-00002 Applicants: Eric Conrad and SteveBuzzard Representative: Amy Leitman Notice is hereby given that Eric Conrad and Steve Buzzard, applicants for the above referenced Shoreline Permit, have been granted conditional approval of the project. The Decision was dated 5/24/07 and conditionally approves the permit subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report and added conditions by the Hearing Examiner in his Decision. The request for the Shoreline Permit was approved pursuant to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program specifically for the proposed joint-use Pier,Ramp and Float Facility. 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. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeals may be made to the appropriate state administrative agency or superior court pursuant to RCW 36.70C. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. r 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Eric Conrad and Steve 4 Buzzard. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 5 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Shoreline Substantial Development 6 (SHR2007-00002) 7 g INTRODUCTION 9 The applicants have requested a shoreline substantial development permit to construct 10 a joint use pier, ramp and float ("PRF") structure along the south shore of-Hee&- _Garrad- The Examiner approves the request with conditions. ?a/e44 11 lit', ORAL TESTIMONY 12 13 See transcript. EXHIBITS 14 15 See "Case Index" attached to Staff Report, dated June 27, 2007. 16 FINDINGS OF FACT 17 Procedural: 18 1. Applicant. The applicants are Eric Conrad and Steve Buzzard. The 19 applicants' agent and representative is Amy Leitman. 20 2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject application on July 10, 2007 at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Commissioners 21 Meeting Room. 22 3. Site Description/Proposal. The applicants propose a joint use PRF 23 structure on Hood Canal along its south shore at 9331 and 9333 Lynch Road, Shelton WA. The shoreline is on the south side of the mouth of Hammersley Inlet where 24 Totten and Hammersley Inlets meet. The proposal is to construct a joint-use recreational PRF extending 115 feet beyond the OHWM. The PRF will consist of a 25 6' by 53' feet fixed pier constructed of douglas fir, a 4' by 40' fully grated aluminum ramp and three floats (one 8' by 28' and two 8' by 20'). The floats consist of fully {BFM56693.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Conrad&Buzzard JSSDP P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision r enclosed in extruded polyethylene,polystyrene floatation. The PRF will be supported 1 by ten piles and three stub piles (galvanized). 2 There are existing single family residences on both upland parcels that are used 3 recreationally by the applicants. Both of these residences have concrete bulkheads. There are wooden stairs from the Conrad bulkhead, located across the property line, 4 to the Buzzard's beach that appear to be used by both applicants. The PRF will be 5 along the shared property line on the Conrad parcel to the west. 6 4. Characteristics of the Area. There are several single family residences in the area. The Squaxin Island Tribe's public boat launch ramp is nearby to the 7 southeast of the site. There are four floating pier and docks to the east of the subject site. The nearest one is 145' away. To the west, the nearest floating dock is 8 approximately 450' feet away. 9 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. According to the Biological 10 Evaluation (`BE"), eelgrass was not found around the project site. Eelgrass is essential for forage fish sustainability, and forage fish is essential for salmon 1 1 sustainability. Nevertheless as noted in the McCauley decision (SHR2006-00002), PRF proliferation along the shorelines of Hood Canal may have adverse impacts upon 12 ESA endangered fish. As further noted in the McCauley decision, although the adverse impacts on endangered fish are far from conclusive, there is credible 13 scientific evidence of a reasonable possibility of adverse impact upon endangered fish 14 created by the proliferation of PRFs along the shorelines of Hood Canal. Since PRF applicants have the burden of proof in addressing the adverse impacts of PRFs as they 15 relate to shoreline permit criteria, it is up to the PRF applicants to conclusively establish that there are no such adverse impacts. Given the absence of a definitive 16 cumulative impact study at this time, the Examiner finds insufficient evidence to determine that there are no cumulative adverse impacts from PRF proliferation as 1 they relate to endangered fish. 18 View impacts are within range of impacts found acceptable in prior decisions due to 19 the proximity of other PRF's. As noted above although there is no PRF within 450 feet to the west, there are several to the east, with the closest one being only 145 feet 20 away. No written or oral testimony was provided from adjoining property owners 21 expressing concerns over view impacts. For these reasons the Examiner finds that the proposed PRF as conditioned creates no significant adverse view impacts. 72 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 applications. {BFP656693.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Conrad&Buzzard JSSDP p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Substantive: 1 2 2. Shoreline Master Program Designation.tion. The Shoreline Master Program environmental designation for the site is Urban Residential. 3 3. Comprehensive Plan Designation / Zoning. The Mason County 4 Comprehensive Plan designation for the site Rural. The parcel is zoned rural residential 5. 5 6 4. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.55(A) requires a substantial development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. 7 The proposed PRF requires a substantial development permit because it is within a shoreline jurisdiction and the cost of the project exceeds $5,000. MCC 15.09.055(F) 8 requires that permit applications for substantial development permits be subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(F)(2)(c) provides that the 9 Examiner shall base a decision on a substantial development permit application on the 10 Shoreline Master Program for Mason County and the policies and procedures of Chapter 90.58 RCW (the Shoreline Management Act). Hood Canal is a Shoreline of 11 Statewide Significance. The Mason County Shoreline Master Program is codified as Title 7 to the Mason County Code (MCC 7.16.170 applies to piers and docks). The 12 applicable shoreline policies and use regulations are quoted and addressed below. 13 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and 14 located to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen. 15 5. As noted in the Findings of Fact, the proposed PRF minimizes obstruction 16 of views because it is near the applicants' shared property line and close to an 17 existing PRF. And for the same reasons,this location is not expected to conflict with recreational boaters and fishermen. 18 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 2): Cooperative uses of piers and docks are 19 favored, especially in tidal waters. 20 6. The applicants propose joint use of the PRF, which satisfies the policy 1 above. SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and ✓r piers should be compatible with the shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, 23 adjacent land and water uses. 24 7. The placement of the PRF near an existing use PRF and near a shared 25 property line provides for compatibility with shoreline characteristics, aesthetics, adjacent land and water uses. Plans for the proposed PRF include features providing 1 BFM56693.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Conrad&Buzzard JSSDP p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision for grating and float stops and stub piles to prevent grounding out and disturbing the I beach. Steel pilings will be used to reduce the number of pilings required. 2 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 5): Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over 3 piers and docks. 4 8. Mooring buoys and floats are preferred, but they are not mandated. The 5proposed PRF is for joint use; and therefore will reduce the proliferation of the same. 6 SNIP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 6): Joint use stairways are preferred over individual stairways. 7 9. According to the design, new stairways do not appear to be part of the 8 proposed project. 9 SMP Piers and Docks (Policy No. 7): Boat Houses and covered moorages shall be 10 discouraged. 11 10. According to the design, propose project includes neither boat house nor covered moorage. 12 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks 13 and piers, as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, 14 shellfish, wildlife and water quality. 15 11. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, there is possibility that the proliferation of PRFs may have adverse impacts upon endangered fish. Regulation 16 No. 1, above, however does not prohibit PRFs if they create adverse impacts upon fish. It only requires that the location and design of PRFs shall minimize effects on I� fish. As discussed in the McCauley decision,joint use of PRFs should be considered 18 a location and design feature of a PRF. In this case,the applicants are proposing joint uses in conjunction with the usual negation features of grating, float stops and steel 19 pilings. Given these factors, the applicants have done everything they reasonably can do under the circumstances to minimize adverse impacts. Consequently, the above 20 use regulation is satisfied. 21 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 2): Docks and piers shall be located, 22 designed and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a 23 minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line. 24 25 12. As noted in the Findings of Fact, there are no significant adverse impacts on adjacent property owners and the proposed PRF will not interfere with the rights and uses of adjacent property owners due to the location of existing docks and the {BFP656693.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Conrad& Buzzard JSSDP p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 7 separation between the joint PRF and adjacent properties. Because the PRF is a joint 1 use it is not subject to the five foot setback requirement of Use Regulation No. 2. 2 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 4): No pier, dock, or float or similar 3 device shall have a residential structure constructed upon it. 4 13. No residential structure is proposed upon the structure. 5 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 7): Maximum overall length of a 6 recreational pier dock facility including floats shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean lower low water on a saltwater. The 7 length of any pier or dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from ordinary high water mark (OHWM) on saltwater. Joint or 8 community use facilities may be an additional 15 feet in length, and shall not exceed 9 a depth of-1.5 feet. 10 14. As noted in the staff report, the PRF is proposed at a maximum length of 115 feet from the ordinary high water mark, at which point the depth is-5 feet. 11 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 8): Only one dock is allowed per lot. 12 15. The proposed PRF will not result in more than one dock on applicants' 13 subject properties. 14 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and 15 docks shall not exceed eight feet. 16 16. The proposed width of the fixed pier is 6 feet, the ramp is 4 feet and the float is 8 feet. 17 18 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 10): At the end of a dock or pier, afloat may be attached. These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a 19 "T" or "L". In tidal water, the float shall not exceed four hundred gross square feet without a boat slip, or six hundred (seven hundred for joint use) gross square feet 20 with a boat slip. 21 17. The proposed float will have a boat slip and will form a "T" at the end of 22 the ramp. The float surface area will be less than 700 square feet. 23 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no higher than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at 24 least an eight foot span between pilings. 25 {BFM56693.D0C;1/13009.900000/1 Conrad&Buzzard JSSDP p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 18. Per the drawings in the biological evaluation, the height of the proposed I pier appears to be less than 11 feet above mean higher high water. The span between 2 pilings is over 8 feet. 3 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 14): The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water. 4 19. According to the staff report, intermittent supports are greater than eight 5 inches as configured. 6 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall 7 include intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. 8 20. Intermittent supports are included in the proposal. 9 SMP Piers and Docks (Use Regulation No. 16): All facilities shall be constructed 10 and maintained in a safe and sound condition. Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. 11 21. The conditions of approval will incorporate the requirements of Use 12 Regulation No. 16. 13 RCW 90.58.020: This policy (Shoreline Management Act policy) is designed to 14 insure the development of these shorelines (of the state) in a manner which, while allowing for limited reduction of rights of the public in the navigable waters, will 15 promote and enhance the public interest. This policy contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land and its vegetation and wildlife, and the 16 waters of the state and their aquatic life, while protecting generally public rights of 17 navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. 18 22. Location of the PRF near existing PRFs should not significantly reduce the rights of the public in surrounding navigable waters. As discussed in the Findings 19 of Fact, the project may have some adverse impacts upon endangered fish, but these impacts are significantly reduced by joint use, which significantly reduces PRF 20 proliferation. 21 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest. 22 23. The applicants' proposed joint use, which along with other mitigation 23 measures, promotes responsible development of the shoreline in recognition of the State's interest in shorelines of state-wide significance. 24 25 RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline. {BFP656693.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Conrad & Buzzard JSSDP p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 24. Because the PRF is proposed in close proximity to existing PRFs, it will 1 have little impact upon the natural character of the shoreline. Because joint use is 2 involved,the cumulative impacts of this type of PRF construction should be reduced. 3 RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit. 4 25. Joint use, by reducing PRF proliferation, promotes long-term over short- term benefit. 5 6 RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 7 26. As noted above, the PRF has been mitigated as much as reasonably possible to protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline. 8 RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the 9 shorelines. 10 27 The proposed PRF will not have significant impact upon public access to 11 shorelines. 12 RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline. 13 14 28. The PRF has no impact upon recreational opportunities for the public, although of course, it will increase the recreational opportunities for the joint users of 15 the facility. 16 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 17 proposed development according to the following criteria: 18 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. 19 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 20 in the public interest. 21 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 22 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 23 29. Residential PRF projects of the size proposed here do not generally create 24 additional demand on parks and transportation facilities and therefore, there is no 25 impact on their respective level of service. The project does not involve any generation of sanitary waste, any alteration of lot lines and was issued MDNS after SEPA review; therefore, the project meets the requirements and intent of MCC titles {BFP656693.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Conrad&Buzzard JSSDP p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 6, 8 and 16. The project has employed all available reasonable mitigation to reduce 1 impacts on public health, safety and welfare and as such is in the public interest. 2 DECISION 3 The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the project as described in the 4 Biological Evaluation (Exhibit 6), including all proposed mitigation in those documents, is approved subject to the conditions recommended by staff in the June 5 27, 2007 staff report and recording of joint use agreement by the applicants 6 incorporating among other elements, the requirements of SMP Use Regulation 16 that all facilities be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition, and 7 abandoned or unsafe docks and piers be removed or repaired promptly by the owners. 8 DATED this 2.�'day of July, 2007 9 106 zc 11 Phil Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 {BFP656693.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Conrad & Buzzard JSSDP p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision June 27,2007 EXHIBIT 1 TO:Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM:Planning staff,Grace Miller RE:Shoreline Substantial Development Permit#SHR2007-00002 request by Eric Conrad and Steve Buzzard. STAFF REPORT I. APPLICANT.The applicants are Eric Conrad and Steve Buzzard.Their representative is Amy Leitman. H. PROPERTY LOCATION.The properties are located at 9331 and 9333 Lynch Road,Shelton.The shoreline is on the south side of the mouth of Hammersley Inlet where Totten and Hammersley Inlets meet,Puget Sound. III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. NW'/<of Section 28,Twn 20 N,R 2 W.Plat of Town of Arkada,Tract 12 Tax 639AA. Parcel Numbers 22028-50-00012 and 22028-50-23002. IV. EVALUATION. PROPOSAL:The proposal is to construct a joint-use recreational pier,ramp and float facility extending 115'beyond the OHWM.The facility consists of a 6'x 53'fixed pier constructed of douglas fir,a 4'X 40' fully grated aluminum ramp and three floats(one 8'X 28'and two 8'X 20'. The floats consist of fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene,polystyrene floatation.The structure will be supported by 10 piles and 3 stub piles(galvanized).