HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/05/26 - Regular Packet Board of Mason County Commissioners
Draft Meeting Agenda
Commission Chambers
J, 411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA 98584
t,«f
May 26, 2026
9:00 a.m.
Commission meetings are live streamed at http://www.masonwebtv.com/
Regular Commission business meetings will be held in-person and via Zoom.
Please click the Zoom meeting link posted on the Mason County homepage and use the"raise hand"feature to be recognized
by the Chair to provide comment and testimony. Public comment and testimony can be provided in-person,via e-mail at
msmithng,masoncountywa.gov;mail in to the Commissioners'Office at 411 N 5t''St,Shelton,WA 98584;or call(360)427-
9670 ext.419. If you need to listen to the Commission meeting via telephone,please provide your telephone number to the
Commissioners'Office no later than 4:00 p.m.the Friday before the meeting.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Correspondence and Organizational Business
4.1 Correspondence
5. Open Forum for Citizen Input
Please see above options to provide public comment; 3 minutes per person, 15-minute time limit.
6. Adoption of Agenda
Items appearing on the agenda after "Item 10. Public Hearings"may be acted upon before 9:15 a.m.
7. Approval of Minutes—May 11,2026,Briefing Minutes and May 12,2026,Regular Meeting Minutes
8. Approval of Action Agenda
Items listed under `Action Agenda"may be enacted by one motion unless a Commissioner or citizen requests an item be
removed from the Action Agenda and considered a separate item.
8.1 Approval of Warrants and Treasurer Electronic Remittances
Claims Clearing Fund Warrant#8120998-8121278 $2,043,684.33
Direct Deposit Fund Warrant# 125891-126303 $ 981,719.63
Salary Clearing Fund Warrant#7009664-7009703 $1,295,811.