-See attached Biological Evaluation for more details. A. Characteristics of the site:There are existing single family residences on both upland parcels that are used recreationally by the applicants.Both of these residences have concrete bulkheads.There are wooden stairs from the Conrad bulkhead,located across the property line,to the Buzzard's beach that appear to be used by both applicants.The PRF will be along the shared property line on the Conrad parcel to the west. B. Characteristics of the area:There are several single-family residences in the area.The Squaxin Island Tribe's public boat launch ramp is nearby to the southeast of the site. There are four floating pier and dock facilities located to the east of this site.The floating dock on the adjacent lot to the east is located approximately 145' away.There is at least one floating dock to the west of this site,approximately 450'from this site. C.Shoreline Designation.The shoreline designation of the site is Urban Residential. D.Comprehensive Plan.The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. E. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5. V. SEPA Compliance:A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on May 24,2007. Comments were received from the State Department of Ecology and added as recommended conditions of this permit. VI. Other Permits:The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit and a Mason Environmental Permit. The Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife will require Hydraulic Project Approval,Washington Dept of Ecology Water Quality Protection Concurrence,and US Army Corps of Engineers approval.The Habitat Management Plan was sent to the Dept of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe for comment.No comments were received. 1 \\CLUSTERI HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\piersdpstaffdoc VII. ANALYSIS.Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,this proposal requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit due to the cost exceeding$5,000 per Section 7.13.010.The proposal is for a pier facility within an Urban shoreline environment. Applicable Piers and Docks Policies and Use Regulations follow: POLICIES: 1. Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen. 3. The type,design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located.Consideration should be given to shoreline characteristics,tidal action,aesthetics,adjacent land and water uses. 4. Priority should be given to the use of community piers and docks in all new waterfront subdivisions.In general,encouragement should be given to the cooperative use of piers and docks. 5. Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers and docks. 6. Boat houses and covered moorage shall be discouraged. USE REGULATIONS: 1. The location and design of docks and piers,as well as the subsequent use,shall minimize adverse effects on fish,shellfish,wildlife and water quality. 2. Docks and piers shall be located,designed and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent water uses.Structures shall be located a minimum of five feet from side property lines.Community use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line. 4. No pier,dock or float or similar device shall have a residential structure constructed upon it. 7. Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including float shall be only as long so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean lower low water on salt water.The length of any pier or dock facility shall not exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from OHWM on salt water.Joint or community use facilities may be an additional 15 feet in length and shall not exceed a depth of five(-5)feet. When sufficient depth to serve a vessel is not found at these lengths,a recreational float,with one boat slip,may be located at a depth sufficient to serve the vessel,but not exceeding minus eight(-8)feet as measured from lower low water,on marine shores. 8. Only one dock is allowed per lot. 9. The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet. 10. At the end of a pier or dock a float may be attached.These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier,or form a"T"or an"L". In tidal water,the float shall not exceed 400 gross square feet without as boat slip(700 square feet for two joint use owners)or 600 gross square feet with a boat slip(1000 square feet for two joint use owners). 11. Unattached recreation floats shall not exceed 400 gross square feet in tidal water.There shall be no more than one per residence.Unattached recreational floats shall be chain anchored. 13. Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high water.Piers and docks shall have at least an 8'span between pilings. 14. The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water. 15. All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep the structures off the tidelands at low ride. 16. All structures shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition.Abandoned or unsafe docks and piers shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner. 23. Covered moorage and over the water boat houses are prohibited except in marinas. 2 \\CLUSTERl HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\piersdpstaffdoc Based upon these policies and use regulations,the project conforms to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.The location and design of the pier facility does not appear to impact adjacent residences views of the shoreline.The applicant's representative has indicated that the float and ramp have been configured to pose little or no threat to natural resources and no eelgrass will be impacted by the structure.The biological evaluation identifies no significant environmental threat from this proposal.The pier,ramp and float are proposed at a total length of 115'which is the maximum allowed length for joint use and to a—1.5'tidal elevation which is above a—3. The proposed width is 6'pier,4'ramp and 8'floats.The float surface forms a"T"shape as allowed and the area is 318'sf on first float and 160 sf on each of the other floats,for a total 638 square feet.This is less than the maximum 700 square feet allowed for joint use owners.The pier is no higher than I F above MHHW and over an 8' span between the piling. VIII. CONCLUSION: No public comments regarding the proposal were received to date.Based upon these policies and regulations,the project appears to be consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program Piers and Docks Section. Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the state.(Use Reg#22,Res Ch.of SMP) 2. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. (Use Reg.#21 of Res Ch of SMP) 3. Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to permanently prevent the breakup or loss of the floatation material into the water.Orient the floatation so that it does not obstruct the grating. 4. Pressure treated wood must be completely dry prior to placement in water.Use of creosote or pentachlorophenol is prohibited.Install plastic wear strips between the float and the pilings to reduce treated wood chafe. 5. Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48,Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A,Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington and is subject to enforcement action.(per DOE SEPA comments) 6. 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.(per DOE SEPA comments) 7. 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.(per DOE SEPA comments) 8. All trenches,depressions or holes created in the intertidal area shall be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters.All stormwater discharges must be constructed in a manner that will not cause scouring on the beach. 9. All proposed best management practices within the Biological Evaluation are to be implemented. 3 \\CLUSTERl HOME—SERVER\HOME\GBM\piersdpstaffdoc EXHIBITS: 1. Staff Report. 2. Shoreline Permit Application.(2) 3. Aerial photo,Site Plans and vicinity map(4) 4. JARPA(5) 5. Public Notice(3) 6. Biological Evaluation(33) 7. SEPA MDNS&comments(24) 8. Incomplete app info(7) \\CLUSTERl HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\piersdpstaff.doc MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT J Courthouse Annex P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA. 98584 (360)427-9670 SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT NO. SHP.;001-000oa SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT _ SHORELINE VARIANCE DATE RECEIVED .Jo7 SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE SHORELINE EXEMPTION The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program The purpose;of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any.development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $5;000.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals,polices, and performance standards established in the Master Program Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed development. Incomplete applications will be_retumed. APPLICANT: E91 C- C01,hg1-D STEVE QU2A -ARl> ADDRESS: 1 a-!9 WESr 946IJokr ST 0&4-9f LJA1,I.,iA. 0- TELEPHONE: ErZI C C004b (o0) 5d0 (0-4- (0-15 CQ (home) (business) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: A/Vl /yIAIQ!/JE- S1.rRV96 Z'/r b�&-15 ADDRESS: 9;[I S1,JAaSS'-EAD WAK (s et) �� TowN.�D , ►%✓� �gee$ (ci > TELEPHONE: 3bb) 3g5_ Y03-3 (state) (zip) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the shoreline): `U31 2333 LKAicd RD. SL , SH-F-LTOr1, 141A � 5$ XJ-61Z '71-tE- MO TH- of 14AMA4EP5LEY -L gLe7 - Legal description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude location)-include all parcel numbers: z�w'1�t F 5PC aid ., '7-ao t4, B oa w TP- ra TA Y- (a37 A+ TP-)( $t 5 �, 2a0ag '-- 50 - 0001a r 240a-g - so•- J300a OWNERSHIP: Contract Applicant 4— Owner /� Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other Owner: SAr� /15 A t5o y e (street) (city) (state) (zip) I:\PLANNINOICHARELL&RENEE/SHOREUNBPERMIT.APP REVISED: 06-25-03 DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON �� Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle dimensions,and.other pertinent information): TrtE �l@D40oSED PWgTTfc- 15 -J-HF-tr'WST1:Z1AC77on1 OF A ii 5' J-6I t J u�G- pl_�,RAMP T FLOAT 71 T-LandS1SF5 DF , A &' x 53"FIXEb Rag, 06N W0.&C--ZV V> b1` DQ6 A-5 EiR !t'1C GKAT-F-D /- Wm►ntuv►4 Fl.o�l� (ONE-�' X at' r Two g' xa-O'). n✓ DA--Z CW3137- F ti w r1•►to oS�i� ! r r t D ot, i '(L.GJJe ec!L I RFNE.FI TPJ-I17tlr/ STr-tkcT(,kl�-ZE.Wt u 3E U , 1 /0 JJJ1.ES E Qi L-ES GAS✓!- i��). Use(identify current use of property vyith exist improvements: I /��� B F— TWO 5 W G--U-� �M t L� 2�51��►c�S`. Reason for requesting development: �O C 2E.Ar1Z: C-A-S t Fa4 F-CCP55 -1b eEC1fEAT70,4A+L.L 0 PPo RTu,a 1'7l�S. ACKOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare,to the best of my knowledge d belief,the forgoing information and all attached information is tru=andc ct. ( plicant or authorized repr sentative) (d (e) ■rr■■rrr■ ■rr.................................................................. TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL.OFFICIAL Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area; If proposed structures will exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade level,indicate the location of any residential units that will have an obstructive view: If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested,make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program: I:\PLANNINGICHARELL&RENBE/SHORELINEPERMIT.APP REVISED: 06-25-03 i . MAY 1 n 2007 M. L r• y.t L SE LYNCH ♦ ROAD At �- ARCADIA POINTl ROAD 'R"• s BUZZARD CONRAD PROPOSED SITE �a DECEIVED M AY 10 2007 ;-,�sxNffi DEPT. 1 1 _ MAY 1 0 2007 HAMMERSLEY INLET Proposed pier, Existing overwater romp and float structure TN 115' long The applicants will access the proposed structure THIS IS NOT A SURVEY. by walking out of their homes onto the decks. ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE The relationship of the project site 0' 25' They will walk down the stairs and across APPROXIMATE to the surrounding area is seen in the lower grass yards to the proposed the attached photographs 104 50' pier Possible small OHWM/MHHW Approx.450' along boat storage is approx. 3.5' up curved shoreline to on lower yard this bulkhead 15' bulkhead nearest overwater section structure Bulkhead 95' Stairs o Bulkhead i 45' Stairs to 100' Deck lower yard Stairs to loweryard Deck Deck NEIGHBOR'S IDNCE NEIGHBOR'S I RESIDENCE I l � PL BUZZARD I I PL Driveway CONRAD Approx. 370' _, to Lynch Road ARCANTA POTNT ROAN RECEIVED MAY 1 0 2007 !. 4SON CO,fkk-WC DEPT. � �� F MAY 1 0 2007 aDEPT G R A I 20. N G 20 34' 53' 0 O -- O O _ O 0 S 4' 4' 6' O O — 1 OF 6 0 IOF3 4'X6' STUB PILES GRATED 8"DIAMETER SECTIONS 0' 15' 4' 5' c 115' 4'X 40' FULLY GRATED 6'X 53'PIER RAMP 32%FUNCTIONAL OHWM/MHHW 14A 1 OF 10 GRATING GAVL. STEEL MHW PILES 13.4' 10-3/4" DIAMETER FLOATS o G' VJ n 2 C E I V E D MAY 10 2007 114SON CO. RAM11NG DEFT. i ALEX 3 Iola Ll r PROJECT LOCATION IRV SE Sr j ri rF Luke S PURPOSE:On water recreation APPLICANT: Conrad&Buzzard PROPOSED:New pier,ramp&float DATUM:MLLW REFERENCE#: IN:Hammersley Inlet NEAR:Shelton — ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATION: 9331&9333 Lynch Rd. COUNTY:Mason STATE:WA OWNERS: SE Shelton,WA 98584 1. Wayne&Joan Olson NW 1/.,Sec 28,T20N,R02W SHEET I of 3 _ 2. Richard&Malisent Smith Lat:N 47'11.9391; W 122*56.400, TW Scale 1:24,000 ®2006 DBLOITf18.TOpO USA®8.0. wr nrx4 0 no Z t am No No.=: q 1"=2,000.0 tt Data Zoom 14.0 J� AGENCY USE ONLY Agency Reference#; Date Received: Circulated by: (local govt.or agency) JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (JARPA) (for use in Washington State) q.. to PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK. a a ❑ Application for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Project per requirements of RCW 77.55.290. You must submit a copy of this completed JARPA application form and the (Fish Habitat Enhancement JARPA Addition)to your local Government Planning Department and Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist on the same day. NOTE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS—You must submit any comments on these projects to WDFW within 15 working days. Based on the instructions provided, I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply) Local Government for shoreline:3substantial Development []Conditional Use ❑variance ❑Exemption ❑Revision ❑Floodplain Management []Critical Areas Ordinance Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for HPA(Submit 3 copies to WDFW Region) Washington Department of Ecology for 401 Water Quality Certification(to Regional Office-Federal Permit Unit) ❑ Washington Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification Corps of Engineers for: ❑ Section 404 [ff Section 10 permit ❑ Coast Guard for: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation(for non-bridge projects) ❑ For Department of Transportation projects only: This project will be designed to meet conditions of the most current Ecology/Department of Transportation Water Quality Implementing Agreement SECTION A-Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to ALSO complete Section C(Signature Block)for all permit applications. 1.APPLICANT C 1v ill -D --- Af a )TE-VE 13&4 MAILING ADDRESS i219 Ul�S T �a/}/.!p _ STj2 % j i7��Ll W `� 5� a 333 L(i-i t i:-j Rb. SF- S E-L6 V✓ S' WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS HOMEPHONE FAX# (30o) Sao-(c560 - I (3(00)J-3(0- 19(0�f- ff an agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process, complete#2. Be sure agent signs Section C(Signature Block) for all permit applications 2.AUTHORIZED AGENTn � ;.�, r i�m ( f!/Z'/�1� /v l A iC I f � Ll le V zi A ss ESS/j/l&-J f'3 MAILING ADDRESS �a I 51,MGST EAb Wf1 -Pbi�—j IeWJ-iSCi-IDI WA '?93(o$ WOR PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS HOME PHONE AX# 3t�a 3�5-'fa=�3 jE'a(Cq�[e5 d.ca (3c�o 3g5- }3 V-3 too)-3-55- -� 3. Relationship of applicant to property: OWNER ❑ PURCHASER ❑ LESSEE ❑ 4. Name, address and phone number of property owner(s)if other than applicant: 5. Location(street,address, including city,county and zip code,where proposed activity exists or will occur) q 33 I 333 >,_i C H D- S�, �1_l 0r41 AA A-50),1 (f LAB/T✓ WA Local government with jurisdiction(city or county) C LkN l i Waterbody you are working in HA/9 M EICS 1. T tJ L%j Tributary of wR1A# Is this waterbody on the 303(d)List`* YES ❑ NO M Po G>:S �Ol Lpib If YES,what parameter(s)? Shoreline designation /-}-/J **For 303d List, http:/Iwww_ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/index.htmi Zoning designation K R 5 Secti in Section Township Range lGovernment Lot oZO ©Jbtu I Tj2 I a 39 NR stream type if known N A Latitude and Longitude: P' °)i,739 q, eo`Tax Parcel Number aaoas 50—0.00/ L "�300�_ ECY 070-15(Rev. 11/04) JARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 1 f 6. Describe the current use of the property, and structures existing on the property. Have you completed any portion of the proposed activity on this property? YES M NO For any portion of the proposed activity already completed on this property, indicate month and completion. year of Y TWO t 1`N G L E— Fr}i'✓l 1 L� S I D�i�C . Is the property agricultural land? [ YES NO Are you a USDA program participant? YES NO 7a. Describe the proposed work that needs aquatic permits: Complete plans and specifications should be provided for all work waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line, including types of equipment to be used. If applying for a shoreline permit,describe all work within and beyond 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark. If you have provided attached materials to describe your ro ect, ou still must summarize the proposed work here. Attach a separate sheet if additional space is needed. %/�E Rleotk) f W CT is 71� CON Si u(-i7 0 rf OF l/s' jo//\/USE- Pi CK'i ,P� f- FUTA-i, i7� -/ tat C-TU C U/0,L BE- Col 00,50b of A to ' X 53 - uF� PIFp2 C'dN�;rZvlG DF DOU 5 a A 4 ' X 410' FLAU-Y Gr A-Tr—b rut tvl uQ U✓U1 RibvAP J AN -S 'X .2 8-' ,2A,'v to FL-0 4- j,�,/0 -6 x FL C;}i ,4-1 TAc 4F i -F F(C-HT- A-r-4 C--4--ES 7b F n q/v 1 A "T" A: E-1-4 f Lt:41 C c;N S I S L 1—ut LW EIq C 1-05�P— itJ, x rRvr C-7 Di PO LKG;t�Ytx;- E Pv i� i�>�F /� 2- DUCIBLE d+ 1 t G/�L✓l�ri J ib SI C Pi LE PE �� PI ( l� S I.ri/1-L f{P 6�t �RUCI weCSEE 8< PR PARAWN OF DRAWINGS: See same a drawings an guidance for completing the drawings. ONE SET OF OR/G/NAL OR GOOD QUALITY REP DRAWINGS MUST BE ATTACHED. NOTE: Applicants are encouraged to submit photographs of the project site,but these DO NOT substitute for drawings. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND COAST GUARD REQUIRE DRAWWNGS ON B-112 X 11 INCH SHEETS. LARGER DRAWINGS MAYBE REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES. 7b. Describe the purpose of the proposed work and why you want or need to perform it at the site. Please explain any specific needs that have influenced the design. �►� S t E ie �, A/ Ei° /A-C C ESS 5b)e KLC>?9-+-J7 oi,1R-L OPPo 1e ate t i J F-5 ( 3oA-7 1tJG, 5WtMM)/4G i' j<-t5Hi1,lG)t 7c. Describe the potential impacts to characteristic uses of the water body. These uses may include fish and aquatic life,water quality, water supply, recreation and aesthetics. Identify proposed actions to avoid, minimize, and mitigate detrimental impacts and provide proper protection of fish and aquatic life. Identify which guidance documents you have used. Attach a separate sheet if additional space is needed. 1fF✓ ?90 J-ec T- tS IJOT- L-I k r L✓ -1-2) t Doi 121/trt t�i�k L 7a /} O h= 11+ LA 5 E-S OF WATeP 60 D II', 1 M PAS -15 %v �Clj lJ AJ l C%F Wt uL 3L A I r- i M A-(_, G{A�t r/G Wt L.L c O vEe A- poP?7()nl 6 F s i 9vt UUt0 7b iL SH � ►t�Cs• I�1LES VVILL VEi\,/ WITH ( FLOATYIJ& P►Lk Q tVf i:�S1NU � P 1�Aty�M iECt}NI � �u1211,-JG f�3��S► 4' t _ ►T F d f�Liwoo D N W?T 2uJ S2 �i47Wr1�N/DO ' W 3 .O_W WDF1VC1Zi1=L o A�l Fo 1` v✓r TC-9 ((C tit j 7d.. For in water construction work,will your project be in compliance with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity WAC 173.201A-110? n YES NO (See USEFUL DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS) 8. Will the project be constructed in stages? YES NO M Proposed starting date: AS Sour! A-, PEr?M %TS L-W<?F- 755%�'lED, wlTtl iN CdN$—i>;v��t�� ��tN(x��✓ Estimated duration of activity: 1 VC �V!�-712 �5 9. Check if any temporary or permanent structures will be placed: (� Waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line for fresh or tidal waters AND/OR Waterward of the mean higher high water for tidal waters? 10.Will fill material (rock,fill, bulkhead,or other material)be placed: / (] Waterward of the ordinary high water mark or line for fresh waters?� If YES,VOLUME(cubic yards) /AREA (acres) Waterward of the mean higher high water for tidal waters? If YES,VOLUME(cubic yards) /AREA (acres) ECY 070-15(Rev. 11/04) DARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 2 1�6 s, -3 11. Will material be placed in wetlands? ❑ YES NO If YES: A. Impacted area in acres: B. Has a delineation been completed? If YES, please submit with application. ❑ YES ❑ NO C. Has a wetland report been prepared? If YES, please submit with application [] YES [] NO D. Type and composition of fill material(e.g„ sand,etc.) E. Material source: F. List all soil series(type of soil)located at the project site, and indicate if they are on the county's list of hydric soils. Soils information can be obtained from the natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS). G. WILL PROPOSED ACTIVITY CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS? ❑ ICES ❑ NO If YES, IMPACTED AREA IS ACRES OF DRAINED WETLANDS. NOTE:If your project will impact greater than%of an acre of wetland,submit a mitigation plan to the Corps and Ecology for approval along with the JARPA form. NOTE:A 401 water quality certification will be required from Ecology in addition to an approved mitigation plan if your project impacts wetlands that are: a)greater than%acre in size, orb)tidal wetlands or wetlands adjacent to tidal water. Please submit the JARPA form and mitigation plan to Ecology for an individual 401 certification If a)orb)applies. 12. Stormwater Compliance for Nationwide Permits Only: This project is(or will be)designed to meet ecology's most current fj jf� stormwater manual, or an Ecology approved local stormwater manual. ❑ YES ❑ NO If YES—Which manual will your project be designed to meet? if NO—For clean water act Section 401 and 404 permits only—Please submit to Ecology for approval, along with this JARPA application, documentation that demonstrates the stormwater runoff from your project or activity will comply with the water quality standards,WAC 173.201(A) 13.Will excavation or dredging be required in water or wetlands? ❑ YES NO If YES: A. Volume: (cubic yards)/area (acre) B. Composition of material to be removed: C. Disposal site for excavated material: D. Method of dredging: 14. Has the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)been completed ❑ YES NO SEPA Lead Agency:im/kSo►-� COUN 1 Y SEPA Decision: DNS, MDNS, EIS, Adoption, Exemption Decision Date(end of comment period) SUBMIT A COPY OF YOUR SEPA DECISION LETTER TO WDFW AS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION 15. List other Applications,approvals or certifications from other federal, state or local agencies for any structures, construction discharges or other activities described in the application(i.e. preliminary plat approval, health district approval, building permit, SEPA review, federal energy regulatory commission license(FERC), Forest practices application,etc.). Also, indicate whether work has been completed and indicate all existing work on drawings. NOTE: For use with Corps Nationwide Permits, identify whether your project has or will need an NPDES permit for discharging wastewater and/or stormwater. TYPE OF APPROVAL ISSUING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION DATE APPROVED COMPLETED? DIE ELO IS- lI�S6IJ CdUtj D Fin/ CGS :5Er:/D I+C E N i S CASW C�r✓M o i S i Q CT, UNDO 16. Has any agency denied approval for the activity you're applying for or for any activity directly related to the activity described herein? ❑ YES NO If YES,explain: ECY 070-15(Rev. 11/04) JARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 800/917-0043 SECTION B - Use for Shoreline and Corps of Engineers permits only: 17a.Total cost of project. This means the fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals,etc. 1' 3i� 000 • o0 17b. If a project or any portion of a project receives funding from a federal agency,that agency is responsible for ESA consultation. Please ndicate if you will receive federal funds and what federal agency is providing those funds. See instructions for information on ESA.' FEDERAL FUNDING YES NO If YES, please list the federal agency. 18. Local government with jurisdiction: mp"SGI`j 19. For Corps, Coast Guard and DNR permits, provide names, addresses and telephone numbers of adjoining property owners, lessees, etc. Please note: Shoreline Management Compliance may require additional notice—consult your local government. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER E 26k OL50rl LO 5F_ AR khIA Q1T HF_Libr J 58 KH £ MA1_15&QQ `T, 61 5,C- PD WIA5 Skti1 (T4 SECTION C-This section MUST be completed for any permit covered by this application 0. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, such information is true, complete, and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the proposed activities. 1 hereby grant to the agencies to which this application is made,the right to enter the above-described location to inspect the proposed, in-progress or completed work. I agree to art work ONLY after all necessary permits have been received. DATE SIG T RE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGN URE F A THORIZED AGENT I HEREBY DESIGNATE LF—ITAJ Ad TO ACT AS MY AGENT IN MATTERS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION FOR PERMI S). I UNDERSTAND THAT IF A FEDERAL PERMIT IS ISSUED, I MUST SIGN THE PERMIT.Ax 4- 1/f) ( ` Z T SINA�UF& APPLICANT DATE 06 RE F LANDOWNER(EXCE L LANDOWNERS, E.G. DNR) THIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AGENT, IF AN AUTHORIZED AGENT IS DESIGNATED. 18 U.S.0§1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme,or device a material fact or makes any false,fictitious,or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false,fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry,shall be fined not more than$10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL A. Nature of the existing shoreline. (Describe type of shoreline,such as marine, stream, lake,lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp,flood plain,floodway, delta;type of beach,such as accretion,erosion, high bank, low bank, or dike;material such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any) B. In the event that any of the proposed buildings or structures will exceed a height of thirty-five feet above the average grade level, indicate the approximate location of and number of residential units, existing and potential,that will have an obstructed view. C. If the application involves a conditional use or variance, set forth in full that portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, in the case of a variance,from which the variance is being sought: These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employers. For special accommodation needs,please contact the appropriate agency in the instructions ECY 070-15(Rev. 11/04) JARPA Contact the State of Washington Office of Regulatory Assistance for latest version or call 360/407-7037 or 8001917-0043 4 �CoNr) PLlCA) QuAL_LT1(. VRoATA-T IotJ W►lL E PC-9AI, j4a4T W Fra Cr4PSut i�t� ANC --?�F PgOPD50. > PILES raze SQL L. l2FL��ATI L v5 e S W►LL UPS t+A rN.Daec-b A 5 i He Piri2 D.F-51 G-iv A Uo v S F=v� LlN4t35-jP'u c-E..� t: i j iz'WF-l_ ALoNG 7J +E 3g4CH, AC.S-jl�E.i L c WALL CBE- /v4 t N t M/-L A 5 -IkJegl�: Prz,, VA-r-L ZbCkS PRESer-tr- /r-' VF-A-72e4. " W[LL 3E- EXee L 150D i tVRAu6-i f0LKT i1- RfLS Sl JevtC;ujZE t C t7 T C £ I- /vt A R60��S � t:bs) t99 I - Ll FF- H I STJW Y 01--: PA4ci Fl C Sf�t-�^-onlr 63c tRi�-7Ss, A q-3 tG, J-M. r J AL- , 19M 57,0--ius RE VI Et✓ OF Ct+1PJ 00le- jALrAa�� FF-ov\A WA A sD, ap j r CA U-S- F-PT. OF COrutvl✓A2cE- z-c-tA MEwto . N nn r-5 `- OW F5c. - 35/ 41 3 PP N►GHTA Pi GA Lf-7 t t3AOZ"5APz A 51/t4 er4SSr'f}D Sri2vk C;uR1-2S ; AA fkJ2 ,a�E— su r�S • S+�3rv�t D i� Lvi�Fw t,✓�a r� 5 Ox 6l oN-STATE MASON COUNTY �P5 c 9 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SN Planning Division y� N T P 0 Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 of ao~ (360)427-9670 1864 SHR2007-00002 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that AMY LEITMAN,who is the owner of the described property, has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of: Sub. Dev. Pier, Ramp and Float Facility for joint-use,115' long and T-shaped. Site Address: 9331 SE LYNCH RD SHELTON Parcel Number: 220285000012 Location of Project: NEAR END OF LYNCH RD ON ELFT ACROSS FROM BOAT LAUNCH PARKING Within: (quarter section)of Section:28 Township:20 N Range:2 W,W.M. in ,Mason County Washington. Said development is proposed within Totten Inlet and/or its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P 0 BOX 279 SHELTON,WA 98584 in writing of their interest.The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-14-020. The final date of publication,posting,or mailing of notice is 5/31/2007. Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the hearing. A public hearing will be held on this permit request. Contact this office at(360)427-9670,ext.360 for date and time of hearing. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 5/24/2007 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding this determination must be received by 617/2007. SHR2007-00002 �I Affidavit of Publication NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT SHR2007-00002 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 Notice is hereby given that AMY LEIT f SS. MAN,who is the owner of the described prop- COUNTY OF MASON erty, has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of Julie G.Orme being first duly sworn Sub.Dev. Pier,Ramp and Float Facility for joint-use, on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk 11 5'long and T-shaped. of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That Site Address:9331 SE LYNCH RD SHEL- said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six TON months nor to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in Parcel Number,Project; NEAR the English language continuous) as a week( newspaper in SHELTON,Mason Location of Project; NEAR END OFy y LYNCH RD ON LEFT ACROSS FROM County, Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an BOAT LAUNCH PARKING office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That Within: (quarter section) of Section: 28 the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of Township:20 N Range;2 W,W.M. August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said in,Mason County Washington. Mason County. Said development is proposed within Tot- ten Inlet and/or its associated wetlands.Any person desiring to express their view or to be That the annexed is a true copy of a _Notice of Shoreline MEmt Permit notified of the action taken on the application should notify: Amy Leitman MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P 0 BOX 279 as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said SHELTON WA 98584 in writing of their interest.The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date newspaper once each week for a period of two of publication given pursuant to WAC 173- consecutive weeks,commencing on the 14-020.The final date of publication,posting, or mailing of notice is 5/31/2007. 24th day of May 2007 ,and ending on the Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the hearing. 31st day of May 20 07 ,both dates inclusive A public hearing will be held on this per > mit request.Contact this office at(360)427- and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of 9670,ext.360 for date and time of hearing. the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 5/24/2007 under WAC 197-11-340. foregoing publication is the sum of$ 92.00 Written comments regarding this determinal- Ion must be received by 6/7/2007. 5/24-31 2t �ajcc�A nm= ,, Subscribed and sworn to before me th' 31st day of Mav 2007 orn rn : Notary Public in and for the State of Washington I.w ,�:T Residing at Shelton,Washington O - l/ , 1 � l o>> My commission expires ,20 h,,NGTj Nt 1111 �1pj3 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF MASON ) ss, l, do hereby certify that I posted 3_ copies of the attached on i, day of 20�0 7 in public places as follows: one at 51:�1Ia► a�� �; one at 5i one at In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day of , 20�IZ . By: Address: 0 M .221 S ,/t GSA- I' q-� y STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF MASON ) ss. Subscribed and sworn to meth day of 20 �����a����u► i iiirii g�`�\0 soH Notary Publ or e St4te of Washington a = Residing a Commission Expires U Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project Army Corps of Engineers Reference # Evatuation io o Ica December 12, 2006 For: Eric Conrad 1219 West Roanoke Street Centralia, WA 98531 Steve Buzzard 9333 Lynch Road SE Shelton, WA 98584 Prepared by: Marine Surveys if Assessments 521 Snagstead Way Port Townsend, WA 98368 Phone: (360) 385-4073, Fax: (360)385-1724 E-mail: sea@cablespeed.com 1 List of Figures and Attachments Figure Number Page 1 . Project location .................................................................................17 2. Site view..............................................................................................18 3. Plan and elevation views of proposed structure..........................19 4. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map...............................20 5. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map..................................21 6. Documented forage fish spawning areas.....................................22 Attachment Number Page 1 . SCUBA survey transect and habitat map......................................23 2. Photographs of the site ............................................................. 24-26 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list................................... 27-28 4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment.............................................. 29-32 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook........................................................... 33-34 Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project-2 C-k4lfp Biological Evaluation Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Project Location: Section 21,Township 20N,Range 02W. 9331 and 9333 Lynch Road SE Shelton,WA 98584 Latitude:N 47°11.939' Longitude: W 122*56.400' See Figure 1 for project location. B. Project Description: The proposed project involves the construction of a new,joint-use pier,ramp and float(PRF)structure on Hammersley Inlet(Figure 1). The PRF structure will be composed of a fixed pier measuring 6'wide by 53'long, a fully grated aluminum ramp measuring 4'wide by 40'long and a ramp float section measuring 8'wide and 28'long.Attached at right angles to this float will be two 8'by 20'floats forming a"T"(Figures 2 and 3).The pier will have 32 %functional grating.The floats will have 4-foot wide grating installed down their middle sections.Ten galvanized steel pilings(10-3/4"diameter)will support the structure.Three galvanized steel stub piles(8" diameter)and float stops will support the floats at least 12"above the beach at low tides.The pier,ramp and ramp float will be oriented within 18°of true north and will extend 115'from an existing bulkhead into Hammersley Inlet(Figures 2 and 3). Photographs of the site are seen in Attachment 2. The steel pilings will be driven with a barge-mounted 2,000 lb drop hammer. Set-up time for each piling is approximately 20 to 30 minutes,while actual driving time is about the same,depending on the conditions. This work is always done during daylight hours at high tide,with the barge floating,not resting on the substrate.The most landward pilings will be driven first,those farther out will be driven as the tide goes out.The pile driver will be in operation for approximately seven hours. All framing materials for the pier and floats will be ACZA treated.All fastenings and hardware will be hot dipped galvanized.The flotation will consist of polystyrene fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene resin tubes.Floatation will be placed so that it does not obstruct the float grating. All treated lumber used for this project will meet or exceed the standards established in"Best Management Practices for the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments"developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute,revised July 1996 and amended April 17,2002. Best Management Practices(BUT)guidelines as enumerated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW)in the Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)will be followed during this project. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-3 C. Action Area: The action area should include the area within a one-mile radius of the project location.This area includes potential turbidity effects from pile driving(25'around each piling),as well as noise impacts on fish and bald eagles. II. SPECIES AND HABITAT INFORMATION A. Species Information: In the project area,there is one salmon species,Puget Sound chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha),listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened species according to the National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFSXFederal Register,Vol. 64,No. 56).NMFS also listed the Steller sea lion(Eumetopias jubatus)as threatened and both the humpback whale(Megaptera novaeangliae)and the Pacific leatherback turtle(Dermochelys coriacea)as endangered species that may occur in Puget Sound.Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)were listed as threatened by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) in October of 1999.Bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)and marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)have also been listed as threatened by the USFWS since 1978 and 1992,respectively. On September 2,2005,NMFS issued the final rule designating critical habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units(ESUs)of West Coast salmon, including the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon ESU and the Hood Canal Summer-run Chum ESU. The project site is in the designated area for the Puget Sound Chinook ESU(Federal Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday, September 2,2005 Rules and Regulations). On November 15,2005 NMFS listed the Southern Resident killer whale(Orcinus orca)as endangered under ESA(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No.222,November 18,2005).On June 9,2006,NOAA Fisheries proposed to designate critical habitat for killer whales. "Critical habitat includes waters deeper than 20' relative to a contiguous shoreline delimited by the line of extreme high water." On March 29,2006 NMFS proposed listing the Puget Sound steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)as a threatened species under the ESA(Federal Register/Vol. 71,No.60/Wednesday,March 29,2006/ Proposed Rules). According to the USFWS,no special management protection for critical habitat has been designated for the bald eagle at this time.There is no marbled murrelet designated critical habitat near the project site (Federal Register,Vol. 61,No. 102, 1996).USFWS has designated critical habitat for Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout(Federal Register,Vol. 70,No. 185, September 26,2005).However,Hammersley Inlet is not included in the area designated as critical habitat.There is no designated critical habitat for Steller sea lions or leatherback sea turtles in Washington and no designated critical habitat for humpback whales at this time. Puget Sound Chinook:Puget Sound chinook,also called the king salmon,are distinguished from all other Pacific salmon by their large size.Most chinook in the Puget Sound are"ocean-type"and migrate to the marine environment during their first year(Myers et al. 1998). They may enter estuaries immediately after emergence as fry from March to May at a length of 40 mm., or they may enter the estuaries as fingerling smolts during May and June of their first year at a length of 60-80 mm. (Healey 1982). Chinook fiy in Washington estuaries feed on emergent insects and epibenthic crustaceans (gammarid amphipods,mysids,and cumaceans).As they grow and move into neritic habitats,they feed on decapod larvae, larval and juvenile fish,drift insects,and euphausiids(Simenstad et al. 1982). These ocean-type chinook use estuaries as rearing areas and are the most dependent of all salmon species on estuaries for survival. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-4 Ek1G��S In the area near the project site,naturally spawning populations of fall chinook are present in Mill Creek and Cranberry Creek,but are probably supported by hatchery production from South Sound hatcheries. South Sound tributaries are not typical chinook habitat. Bull Trout: Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout have ranged geographically from northern California(at present they are extinct in California)to the Bering Sea coast of Alaska,and northwest along the Pacific Rim to northern Japan and Korea.Bull trout are members of the char subgroup of the salmon family. Spawning occurs typically from August to November in streams and migration to the open sea (for amphidromous populations)takes place in the spring.Eggs and juveniles require extremely cold water for survival.Temperatures in excess of about 15°C are thought to limit bull trout distribution (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).They live both in fresh and marine waters. Some migrate to larger rivers (fluvial), lakes(adfluvial),or saltwater(amphidromous)before returning to smaller streams to spawn. Others(resident bull trout)complete all of their life in the streams where they were reared.Habitat degradation,dams and diversions,and predation by non-native fish threaten the Coastal-Puget Sound population.The Coastal-Puget Sound bull trout population is thought to contain the only amphidromous forms of bull trout in the contiguous United States(Federal Register,Vol. 64,No.210, 1999). Spawning populations are known to exist in the Nisqually and Puyallup Rivers,but USFWS considers the Nisqually River and Puyallup subpopulations"depressed"based on fewer than 500 spawning adults(Federal Register,Vol.64,No.210, 1999).According to WDFW(1998),little is known about the Puyallup stock life histories,spawn timing and location, and stock status.It is possible that bull trout will forage in Hammersley Inlet. Bald Eagle: In 1973,the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagle was listed as threatened in Washington State.Currently,there are about six hundred nesting pairs of bald eagles in Washington. Each winter several hundred additional eagles take up temporary residence on rivers and streams to feed on the spawned out carcasses of salmon.Eagles are generally riparian,associated with coasts, rivers and lakes.Nest selection includes three key elements: (1)proximity to water,and a clear flight path to the water,(2)they usually prefer to find the largest tree in the area,and(3)an open view of the surrounding area.An otherwise suitable site may not be used if there is excessive human activity in the area.Birds are their primary food source,but eagles are opportunistic and will take a variety of fish, small mammals,sea urchins,clams,crabs and carrion when they are available.In Washington State, most nest-building activity occurs in January and February.Egg laying occurs in March or early April and eaglets hatch after a 35-day incubation period(Stalmaster 1987).They will remain in the nest for 10-12 weeks before attempting their first flights in mid-July. They may remain in the area for another month before dispersal(Anderson et al. 1986). There is an active eagle's nest approximately 3,500'(0.66 miles)northwest of the site(Nordstrom, pers.comm.).Nordstrom reports that there are no eagle wintering concentration areas near the site. Marbled Murrelets: Marbled murrelets are small marine birds in the alcidae family.They spend most of their time at sea and only use old growth areas for nesting. In the critical nesting areas,fragmentation and loss of old growth forest has a significant impact on the survival and conservation of the species (WDW, 1993).Adult birds are found within or adjacent to the marine environment where they dive for sand lance, sea perch,Pacific herring, surf smelt and other small schooling fish,and feed on invertebrates.Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Marine Bird and Mammal Component of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program,WDFW)indicate that no marbled murrelets make use of nearshore habitat in the project area in the summer or winter(Figures 4 and 5).There is no old growth nesting habitat near the project site,and there are no documented nests near the site (Nordstrom,pers. comm.). Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-5 Forage Fish: Migrating salmon utilize baitfish such as Pacific herring(Clupea harengus pallasi), sand lance(Ammodytes hexapterus)and surf smelt(Hypomesus pretiosus)as prey resources.These forage fish form a very important trophic link between plankton resources and a wide variety of predatory marine organisms as well as providing food for marbled murrelets,bald eagles and salmon. The nearest surf smelt spawning beaches are approximately 1100'east and south of the site(Figure 6- WDFW 2005). Surf smelt require a specific mixture of coarse sand and fine gravel in the upper + ' it pers.comm. The make no intertidal zone 7 u to 1 above MHHW for spawning habitat Pentt ( P ) P g ( �P )• Y effort to bury their eggs,but rely on wave action to cover the eggs with a fine layer of substrate. The nearest sand lance spawning beaches are located approximately 300'east of the site(Figure 6- WDFW 2005). Sand lance spawn from October 15 to March 1.They deposit their adhesive eggs in the upper intertidal zone(+5'up to MHHWL).They often use pure sand substrates typically avoided by spawning surf smelt. The upper intertidal substrate at the site is peagravel and cobble and is not appropriate sand lance or surf smelt spawning substrate.As Moulton and Penttila(2001)state,"For surf smelt eggs,the zone is characterized by mixed sand and small gravel.For Pacific sand lance eggs,the zone is similar,but can extend into pure sand.Mud or muddy sand are not acceptable substrates,nor are larger gravels, cobbles or solid rock and talus shores." There are documented Pacific herring spawning areas at,and adjacent to the site(Figure 6-WDFW 2005).Herring spawn from mid-January to late March in this area(Penttila,pers.comm.).Eggs are deposited on eelgrass and macroalgae.Most egg deposition takes place between 0'and-10'tidal elevation,although eggs can be deposited anywhere from high tidal elevations to depths of 40'.As noted in the Habitat Survey,no eelgrass and only sparse macroalgae,was observed in the project area. Enteromorpha(1-3%density)was the only macroalgae found in the footprint of the proposed PRF.All other macroalgae found at the site was located at least 150'from the baseline/bulkhead. Steller Sea Lions: Steller sea lions are found on the west coast from California to Alaska.Breeding colonies do not exist on the Washington coast but may be found in British Columbia and Oregon (Osborne et al. 1988).There are no documented haulouts or rookeries in the Hammersley Inlet area (Jeffries et al.2000),although sea lions are seen in the Puget Sound in the winter(October-May) where their visits are transitory. Humpback Whales: Due to excessive whaling practices in the past,humpback whales are rarely seen in Puget Sound,even though in the past they were much more prevalent(Angell and Balcomb 1982). According to Osborne et al.(1988),there were only three sightings of humpback whales in Puget Sound from 1976 to 1988.However,recently, a juvenile humpback whale was sighted near Johnson Point(NE of Olympia),with several fresh injuries(Orca Network Sighting Report-July 10,2006). Another recent sighting was made near the San Juan Islands on August 31,2006(Orca Network Sighting Report-September 03,2006).However, it is highly unlikely they would be present in the Hale Passage project area(Jeffries,pers. comm.). Leatherback Sea Turtle: There is no breeding habitat for these sea turtles in Washington,even though they are occasionally seen along the coast(Bowlby et al. 1994).They are rarely seen in Puget Sound (McAllister,pers.comm.). Again, it seems highly unlikely that these turtles would be found near the project site. Southern Resident Killer Whales: The Southern Resident population consists of three pods:J,K and L. According to Wiles(2004),"While in inland waters during warmer months,all of the pods concentrate their activity in Haro Strait,Boundary Passage,the Southern Gulf Islands,the eastern end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and several localities in the southern Georgia Strait."During early autumn,these pods extend their movements into Puget Sound to take advantage of the chum and chinook salmon runs.For example, in October of 2006,K and L pods were observed moving south between McNeil and Ketron Islands(Orca Network Sighting Report-October 19,2006).K pod was observed near Kingston on Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project December 5,2006.Resident killer whales spend more time in deeper water and only occasionally enter water less than 5 meters deep(Baird 2001). Due to the rare occurrence of the Southern Resident pods in the Hammersley Inlet area, it seems unlikely that the proposed project will have significant impacts on this species. Puget Sound Steelhead: According to WDFW(2002)there are spawning populations of winter steelhead found in the tributaries to Hammersley Inlet near the site.However,there is no abundance data and their status is unknown. In the Puyallup and Nisqually rivers,there are winter steelhead stocks that were rated as"Healthy" in 1992,but are now rated"Depressed"by WDFW(2002).Total escapements for the Nisqually stock have fallen below the goal of 2000 wild spawners in every year since 1993. B. Survey Results: A SCUBA survey was done August 7,2006,a cloudy day,from approximately 9:00 AM to 10:30 AM at the project site.Amy Leitman and Grant Ausk used SCUBA to run I 1 transects to identify flora,fauna, substrate types,and other qualitative information relative to the Biological Evaluation. Water visibility was fair,about 10 feet.The shoreline of Hammersley Inlet along the adjoining Conrad and Buzzard properties is oriented in a generally east-west direction;the Conrad property is located to the west of the Buzzard property.A concrete bulkhead approximately 7'high extends along the shoreline of both properties.The bulkhead along the Buzzard shoreline is located approximately 15' landward of the Conrad bulkhead such that there is a jog at the property line.Near its western end,the Conrad bulkhead makes a slight southerly bend.Under the proposed project plan,a new pier,ramp and float would be constructed at the eastern end of the Conrad property;the eastern edge of the pier would extend seaward along the common property line (approximate GPS coordinates: 47° 1 F 56"N, 122° 56'24"W).The MHHW line is approximately 3% vertical feet above the toe of the Conrad bulkhead. The 1 I transects ran south to north(180*-0* magnetic)and were all perpendicular to,and were measured from,a baseline that ran along the seaward edge of the Conrad bulkhead.The baseline ran in a straight line along the face of the longest portion of the Conrad bulkhead,continued east along that same line across the Buzzard beach,and extended west,continuing that same line,at the Conrad bulkhead turn.The bulkhead line as so extended is referred to herein as the "bulkhead baseline."T1 and T2,T2 and T3,T9 and T10 and TI 1 were all 25'apart; all transects between T3 and T9 were 10'apart; and T7 and T8 were 20'apart.T1, T2 and T7 TI I all extended 150'seaward;T3—T6 all extended 160'seaward,all measured from the bulkhead baseline.T6 was located at of the center of the proposed pier,just west of the common property line. Surface Substrate: Beginning at the bulkhead baseline,the substrates along T1 and T2 were primarily pea gravel and sand.By about 70'along those transects,the substrates had become a mix of mud,pea gravel and sand and by 100'along T1 and T2,the substrates were primarily mud and sand with some cobble and pea gravel.By about 120'along T1 and T2,the substrates had changed to sand and mud with cobble,which continued through the ends of the transects. The substrates at the bulkhead line along T3—TI I were a mix of cobble and pea gravel.By 70'from the bulkhead baseline along T3 and T4, sand was found in the substrate as well. The sand,cobble and pea gravel mix continued until the substrates changed to a combination of sand,mud and cobble near the ends of T3 and T4.Along all the transects T5—T11,the substrates had become a mixture of sand, mud and cobble by 100'from the bulkhead baseline;the sand,mud and cobble mix continued through the ends of the transects. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-7 �x �J E Substrate Slope: All 11 transects were parallel and measured from the bulkhead baseline.T1,T2 and T7—T11 were all 150'long;T3—T6 were all 160'long. The tidal elevation showing the slope contour was measured along T5;the other transects had similar contours.Along T5,the water's edge was 94' from the bulkhead baseline at 9:53 AM;measurements were taken 100'from the bulkhead baseline and at 10-foot intervals thereafter.The corrected tidal elevations along T5 were: Distance Along Transect 5 Tidal Elevation(MLLW) 100' +0.6' 110, -0.6' 120' -2.2' 130' -4.2' 140' -5.2' 150' -6.3' 160' -6.3' Macroalgae: Enteromorpha intestinalis: Sea Hair was observed covering about 5%of the area 100'along T1 and covering 1%to 3%of the area 110'along T5,as measured from the bulkhead baseline. Gracilaria sp.: This alga was observed covering between 1%and 3%of the area beginning about 150' along T1 and T2,and 160'along T3,T4,and T6—T8.It was also found covering 3%to 5%of the area near the end of T9 and T11,all measured from the bulkhead baseline. Laminaria sp.: This alga was observed covering between 1%and 3%of the area beginning about 150' along T1 and T2,and 160'along T3,T4,and T6—T8.It was also found covering between 3%and 5% of the area near the end of T9 and T11,all measured from the bulkhead baseline. Mastocarpus papillatus: Turkish Washcloth was found covering between 1%and 2%of the area near the end of T4 and between 1%and 3%of the area near the ends of T6—T8,all measured from the bulkhead baseline. Sargassum sp.: This brown alga was observed covering between 1%and 3%of the area beginning about 150'along T1 and T2,and 160'along T3 and T4,all measured from the bulkhead baseline. Ma fenestrate: Sea Lettuce was observed covering between 1%and 3%of the area beginning about 150'along T1 and T2, and 160'along T3,T4 and T6—T8, all as measured from the bulkhead baseline. Eelgrass:No eelgrass (Zostera marina) was observed in the survey area. Invertebrate Species: Several species of invertebrates were noted in the survey area, including: Cancer gracilis (graceful crab), Cancer magister(Dungeness crab),Cancer productus(red rock crab), Clinocardium nuttallii(heart cockle),Dermasterias imbricata(leather star),Loligo opalescens (squid), Pagurus sp. (hermit crab),Pisaster brevispinus(short-spined star),Pisaster ochraceus(ochre star), Polinices lewisii moon snail and cno odia helianthoides sunflower star ( ) P3' P ( ) Vertebrate Species: The only vertebrates noted in the survey area were an unidentified cottid(sculpin), embiotocid(perch)and pleuronectid(flatfish). Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project-8 C. Environmental Baseline: Discussed below are some of the parameters that are identified in the Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Handbook as critical for the listed species. Water Quality: For poikilothermic organisms, including salmon,whose body temperature is determined by the ambient water,temperature is a critical environmental factor.Numerous biological and physical mechanisms, such as digestion rate,metabolic rate,appetite,predatory-prey interactions,growth rate, and cues for migration,just to name a few,are inextricably linked with the temperature of the water where they live. However,the PRF project will have no effect on the water temperature in Hammersley Inlet. Sediment/turbidity episodes have also been identified as critical to the incubating eggs of salmon. Without proper aeration,the eggs have the potential of suffocating.However,because there is no salmon-spawning habitat near the project area, sediment/turbidity impacts on salmon spawning activity should not be an issue. Watershed Condition: According to studies by Schwartz et al.(1991),the project site is located along a drift cell that begins approximately 3,400'south of the site near Green Point.The drift cell terminates at a northward prograding spit at the tip of Forest Beach,approximately 3700'north of the site. Ill. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION The status of each of the listed species in the action area has been provided.The proposed project has been described and the action area defined.A habitat survey has been provided.When reviewing all the data in reference to the listed species it is imperative to look at the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on the listed species and their habitat. A. Direct Effects: When considering the direct effects of the proposed project on the listed species and habitats one must determine if the proposed project will immediately remove or destroy the listed species and/or their habitat. The potential,direct impacts caused by the construction process include increased noise and turbidity due to pile driving. Pile driving noise: Feist et al. (1992)reported that salmonids could be expected to hear pile driving noise approximately 2,000'from the source.Based on the studies at the Everett Homeport,these researchers concluded that pile driving did alter the distribution and behavior of juvenile pink and chum salmon. Noise from pile driving may mask the approach of predators.The impacts of pile driving noise depend upon the number of fish present in the area,the distance of the fish from the site and the duration of the pile driving process.Pile driving noise at this site will probably have short-term impacts on the listed fish species.The pile driver will be in operation for approximately five hours and pile driving will take place during an approved work window(discussed below),which will minimize contact with the listed fish. As mentioned above,there is an active eagle's nest approximately 3,500'(0.66 miles)from the site. One concern biologists have for construction projects near eagle territories is the excessive noise concurrent with wintering and/or nesting activities of the eagle. Watson and Rodrick(1998)stated that "human activities such as tree cutting,use of heavy machinery,pile driving,and blasting have a greater potential for disturbance beyond visual effects because they create noise,and should be avoided within 800 ft.of nests."Bottorff et al.(1987)found that noise produced by pile driving was considered inconsequential to eagle behavior beyond 1,300 ft. in the San Juan Islands.The Washington State Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project-9 mac• W� is Ferries(2000)recorded noise levels during pile driving at various ferry terminals.Noise levels from both drop hammer and vibratory pile drivers were measured.These studies indicated that beyond 2 000' pile driving noise had diminished to noise levels of a bus street.For example,noise levels > >P g Y P during steel pile installation with an impact hammer at Fauntleroy were 46.5 and 47.5 dBA Leq at 4,000'from the site. Conversational speech is 65 dBA. Based on the nest location,the above cited studies and the brief pile driving time period, it seems unlikely that pile driving will have any adverse effects on eagle nesting activities. Annual aerial surveys for marbled murrelets(Figures 4 and 5)indicate that there are no murrelets found in the marine environment near the Hammersley Inlet project area.Therefore, it seems improbable that the construction phase or the presence of this structure will have any significant impact on this listed species. Turbidity: Increased turbidity caused by pile driving could,under certain circumstances,have adverse effects on salmon,bull trout and forage fish.The effects depend on duration of exposure,concentration of turbidity and the life stage of the salmon during the increased exposure.The effects can be discussed in terms of lethal,sublethal or behavioral(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a and Simenstad 1988).For this project,turbidity effects are expected to be localized and brief.The area of turbidity effects defined by the Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)is a 25'radius around each piling.To minimize the adverse effects of increased turbidity and noise on migrating salmonids,bull trout and herring spawning, pile driving should take place during the work window from July 16 to January 14.This work window incorporates the approved work window for the above-mentioned species.Work during this period will reduce the possibility of contact with these species. In addition,due to the scarcity of Steller sea lions,humpback whales, leatherback sea turtles and southern resident killer whales in the project area it is concluded that the proposed project construction and its presence will have little or no effect on these species. B. Indirect Effects: Indirect effects are effects of the project that occur later in time. For this project, indirect effects might include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation, reduction in prey resources and refugia due to shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure and increased boat use. Migratory pathway alteration: It is generally accepted that overwater structures can alter migration behavior of juvenile salmon(though the effects may vary depending on the design and orientation of the structure,degree of shading,and the presence of artificial light),and reduce salmon prey resources and refugia by shading aquatic plant life(Simenstad et al. 1999;Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b). However,the significance of these effects is not clear.As Simenstad et al.state,"We found no studies that described empirical evidence supporting or refuting that modification of juvenile salmon behavior in shoreline habitats was reflected in changes in survival."Nightingale and Simenstad state,"Presently, although we know that under some conditions small juvenile salmon will delay or otherwise alter their shoreline movements when encountering an overwater structure,the conditions under which this behavioral modification is significant to the fishes' fitness and survival is relatively unknown." A study by Williams et al. (2003)found that,"Salmon fry were observed in all nearshore habitats during each transect sampling period(day and night).The fry were observed under a wide range of PAR values(0.0 µmol m-2 s-1 to 2370 µmol m-2 s-1).Fry were observed both outside the terminal (Mukilteo ferry terminal)and underneath the terminal at all times,and shadows produced by the 10-m- wide terminal structure did not appear to act as barriers to fry movement at this location." Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project*10 There is no question that underwater structures may alter migration patterns.As seen in the new study by Williams and in many other studies(see the literature review by Weitkamp-2003),there are studies that indicate that salmon migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures. Other studies indicate migration patterns are altered by overwater structures. The issue remains open whether these migration changes lead to increased mortality or decreased fitness.None of the studies reporting changes in salmonid migration patterns caused by overwater structures reported that these changes negatively impact salmonids-see the quotes above from Simenstad et al. 1999 and Nightingale and Simenstad 200lb. Nevertheless,the Services(NMFS and USFWS)have accepted the hypothesis that overwater structures will negatively impact salmonids,even though no current scientific research proves this hypothesis to be true.Their impact minimization recommendations are based on this assumption. Increased predation: At this time,there is no evidence of docks aggregating salmonid predators in the Puget Sound(Ratte& Salo 1985; Cardwell et al. 1980;Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b).Dock associated structures, such as breakwaters,may serve as marine mammal haulout areas,but there is no scientific literature that states that these mammals are particularly targeting small outmigrating juveniles.It might be assumed that birds would be interested in small migrating juveniles,but there is no evidence that docks provide an aggregation site for predatory birds(Taylor and Willey 1997). Therefore,it cannot be stated,based on existing research,that the predation rates of juvenile salmonids will be altered due to the presence of the structure. Shading and crushing impacts: Shading caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or eliminate eelgrass,macroalgae and other epibenthic organisms.As noted in the Habitat Survey, there is little macroalgae at the site.The following design parameters will lessen shading impacts on the benthic environment: •The pier will have 32%functional grating installed. •The 8'wide floats will have 4-foot wide grating installed down their middle. •The ramp will be T wide and fully grated. •Floatation will be oriented so that it does not obstruct the grating. •Float grounding impacts will be avoided by the incorporation of float stops and stub piles,which will support the float at least 12" above the seabed at low tides. Boating impacts: Boating activity can cause damage to the aquatic habitat due to prop scour and increased turbidity.In several studies,aquatic vegetation and benthic organisms were found to be absent or greatly reduced in areas where boat traffic was high and the propellers were within one foot of the bottom(Chumra and Ross 1978;Ogilvie 1981).Langler(1950)found that propellers within approximately 14"of the bottom removed all plants and silt within a swath approximately 5'wide. Conversely,boat use over deeper water can actually stimulate aquatic plant growth by increasing the dissolved carbon dioxide and increasing water circulation(Warrington 1999). Due to the almost total lack of macroalgae adjacent to the proposed PRF, it seems unlikely that pro scour will have significant impacts. Pollution from exhaust can have indirect adverse effects on the listed fish. Warrington(1999) concluded from his study of the literature that,"There is no significant effect of outboard exhaust on zooplankton,phytoplankton,periphyton or other aquatic invertebrates in the bulk water."However,he also concluded that there are no acceptable works on exhaust effects on salmonids. Fuel spills are another potential source of pollution. Crude oil and petroleum produce behavioral changes in fish at low concentrations,with physiological impacts occurring at higher concentrations (Warrington 1999).If refueling takes place at a marine fueling station,and not at the proposed dock Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-11 structure,the possibility of fuel spills at the site is remote. If refueling takes place at the proposed structure,the possibility of fuel spills is also remote. Hand carried fuel tanks are usually filled at a service station,sealed with their cap and taken to the boat. Once in the boat,the fuel line from the engine is connected to the fuel tank.The fuel tank cap remains secured;hence,there is little chance for a fuel spill. C. Interrelated/Interdependent Effects: Completion of this project will not promote future construction or other activities that would not otherwise occur without its completion.Therefore,no additional interrelated or interdependent actions that could affect species regulated under ESA will occur because of this project. D. Take Analysis: The ESA(Section 3)defines"take"as to"harass,harm,pursue,hunt, shoot,wound,trap,capture,collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct."The USFWS further defines"harm"as"significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding,feeding,or sheltering."It is likely that no"take"will result from this project. E. Conservation Measures: In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed species,pile driving should take place between July 16 and January 14. Over-water work may have to be undertaken outside of the work window.This over-water work may consist of installing precut pier decking and the installation of floats and ramp that have been constructed off-site.Pier stringers are usually attached to the pilings from a barge during the pile-driving phase. Typically,pier decking is cut to length on shore and screwed or nailed to the pier stringers beginning at the landward end of the pier.There is no possibility of debris falling into the water.The ramp and floats are towed to the site by a small workboat and secured to the pilings and pier using hand tools.This process usually takes one to two days.The construction process will be brief and will produce no more noise or turbidity than normal boat activity on Hammersley Inlet. The following conservation measures will minimize adverse effects of the project.They include: 1. The pier will have 32%functional grating installed. 2. The 8-foot wide floats will have 4-foot wide grating installed down their middle sections. 3. The ramp will be 4'wide and fully grated. 4. Floatation will be oriented so that it does not obstruct the grating. 5. The PRF will be a joint-use structure. 6. Steel pilings will be used,instead of ACZA-treated wood pilings. 7. The pier,ramp and ramp float will be oriented within 18° of true north. 8. According to the Army Corps of Engineers RGP-6,February 2005,6 mitigation points will be required for this 998-ft2 joint-use PRF(Habitat Category A for joint-use structures).The applicants have agree to remove three"oyster bags" from their beach(See Photographs).Each bag is approximately 2'x 3'(6 ft2). 6 ftZ x 3 = 18 ft2 of"manmade debris." 18 W/9=2. 2 x 4 points=8 Mitigation Points(MMO#10). Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-12 QC Cod,�q i 3 F. Determination of Effect: / C/ After reviewing the appropriate data and surveys,the determination of effect is: 1. Puget Sound chinook-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 2. Bull trout-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect" 3. Bald eagle-"May affect,not likely to adversely affect' 4. Puget Sound steelhead-a.Determination while species is proposed: "no jeopardy to the continued existence of the species" b.Determination if the species is listed: "may affect,not likely to adversely affect' This is the appropriate conclusion when effects on the species and their critical habitat are expected to be beneficial,discountable or insignificant.Limiting pile-driving work to the approved work window will reduce direct impacts on the listed species.No forage fish spawning activity will be affected because of work closures during spawning activity.There will be no grounding impacts on the benthic environment. Shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by the conservation measures discussed above. The availability of forage fish for bull trout, salmon,marbled murrelets and eagles will not be impacted. S.Marbled murrelet-"No effect' 6. Steller sea lion-"No effect' 7.Humpback whale-"No effect' 8. Leatherback sea turtle-"No effect' 9.Southern Resident killer whale "No effect' These species are not expected to occur in the Action Area. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-use Pier,Ramp and Float Project*13 EXcfl/� References In addition to literature review, several people contributed information to this study.Regional scientific knowledge aided with the understanding of important ecological systems within the project area.The individuals referenced are listed below. Jeffries, Steve. WDFW, Senior Research Scientist,Marine Mammal Investigation Division,Olympia,WA. McAllister,Kelly.WDFW,Regional Habitat Biologist, Olympia,WA. Nordstrom,Noelle. WDFW,Fish and Wildlife Biologist,Olympia, WA. Nysewander,Dave.WDFW,Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program.Project leader,Marine Birds and Mammals,Olympia,WA. Literature Anderson,B.,J.Frost,K.McAllister,D.Pineo and P.Crocker-Davis. 1986. Bald eagles in Washington. Wash. Wildl. 36(4): 13-20. Angell,T.and K. C.Balcomb III. 1982.Marine Birds and Mammals of Puget Sound. Puget Sound Books. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, 146 pp. Baird,R.W. 2001. Status of killer whales, Orcinus orca, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 115:676- 701. Bottorff,J,J. Schafer,D. Swanson,A.Elston and D.Anderson. 1987.Noise disturbance study on bald eagles at Orcas and Shaw Island Ferry Terminals San Juan County,Washington.Unpubl.Rep. Wash. Dept.Trans.,Olympia, 12 pp. Bowlby,D.E.,G.A.Green and M.L.Bonnell. 1994.Observations of leatherback turtles offshore of Washington and Oregon.Northwestern Naturalist 75:33-35. Cardwell R.D., S.J.Olsen,M.I.Carr and E.W. Sanborn. 1980.Biotic,water quality and hydrologic characteristics of Skyline Marina in 1978.TechRep. 54,Washington Dept.of Fisheries. Chumra, G.L.and N.W.Ross. 1978.The environmental impacts of marinas and their boats.A literature review with management implications,Marine Advisory Service,University of Rhode Island. Narragansett,RI. Federal Register/Vol. 61,No. 102/May 24, 1996/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 56/March 24, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 64,No. 210/November 1, 1999/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol 70,No.170/Friday,September 2,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol 70,No.185/Monday, September 26,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register,Vol. 70,No. 222/November 18,2005/Rules and Regulations. Federal Register/Vol. 71,No. 60/Wednesday,March 29,2006/Proposed Rules Feist,Blake E.,J.J.Anderson and R.Miyamota. 1992.Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink and chum salmon behavior and distribution. FRI-UW-9603. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Projects 14 Healey,M.C. 1982.Juvenile Pacific salmon in estuaries-the life support system,p. 315 -341. In: V.S. Kennedy(ed.).Estuarine comparisons. Academic Press,New York,NY. Jeffries, Steven J.,Patrick J. Gearin,Harriet R.Huber,Don L. Saul and Darrell A.Pruett.2000.Atlas of Seal and Sea Lion Haulout Sites in Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Science Division,Olympia,WA,pp. 150. Langler,K. F.,A. S. Hazzard, W.E.Hazen and W.A.Tompkins. 1950.Outboard motors in relation to fish behavior,fish production and angling success. Transactions of the 15th Annual North American Wildlife Conference.pp.280-303. Moulton, Lawrence L.and Daniel E.Penttila. 2001. San Juan County Forage Fish Assessment Project Field Manual for Sampling Forage Fish Spawn in Intertidal Shore Regions.La Conner,WA. Myers,J.M.,R.G.Kope,G. J.Bryant,D.Teel,L.J.Lierheimer,T.C.Wainwright, W. S.Grand,F.W. Waknitz,K.Neely, S.T.Lindley,and R. S. Waples. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington,Idaho,Oregon,and California.U.S.Dept.of Commer.,NOAA Tech Memo.NMFS- NWFSC-35,443 pp. Nightingale,Barbara and Charles Simenstad.2001a.Dredging activities: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia, WA. .. Nightingale,B. and Charles Simenstad. 2001b. Overwater structures: marine issues. Submitted to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology,and Washington State Department of Transportation,Olympia, WA,pp. 177. Ogilvie,M.A. 1981.The mute swan in Britain, 1978.Bird Study.28: 87 - 106. Osborne,R.,J.Calambokidis and E.M.Dorsey. 1988.A guide to marine mammals of greater Puget Sound.Island Publishers,Anacortes,WA, 191 pp. Osborne,R.W.2003. Southern resident killer whale sighting compilation 1990-2003.The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor,WA 98250. Ratte,L.D. and E.0, Salo. 1985.Under-pier ecology of juvenile Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. in Commencement Bay,Washington.FRI-UW-8508,Fish.Res.Inst. UW. Rieman,B.E. and J.D.McIntyre. 1993.Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of Bull Trout.Gen. Tech.Rpt. U. S.Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station,Ogden,UT,38 pp. Schwartz,Maurice L.,et al., 1991.Net shore-drift in Washington state: Volume 2, South Puget Sound. Shorelines and Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington Department of Ecology,Olympia, WA. Simenstad,C.A.,K.L.Fresh and E.O. Salo. 1982.The role of Puget Sound and Washington coastal estuaries in the life history of Pacific salmon: an unappreciated function,pp. 343-364.In V.S.Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine comparisons.Academic Press,New York,NY. Simenstad,C.A.,(ed.). 1988. Effects of dredging on anadromous Pacific coast fishes, Workshop proceedings, Washington Sea Grant, Seattle WA, September 8-9, 1988. Simenstad,C.A.,B.J.Nightingale,R.M.Thom and D.K. Shreffler. 1999.Impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon migration along Puget Sound shorelines. Phase 1: Synthesis of state of knowledge. Report to WSDOT/TJSDOT Research Report T9903,Task A2, 116 pp.+appendices. Stalmaster,M.V. 1987.The Bald Eagle.Universe Books,New York,NY,227 pp. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project-15 Taylor, W.S.and W.S. Willey. 1997.Port of Seattle fish mitigation study:Pier 64/65 short-stay moorage facility: qualitative fish and avian predator observations. Prepared for Beak Consultants. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District,RGP-6:Maintenance,Modification and Construction of Residential Overwater Structures in Inland Marine Waters within the State of Washington.February 2005. Warrington,P.D. 1999.Impacts of outboard motors on the aquatic environment. www.nalms.org/bclss/impactsrecreationboat.htm Washington Department of Wildlife(WDW). 1993. Status of the marbled murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus in Washington.Unplubl.Rep.Wash.Dept. Wildl.,Olympia,WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory,Appendix One,Puget Sound Stocks, South Puget Sound Volume,Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW). 1998. Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory.Appendix,Bull Trout and Dolly Varden.Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW).2002. Salmonid Stock Inventory(SaSI). Olympia, WA. Washington State Ferries.August 28,2000.Technical Memorandum. Subject: Ambient noise and the potential impacts of pile driving on bald eagles. Watson,J. W.and Elizabeth A.Rodrick. 1998.Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)in Volume IV: Birds.Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.Olympia,WA. WDFW 2005.Marine Finfish, Shellfish, and Baseline GIS Coverages,Published Map Files,and the Map version of Tech Report 79.Plus Marine Protected Areas.Published in April,2005 Weitkamp,Don E. September 2003.Young Pacific Salmon in Estuarine Habitats.Review Draft. Parametrix,Inc.Kirkland,WA. Wiles,G.J. 2004.Washington State status report for the killer whale. Washington Department Fish and Wildlife,Olympia. 106 pp. Williams,G.D.,R.M.Thom,D. K. Shreffler,J.A. Southard,L.K. O'Rourke, S.L. Sergeant,V.I. Cullinan,R.Moursund,and M. Stamey.Assessing Overwater Structure-Related Predation Risk on Juvenile Salmon: Field Observations and Recommended Protocols. September 2003.Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation Under a Related Services Agreement With the U.S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project*16 Figure 2. Site plan HAMMERSLEY INLET TN 0' 25' 10, 50, Approx.250' to the nearest overwater structure Proposed pier, ram and Existing adjacent float structure 115' long Bulkhead 95' 100' �I�50' 5I I I Il l t I f I I PL PL PL PL Approx.370' to Lynch Rd. CONRAD BUZZARD Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project-18 R C A T 20' T I � N I C G fD 20' 34' 53' (a � 0 O O O O 0 $' 4' 4' 6' Q O 00 CL O 1 OF 6 O 0 1OF3 4'X6' < STUB PILES GRATED a Q 8"DIAMETER SECTIONS 0 n � 0 0' 15' f Q 4' (AQ 10l 0 OQ co (D o O 115' Q- 0 o_ 0 a 4'X 40' FULLY GRATED 6'X 53'PIER MHHW 0. 0 RAMP 32%FUNCTIONAL 144 GRATING � 1 OF 10 tiaHw GAVL.STEEL 13.4 c PILES n fl 10-3/4" C 3 DIAMETER p FLOATS 7 Q T MLLW p 0_0 DATUM �\1 O 1.5' (D o � Figure 4. Marbled murrelet summer aerial survey map //1/1 l - + \1 tiJ Blaine } Bellingham o 0 D e + + + Vic ona Mt Vernon - o Port An s Marbled Murrelet Observations (On and Off Transect) Everett Summer 92-99 Aerial Surveys PSAMP,WDFW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 KILOMETERS Areas Sampled Bremerton 0 1 -2 birds + ❑ 3-4 birds Seattle 5 - 6 birds 7-8 birds 9-11 birds Shelton �, Tacoma Project site + ..Olympia + Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•20 'Ex (P Figure 5. Marbled murrelet winter aerial survey map Blaine Bellingham 0 0 a , ! Vi tona Mt Vemon Port Angeles a L Marbled Murrelet Observations (On Transect) Everett Winter 93-99 Aerial Surveys PSAMP,WDFW 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3540 1 I KILOMETERS aAreas Sampled Bremerton 0 1 -2 birds + ❑ 3 -4 birds Seattle ® 5 - 6 birds 7 -8 birds 9 -10 birds 11 - 24 birds Shelton ,�, Tacoma Project site -I- +.Olympia + Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•21 Figure 6. Documented forage fish spawning beaches HUNGERFORD POINT HAM ME RS LEY IN LET +-PACIF E H ERRIN5 PRQJF:CT 51TE 5PAW FM45 AR EA t — ,�-----� --- S.A FJ6 LA NC E + SPA W FDk6 - AR EA ARC IA i 5LIR F 5A5 ELT 5PAW NINO AREA PIC KE RING PA5 5AGE Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•22 Attachment 1. SCUBA survey transect and habitat map HAMMERSLEY INLET TN T6 T5 T4 T3 160- -6.3 T11 T10 T9 T8 T7 T2 T1 140 — 25' 10' -5.2 120- -2.2 SAND MUD 100 — COBBLE +0.6 80 — No macroalgoe was 60 — present at densities greater than 5% See the Habitat Survey for details 40— COBBLE PEAGRAVEL 20— Distance from baseline and tidal elevations on T5 Substrate along TRANSECT BASELINE CONRA D T5 IlBULKHEAD BUZZARD Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•23 a 6 pq. -3 Attachment 2. Photographs of the site ' a �.�, a�.. is_ `.' •,•� �; •-.�.. Aft we e. 1 E, -'"• BUZZARD ��-~-- - ��� CON2AD t a R 1 t-•- Washington Department of Ecology Oblique Aerial Photo - Mason County - Disk 1. August - September 2000. Arrow indicates the project site. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•24 r- - v t i r '0•+�"}c••,;�p•A. a � a � a'4 'tom'.--, `x�u i _�t 9-'�...z', '� *h2 --r ����aa Saz�gr�k�3,4 � ��•'�-�.r;jr -y . . 2A lie y • •• • • i /• • • •• 0 • 0 •• • • I IL a+ r A a x, f_, .� �, t .d,. X+ "'r„�,rr3�� "'`^ �sfT'�?�,�i"�''ems* c�.a.��' <�_ •`" '� K- '• slta• a�QF�+ Qn R .e ry aTz • -_ • y .�'r r' 2�' s.-n sy � •'�'+�.r,�c�"s7`�. y v .�'� r,";at t[a..ic?ti"a?� '"''`r !:"°Sk ;vlR.al�«R 7� .-,r-`H'.ro`��s "•.i '��s.,•T.r. S -Y"..$nC�i is _ ..►e - .r ����- -. �.- � �,c_•+ � � ` ate. ��' ..�� ..� ��► •, y stir •h` , Attachment 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list �P> October 22,2003 LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT; CANDIDATE SPECIES;AND SPECIES OF CONCERN IN WESTERN WASHINGTON AS PREPARED BY THE U.S.FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WESTERN WASHINGTON FISH AND WILDLIFE OFFICE (Revised October 8,2004) MASON COUNTY LISTED Wintering bald eagles(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)occur in the county from about October 31 through March 31. There is one bald eagle wintering concentration located in the county along the Lower Hamma River. There are 30 bald eagle nesting territories located in the county.Nesting activities occur from about January 1 through August 15. There are four communal winter night roosts located in the county. Bull trout(Salvelinus confluentus)occur in the county. Marbled murrelets(Brachyramphus marmoratus)occur in the county.Nesting murrelets occur from April 1 through September 15. Northern spotted owls(Stria occidentalis caurina)occur in the county throughout the year. Major concerns that should be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project impacts to listed species include: 1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 2 Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks,prey species and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project. 3. Impacts from project activities and implementation(e.g., increased noise levels,increased human activity and/or access,loss or degradation of habitat)that may result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project area. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•27 t DESIGNATED Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl has been designated in Mason County. Critical habitat for the marbled murrelet has been designated in Mason County. PROPOSED Critical habitat for the bull trout(Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population segment)has been proposed in Mason County. CANDIDATE Fisher(Martes pennanti)(West Coast distinct population segment) Mazama pocket gopher(Thomomys mazama)(includes ssp.couchi,glacialis,louiei, melanops, pugetensis,tacomensis,tumuli,yelmensis) Streaked horned lark(Eremophila alpestris strigata) Whulge(Edith's)checkerspot(Euphydryas editha taylori) SPECIES OF CONCERN California wolverine(Gulo gulo luteus) Cascades fro Rana cascadae g( ) Coastal cutthroat trout(Oncorhynchus clarki clarks) Long-eared myotis(Myotis evotis) Long-legged myotis(Myotis volans) Northern goshawk(Accipiter gentilis) Northern sea otter(Enhydra lutris kenyoni) Olive-sided flycatcher(Contopus coopers) Olympic torrent salamander(Rhyacotriton olympicus) Pacific lamprey(Lampetra tridentata) Pacific Townsend's big-eared bat(Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Peregrine falcon(Falco peregrinus) River lamprey(Lampetra ayresi) Tailed frog(Ascaphus trues) Van Dyke's salamander(Plethodon vandykei) Western toad(Bufo boreas) Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•28 Attachment 4. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment A. Background The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act(MSA),as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996(Public Law 104-267),requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on activities that may adversely affect designated Essential Fish Habitat(EFH)for the relevant species. According to the MSA,EFH means"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,breeding, feeding,or growth to maturity."For the Pacific West Coast,the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (Council)has designated EFH for federally managed groundfish(PFMC 1998a),coastal pelagic(PFMC 1998b)and Pacific salmon fisheries(PFMC 1999). Species of fish in the three groups present in the Puget Sound at various times in their life-history phases are seen in the table at the end of the Assessment. The purpose of the EFH Assessment is to determine the effects of the proposed project on the EFH for the relevant species and to recommend conservation measures to avoid,minimize of otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH. B. Identification of EFH The designated EFH for groundfish and coastal pelagic species encompasses all waters from the mean high water line,and upriver extent of saltwater intrusion in river mouths,along the coasts of Washington, Oregon and California,seaward to the boundary of the U. S. exclusive economic zone(370.4 km)(PFMC 1998a, 1998b).The designated EFH in estuarine and marine areas for salmon species extends from the nearshore and tidal submerged environments within state territorial water out to the full extent of the exclusive economic zone(370.4 km)offshore of Washington,Oregon and California north of Point Conception to the Canadian border(PFMC, 1999). C. Proposed Action The details of the proposed project are presented in the Project Description section of the attached BE.The project involves the construction of a new,joint-use pier,ramp and float(PRF)on Hammersley Inlet. D. Effects of the Proposed Action The effects of this project on designated EFH are likely to be similar to the effects described in detail in the Effects Analysis section of the attached BE.The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH designated for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook,coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)due to noise and turbidity impacts from pile driving. E. EFH Conservation Measures The conservation measures and BMP's mentioned in the attached BE will be implemented to minimize any possible adverse effects to EFH. F. Conclusion The project may have temporary adverse effects on EFH for groundfish,coastal pelagics and Pacific salmon,but will not adversely affect EFH for groundfish,coastal pelagic fish and Pacific salmon(chinook, coho and Puget Sound pink salmon)in the long term. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•29 jPC& � G. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment References PFMC(Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1999.Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Appendix A: Description and Identification of Essential Fish Habitat,Adverse Impacts and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon(August 1999). PFMC, 1998a.Final Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Review for Amendment 11 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan(October, 1998). PFMC, 1998b.The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan: Amendment 8(December, 1998). Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•30 Species of fishes, and life-stages with designated EFH in the waters of Puget Sound. (? = uncertain) Species Adult jM pawninTLarvae Eggs/ atinPaturition GroundfishSpinyDogfish X Bi Skate X X California Skate X Lon nose Skate X X Ratfish X X Lin cod X X X X Cabezon X Kelp Greenling. X Pacific Cod X X X X Pacific Whiting (Hake) X X Sablefish X X X X Black Rockfish X X Bocaccio X ? X ? Brown Rockfish Canary rockfish ? ? X China Rockfish X X Copper Rockfish X X ? Darkblotched Rockfish X X Greenstriped Rockfish X X Pacific Ocean Perch X X Quillback Rockfish X X ? Redbanded Rockfish X Redstri ed Rockfish ? Rosethorn Rockfish X X Rosy Rockfish ? Rou he e Rockfish X ? Shar chin Rockfish X ? Shorts pine Rockfish X X Stri etail Rockfish X Ti er Rockfish X X Vermillion Rockfish X ? X Yellowe a rockfish X Yellowtail Rockfish X ? X Arrowtooth Flounder X X Butter Sole X X Curlfin Sole Ix Dover Sole X X Ix Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•31 31 English Sole X X X X X Flathead Sole X X X X Pacific Sanddab X X Petrale Sole X X Rex Sole X X X X Rock Sole X X X Sand Sole X X Starry Flounder X X X Coastal Pelagic Species Northern Anchovy X X X X Pacific Sardine X X X X Pacific Mackerel X X X X Market Squid X ? ? ? Pacific Salmon Coho Salmon X X Chinook Salmon X X Conrad and Buzzard Joint-use Pier, Ramp and Float Project•32 I Attachment 5. Assessment of Impacts to Critical Habitat for Puget Sound Chinook Project description: Construction of a new,Joint-use ier, ram and float structure on Hammersle Inlet. J P �J P � P Y Applicant: Eric Conrad and Steve Buzzard COE reference: unknown at this time NMFS reference: unknown at this time The primary constituent elements determined essential to the conservation of salmon and steelhead are: (1)Freshwater spawning sites with water quantity and quality conditions and substrate supporting spawning, incubation, and larval development. Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE:None (2)Freshwater rearing sites with water quantity and floodplain connectivity to form and maintain physical habitat conditions and support juvenile growth and mobility;water quality and forage supporting juvenile development;and natural cover such as shade, submerged and overhanging large wood,log jams and beaver dams, aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,side channels,and undercut banks. Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE:None (3)Freshwater migration corridors free of obstruction with water quantity and quality conditions and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,side channels,and undercut banks supporting juvenile and adult mobility and survival. Existing Conditions: Does not apply-the project is in the marine environment Effects to PCE:None (4)Estuarine areas free of obstruction with water quality,water quantity and salinity conditions supporting juvenile and adult physiological transitions between fresh-and saltwater; natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic vegetation, large rocks and boulders,and side channels,and juvenile and adult forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•33 0(41_11 Existing Conditions: There is a paucity of macroalgae at the site and no eelgrass.There is no submerged or overhanging large wood.The site is not a documented surf smelt or sand lance spawning area,but is a documented Pacific herring spawning area.There are no large rocks,boulders or side channels at the site. See the Habitat Survey and Attachment 1 in the BE for additional information. Effects to PCE:Pile driving will produce brief and localized increased turbidity within 25'of each piling. The project will have no impacts on water quantity, salinity conditions or water temperature. As noted previously in the BE under Effects of the Action,Indirect Impacts,shading impacts on the benthic environment will be minimized by installed grating in the structure.Grounding impacts will not occur because of the use of float stops and stub pilings.Based on the best available science,it is not clear at this time whether or not the presence of the structure will have negative impacts on migration and overall mortality of the listed fish species. See the above-mentioned section in the BE for a more detailed discussion of this issue.As previously noted in the above noted BE section,boating activity will have little impact on the benthic environment adjacent to the float at low tides. (5)Nearshore marine areas free of obstruction with water quality and quantity conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes,supporting growth and maturation;and natural cover such as submerged and overhanging large wood,aquatic vegetation,large rocks and boulder and side channels. Existing Conditions: See 4 above Effects to PCE: See 4 above (6)Offshore marine areas with water quality conditions and forage, including aquatic invertebrates and fishes, supporting growth and maturation. Existing Conditions:Does not apply-the site is in a nearshore marine environment Effects to PCE:None Determination of Effect: "May affect,not likely to adversely affect" Conrad and Buzzard Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Project•34 PCOON-STA MASON COUNTY C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT O v 0 s u Planning Division ~ ON T �? P 0 Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 �J Y �0 (360)427-9670 1864 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2007-00005 Description of Proposal: Construction of a joint-use Pier, Ramp and Float facility. The facility to be 115' beyond OHWM and "T" shaped. Proponent: ERIC CONRAD PW19 STEVc 6uz.*9_D Site Address (If Assigned): 9331 SE LYNCH RD SHELTON Directions to Site: NEAR END OF LYNCH RD ON LIFT ACROSS FROM BOAT LAUNCH PARKING Parcel Number: 220285000012 Legal Description: ARKADA, TOWN OF TR 12 TAX 639 AA PCL 3 OF BLA 99-20 Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED. Please contact Grace Miller at ext. 360 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 6/7/2007. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. z ;� 5/01- Autflorized Local Government Official Date CG= �o� Ci SFt C.�tr 6Vor t/"/t'( r`r_"a L��IIZ APP[J 64A173 -(!0A 4--,3(A MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2007-00005 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION 1) Properties are located within a Bald Eagle Management Area. Bald Eagle Site Management Plan must be coordinated with Washington State Dept. of Wildlife. 2) The pier, ramp, float, and associated moorings shall be located to avoid shading of eelgrass and other aquatic vegetation. 3) Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to permanently prevent the breakup or loss of the floatation material into the water. 4) Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the State. 5) All floating structures shall include intermittent supports which run parallel to the shoreline to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. 6) The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches about the surface of the water. 7) Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least an eight foot span between pilings. 8) Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of this project. 9) In order to minimize any direct effects on the listed speciaes, pile driving should take place between July 16 and January 14, subject to Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Project Approval and Bald Eagle Management Plan. 10) The pier will have 32% functional grating installed. 11) The 8-foot wide floats will have 4-foot wide grating installed down their middle sections. 12) The ramp will be 4' wide and fully grated. 13) Floatation will be oriented so that it does not obstruct the grating. The PRF will be a joint-use structure. The deeds will be recorded to require joint-use. 14) Steel pilings will be used. The pier, ramp and float will be oriented within 18 of true north. 15) The one mitigation measure offered by the applicants and their agent consists of the removal of three (3) oyster bags from upper intertidal area on Conrad's property, parcel on west side with PRF facility. Oyster bag size is 2' X 3' or 6 sq ft.each for a total of 18 square feet. LX 7,q-3 MASON CO. ENVIROMENTAL CHECKLIST" A. BACKGROUND PARCEL NUMBER : -Jac)a% -,so - 00O/a V 2 3 00 0)- 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ` JD 1 N i U S& Ft r e, KAM P -' FLO'OV - 2. Name of applicant: - , 0?1 c C6r A+Z> ,2 57-EV- Su-HA R-0 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: �-1,7 WEST ,20AJ-46k�E- 5T. CC-7-1Tzf'rUI}t WA 9 $ 531 333 LYNc 4 00 SE 5HE'L04I WA T? SS f Cor,11Y-c -, A;AAY L01TMA}iJ - 5al 5r4AG-S EA7 v.1AY ram+ -j6w..ISCt-A , wA 9-C3(vF' 4. Date checklist prepared:. ( Too) 3 w5 -"{ ?-3 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): NO S uk-�-Y - (y- 5F.PT-Etvt3G 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: If yes, explain. 0 8. 'List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related'to this proposal. 9. Do you know whethe r er applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,.if known. �)jVIRar-1MF-t-IT-AL m tDFj' i j, FL41t.blI\G pc glA 1 i M A58r4 C0►AM 1 H PA - vJ D r of ; S C-C-T- i 0 - R CO C 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) 7-HE, j2gopD5Eb Wot2 k I S -RiE CONS --A.c C-7 01-1 a F rA I l S` .i 6 I r-+i IA.S E P+F-R, I2i4rvtP � Fl✓o�i � C����S� D r � Lv✓XF�' i 9.3 (?C C t2 e 6�=J)00 • t ICE S�i?��c E- Go LL 3� �� X `f©` FLU�i-✓ CC;�i��D �I xE� �l F►2 Ct�1`►SJ�1.�c;mob �tL 'DvUG FiW /� A Lm(,1"t J v1 Nl t?P�1 P �r},,i,1P TWO ' X ace` �t c I�7� /k-s-s p�c N .�D f�i i2�Cs t--f� ;�-j•i C-i..�S T 2� i=��� A "�„ /�, �.1�+ t� a W pn►� Co�l 51 S i OF FU L-� `( Fj�i C L�S�� ;� 1e k T2Vl�D PD LY��i l i�J�, L Chu/, i� r L Sj F 1 t��� S � 71"?r� 57y O L S 3 �i� S W�u� S� v S� 12.n c�,(j2 �i�;1 /—1 �r1-i3 t�✓ �� t3 2 CF-P- Z-r (3, E:) F�)Z iDD i i 1 or-,/14 C DE i A-i LS 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. cj331 333 L-,f"cH t2 i-->. 5E- , 5HGL1-6d WA 17SsO Nvv SEC J-6f -1-,; 0r1f eoaU B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): Flaf rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. GR�-'v', S/A-r+�, MvAZ) Co 36LQ d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. MP Qnn C'.rninty F.nvimnmental Checklist Page 2 7, ,7 y 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) SHE )2)e0pDSEb W6tZl--- IS ljjE CoN,S e�,t �7ovq j C S' J6 1 rj� Uts E Pj RArAP FI-�T i� 3�- i,�S t r2 car� -v✓,�- a ' 53 ST W�CTu r2 e- LAA LL C�3,1vt,�c�S�v7 FI xE� Pi �2 C6J\J5,gUILC �D �� t�UUG F�r2 ; A Lf ' X `fi°0 g ' Xac!' cAiS ��L)�1 r r /Tl / PrC 1-1 d t�i �iGH 1 / Csl iLS t �Kr�/1 A 1 �i .1� i9iU�5 T► 5 L Siu3 S W��� .S4XD,� S, t2�n c�,t,2 lei�iz r f=�vr�3 U✓�C S F-e t3 F ) ��� �t�p i 7 or�/A L LSE i A-i LS, ` 12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the. precise location of your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, - township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required'to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. g331 9 333 L-f" CH Ob- SE- , 5HEL--i-i5t4f LIVA 17SSF NV,f ►1 SEC 121K, -r"'01-J , ,pda W B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. EARTH: a. General description of the site (circle one): F a , Tiling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Q C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand; gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. pcok &F-NV .L , SA-iJib, M�AZ), Ca i36LQ d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. p Masnn C iinty- nyirnnmental Checklist Page 2 zx. 7 pl s e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. I-11A f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. �-t 0 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2. AIR: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. OA'2GE- Ta Sf G— i Al I H i H A V G FAk,L- E-M tS5/ot I.� L-)�4r2►j-jG C�OrN5,�K�;�©AJ 0),JC-E F20,CC i iS CDA1PLCj�L IUD f �L1 i I Diva L M I SS ► d1�S � 6 i C I b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. t,4 Macnn (7nnrfv F.nvi'r)" ntal r.kprlrl;ct C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. o 14 3 WATER: a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface .water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. ram 13, G .� 2) Will the project require-any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feat) the described waters? If yes, please.describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. N 1A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 4 PC C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N0I-14 11�17 3 WATER- a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface.water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. S, �� ,�,1r��►eS�E`{ f�I t-i�T 5 C 13, G 2) Will the project require-any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please.describe and attach available plans. 00 14Ar% t PJUG ( ScF 3.q 3) Estimate'the amount of fill and dredge material thatwould be laced in or removed from g P surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 1A 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. (�! 0 Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 4 1X7) pl-9 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. ?..i 0 l�es 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. �10 b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. � b 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example; domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number'of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. /A C. Water runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters?/ If so, describe. tj 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so, generally describe. N t� Mason County Environmental Checklist „___ d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: .deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other �C evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _ shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulirush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 5E lU other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N�N �7- d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants., or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: � crJI Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 6 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ,deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other �C evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other 5E L other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? N QN� C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NaN� d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants., or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: o r_t I Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 6 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk ero age ongbir , other Mammals: (�`eer bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass salmon, trout, herring shellfish, they b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. I(E 5, 5,+L-A t or.l M J&)eA--r C--7 1-t ?0Q Gt+ i F.-A4G�T 56 al-4 1 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES: a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc./ �/ A b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. C. .What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist Pave 7 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: a. Are there any environmental health hazards; including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? if so, describe. �o�N;► �L rvt� L 5�t 1..L ��oM /Vi,c�p�?�� �r`�-"i 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise. " 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N0N'�_7 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. S ffio,2j i ,✓1 Cogsi�2ut i 1orJ Z)LAJ2/NG DAYUCt+i Mvii2S. 3)- Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 8 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 0 a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. _F0T-7EN ► >}L Fv,kZ Z> c ark 1 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: IQ0P41�_7 b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? N° 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-tern or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would come from the site. LI C N i t t►2 Cars j�2L4 C T r o,J 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: /Q6 ti 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? r SJNGI.E FA aAkL_( BSI ��i�C S , VgcRi 10�1 I�✓�ES C Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 8 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. C. Describe any structures on the site. df� r)o f1A E Or-J El{C d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? 140. S7 jek.AC ve-ES Wk LL- 3E- L��(VI OI 1,S H D� &-41 5FV02A-L. O YSTi u S W t t-L BF— p V2-t> FtObM t30,ACH- Rik' �A1 r iGA--n orJ e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? IF F 5 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Ul r`r k ovJ ram{ u rcrl g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. YF S, f-f fk rA►titE?-SLr TN LF_i SEE 3 . i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? - P P J 1-'/A j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? tj /tA- k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist Pave 9 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: (61"PiA,--I C2_ W 1 T�4 L_o(_A v✓DFw " 323 i MAr-J &F-MENi 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. P-1 C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing .impacts, if any: 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be'altered or obstructed? C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: PaN1� . Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 10 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: COr'NPLiA v►li-n4 LvC.A L j2cc'-i t L A:1 DIO S LdD jF W i j►/!4/+,--I AG LM EN i 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. fA b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. ALSTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? OLAL �� b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 10 �X. 7� _ l� 11. , LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? 'A b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? �/ c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal: ('�k I A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: A 12. RECREATION: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? }6pry JPJG) SW,r%AnAiNG- � F154Jn1G. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No l E t-/HAMS4:_- tvi1�EjQT OF L'V_L5T_1 n►G-- FEo. EA:TToN,}1- c, Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the;project or applicant, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist D 1 1 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: a. Are there any places or objects listed on,,or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally,describe. �kN 141-1 ate; b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. TRANSPORTATION: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. l�YP4 C i-1 Ro tvi_-> b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. N JA C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 12 tx7p� � r 'U " 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION: a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. UN 1-1--1 o"W 4 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. wJ C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: utQ isrJowJ 14. TRANSPORTATION: a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. ` t-i C Fk'0 b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. )A C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). N0 Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 12 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project: if known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: � 0 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Mason County Environmental Checklist __ , 16. UTILITIES: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: ectria_ , natural gas,�wate r(--u' se service;; e telephone;)sanitary sewer, septic system; other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Signature: The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. i understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: z " Date submitted: �Z Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 14 7� P�/7 . 16. UTILITIES: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: e ectrici , natural gas, 'titer `refuse service;, telephone:, sanitary sewer; sepfic system;; other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Signature: The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: /2 b Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 14 ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST Applicant Information Project Information F Name l:LOC CC-,VA-D : Si T (0�✓E iZtW b Name �j a)tz- i tSt<R oe/q/fn�►PV' " r /47- Phone ( , (3Co oJ rao Location `�331 r 4333 L'(NCtf �. SF15HFti Description WN F-C eI T or4 R61;W Lei< TI o-11, UP4 l✓/ os(�,10 This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon, trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, `BSA Listed Salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or being considered for listing. If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the water shed where your project will be located, your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will'help determine if the ESA listings will impact your project. The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and wildlife (DFW) regional office can provide information for the following two questions. 1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located? YES X _ NO Please describe. SCE, 91oLOG)'EA L L VA-LuA-i t oti/ '(3 . E .� 2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YES _ NO Uncertain Please describe. i If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the remainder of this checklist. April 2003 - 1 - 1 PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity. 1. Name of watershed: A 10M E►2 SEY Z H LOA' 2. Name-of nearest waterbody: fq A M m e R,,LE� jla L E-T 3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: Or-' RAr'►'1 M GW5S& J:i,-i L� Often a buffer between the'project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish. 4. What is-the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (paricing lots,farmland,etc.)? i Wo ' SiNG LT--7 FArAIL-Y 1;�IESV DACES - 5. Is.the project above a: * natural permanent barrier(waterfall) YES NO * natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES NO * man-made barrier(culvert, dam) YES NO - * other(explain): T 6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? YES NO Don't know )J (� 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface(including pavement&roof area)? -2- a. owl.M PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity. 1. Name of watershed: A i'Vl/l/I Ee 5UC I>`f Lei 2. Name-of nearest waterbody: M e oe SLr_r ji,r L C-T 3. What r jis the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: Or,/ /�A��E�S�� �n](,r j . Often a buffer between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish. 4. What is'the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots,farmland,etc.)? TWo S/rV(S-i-1-7 1-_4rA- L-Y K�Si DEr)Cr_S - 5. Is.the project above a: * natural permanent barrier(waterfall) YES NO * natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES NO * man-made barrier (culvert, dam) YES NO * other(explain): 57A-L i �� ��! �2r 12i�}yvt� V FLvi 6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? YES NO Don't know Nf/ k 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement&roof area)? -2- max. 7 IT.go FISH NIIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration. 1. Does the project require the withdrawal of a.. Surface water? YES NO _C Amount Name of surface water body b. Ground water? YES NO Amount From where Depth of well 2. Will any water be rerouted: YES NO If yes,will this require a channel change? 3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES NO . If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface water body? If to a surface water discharge,please give the name of the waterbody. 4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES NO Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat. 5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES NO 6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES NO if yes, describe the changes. 7. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows? .YES NO If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project? -3 - WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help.determine if this project could Adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause problems for listed species. Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces,altering water temperature;discharging contaminants,etc. 1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed? YES NO If yes, describe. 2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody? YES X NO SE-e 'Sr E, Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in shade. 3. Will the .project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges,.or runoff) to the waterbody? YES NO 4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project? YES _ NO Ip1 t-f:* D q V//\JG �uRt N Cr CAh1 ST7 C_TLO/� In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity. 5. Will 'your project require longterm maintenance,.,i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for vegetation management,clearing of parking lots? YES NO If yes,please describe. -4- WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could Adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause problems for listed species. Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces,altering water temperature,discharging contaminants,etc. 1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed? YES NO '" If yes, describe. 2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody? YES X NO Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in shade. 3. NVill the .project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges,.or runoff) to the waterbody? YES NO 4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project? YES _ NO Pt LLB. D 2 L V i/nt G In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity. 5. Will 'your project require longterm maintenance,d.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for vegetation management,clearing of parking lots? YES NO If yes,please describe. -4- VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation,thereby,*adversely impacting salmon. 1. Will the 'project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks: g YES NO If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed. 2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant? YES NO If yes, what types of plants will you use? -5- ik.7,/� 23 STATp Y w� z j U r4 n R 2007 STATE OF WASHINGTON I. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 • (360) 407-6300 June 7,2007 Ms. Grace Miller Your address Mason County is in the Department of Community Development c Kennedy- Planning Division PO Box 279 watershed Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Ms. Miller: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the Conrad/Buzzard Joint-Use Pier, Ramp and Float Construction project(SEP2007-00005) located at 9331 Southeast Lynch Road in Shelton as proposed by Eric Conrad and Steve Buzzard. The Department of Ecology(Ecology)reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s): WATER QUALITY: Roberta Woods (360) 407-6269 Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface water by stormwater runoff. Sand, silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered pollutants when discharged to waters of the state. Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48, Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, and is subject to enforcement action. During construction,all releases 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 all other work on the site. Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter Hammersley Inlet, Puget Sound or cause water quality degradation of state waters. All trenches, depressions,or holes created in the intertidal area shall be backfilled prior to inundation by tidal waters. All stormwater discharges must be constructed in a manner that will not cause scouring on the beach. L~01 June 7,2007 Page 2 Ecology's comments are based upon the information provided with the SEPA checklist. As such,they do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above. Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office (AW: 07-4281) cc: Roberta Woods, WQ Eric Conrad(Applicant) Steve Buzzard(Applicant) Amy Leitman(Contact) AMY R . LEITMAN MARINE SURVEYS & ASSESSMENTS - 5 2 1 S N A G S T E A D WAY PORT T O W N S E N D WA 9 8 3 6 8 Tel . 360 . 385 - 4073 ♦ Fax . 360 . 385 - 1724 MAY n 2007 email . sea@cablespeed . com May 2,2007 Grace Miller Mason County Planning Department P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Dear Grace, We are writing in response to your request for more information for Project # SHR2007-00002. Enclosed please find four additional pages addressing your concerns, including a brief narrative response, an aerial photograph, a site map, and a diagram of the proposed dock. We ask that you accept our revisions and proceed with the review. We are happy to provide e-mail copies if need be. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you. Resp y Yours, �� Amy Leitman r-P. Response(05/01/2007) to the "Notification of Incomplete Application" dated 04/02/2007 for project SHR2007-00002 (c)The OHWM is indicated on the enclosed site plan and the plan and elevation drawings. (h): The information relevant to the proposed pier, ramp and float project that was requested is seen on the enclosed site plan. (j): The Army Corps of Engineers,National Marine Fisheries Service and the U. S.Department of Fish and Wildlife(the Services)provide a range of Mitigation Measure Options for overwater structure impacts.The Option chosen for this project is described in item(8)on pages 12 and 13 of the Biological Evaluation for this project.Photographs of the mitigation option are seen on page 26.The"oyster bags"are located in the upper intertidal area in front of the Conrad's property. (m and n): The enclosed aerial photograph provides all of the requested information.The photographs on page 25 of the Biological Evaluation show the shoreline area in both directions from the site. Vicinity Map(c): The enclosed aerial photograph would seem to provide a vivid visual description of the nature of the land use in the project area. Mitigation Measures:As explained in 0)above,the mitigation measure chosen for this project is described in the Biological Evaluation on pages 12 and 13.It is the only mitigation measure included for this project because it provides the necessary number of Mitigation Points as set forth by"the Services"to offset the project impacts. 1 3 ON-STATE MASON COUNTY 4kS� BPS c 4-- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �1 o A U Planning Division o n P 0 Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION April 02, 2007 AMY LEITMAN 521 SNAGSTEAD WAY PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368 Parcel No.: 220285000012 Project Description: 115' long, joint-use, T-shaped Pier, Ramp and Float Dear Applicant: You have submitted a permit application (case no. SHR2007-00002)for proposed construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I have determined that the contents of the application are incomplete or do not provide enough detail for review. Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County within 180 days of this request, the application shall expire and no further action on the proposed development shall take place. Please contact me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 360 if you have questions. Sincerely, Grace Miller Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department Sfevr- (3u�..-d 4/2/2007 1 of 4 SHR2007-00002 NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION �� L1 4/2/2007 Case No.: SHR2007-00002 Comments: A Public Hearing before the Mason County Hearing Examiner has not been scheduled for this proposal. As a result of a recent site inspection conducted by Planning staff, it has been determined that the information submitted is incomplete. Once the requested information is submitted, staff will be able to further review the proposal. If the information is then complete, staff will be able to schedule a hearing date. The following information can be submitted to the Permit Assistance Center or mailed to the Planning Department's address. The joint use pier ramp and float is proposed at the maximum 115' beyond the OHWM. Because the Conrad's bulkhead projects at least 15' beyond the Buzzard's bulkhead the proposal already gained at least an additional 15' (trying to use the scale on the site plan) over the 100' maximum for single family residential use. The average of the two bulkheads should have been used to determine the setback and the proposal should be revised to be at least half of the difference of the 15' or 7' less than that proposed. The Shoreline Permit Process information that is provided with the application contains specific requirements to be submitted with the Site Plan and Vicinity Map. Please see the enclosed process information and they are listed below. Specific information includes an accurate site plan that can either be drawn to scale or with the dimensions shown. Both the site plan and side view of the pier, ramp and float that were submitted contain an inaccurate scale. (c) The site plan and side view must both indicate the location of the Ordinary High Water Mark or OHWM. The OHWM is not a tidal elevation. The OHWM in this case may be located on the bulkhead but it must be indicated on both of the submitted site plans. The OHWM is defined within the Mason County Shoreline Master Program for future reference. (h) "Show the dimensions and locations of all existing structures which will be maintained, including; but not limited to buildings, paved or gravel areas, roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge and stormwater management facilties." For instance, staff observed that the existing structures and uses on both of the applicant's parcels should be shown on the site plan including the beach stairs coming off of the Conrad's bulkhead to the Buzzard's beach and the upland stairs and decks on the applicant's parcels. Show on the side view how the applicants will access the pier, ramp and float from their residences. For instance, the side view should have included the residences and their use of their terraces for access to the beach above the tall concrete bulkheads and the use of the lower level boat storage within the Conrad's residence as it may be used in 4/2/2007 2 of 4 SHR2007-00002 NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION 4/2/2007 Case No.: SHR2007-00002 relation to the pier and beach. Q) "Where applicable, plans for development of areas on or off site as mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain information consistent with the requirements of this section." There is no proposed mitigation area indicated on either the site plan or side view. (m and n) "A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads, utilities, existing developments and uses on adjacent properties" and "Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses." It appears that the only adjacent development is the "existing adjacent structure" ( a pier) on a vacant parcel to the east of the Buzzard property. There is a note on the site plan that says "approx. 250' to the nearest overwater structure" with an arrow pointing to the west of Conrad's property. More detail of surrounding existing uses must be shown on the site plan. It should be indicated on the vicinity map that there is a curved shoreline to the west and several residences in both directions that could potentially be impacted by the use and view of this proposal. There do not appear to be PRF facilities within view across Hammersley or Totten Inlet. Vicinity Map (c) "Give brief narrative description of the general nature of the improvements and land use within 1,000 feet in all directions from the development site." It appears the application does not contain this description either within the narrative or on the site plan. While reviewing the Biological Evaluation staff observed on page 26 under a photograph that three oyster bags will be removed as mitigation. Please explain the reason for this proposed mitigation within the text and also why this is the only mitigation proposed? The Mason County Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter contains Habitat Management Plan Requirements which state that the Habitat Management Plan report shall include the mitigation measures proposed. It appears that the proposed mitigation is missing from the submitted Biological Evaluation. Once all of the above information is submitted, staff will continue review of the proposal and coordinate with you to schedule a public hearing that will work with your schedule. Thank you. 4/2/2007 3 of 4 SHR2007-00002 HAMMERSLEY INLET 6 . TN 0' 25' 10, 50' Approx. 250' to the nearest overwater structure ?^r Proposed pier, ramp and Existing adjacent float structure 115' long Bulkhead 95' l 5'I 1 I I PL PL PL PL Approx. 370' to Lynch Rd. CONRAD BUZZARD PURPOSE:On water recreation APPLICANT: Conrad&Buzzard PROPOSED:New pier,ramp&float DATUM:MLLW REFERENCE#: IN:Hammersley Inlet NEAR:Shelton ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATION: 9331&9333 Lynch Rd. COUNTY:Mason STATE:WA OWNERS: SE Shelton,WA 98584 1. Wayne&Joan Olson NW'/4,Sec 28,T20N,R02W SHEET 2 of 3 2. Richard&Malisent Smith Lat:N 47*11.939'; W 122°56.400' PURPOSE:On water recreation APPLICANT: Conrad&Buzzard PROPOSED:New pier,ramp&float DATUM:MLLW REFERENCE#: IN:Hammersley Inlet G NEAR:Shelton R �L ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATION: 9331&9333 Lynch Rd. COUNTY:Mason STATE:WA A OWNERS: SE Shelton,WA 98584 T 1. Wayne&Joan Olson NW'/4,Sec 28,T20N,R02W SHEET 3 of 3 I 20 2. Richard&Malisent Smith Lat:N 47011.939'; W 122*56.400' N G 20 34" ME 53' 0 0 0 �! O 0 8' 4, �M34 6' Orf 0 1 OF 6 0 1OF3 4'X6' STUB PILES GRATED 8" DIAMETER SECTIONS 0' 15' 10' 0 115' 4'X40' FULLY GRATED RAMP 6'X 53'PIER MHHW 32lo FUNCTIONAL 14.4' 1 OF 10 GRATING GAVL. STEEL MHW PILES 13.4 10-3/4" DIAMETER FLOATS L"j MLLW 0.9 _ P DATUM 4Q v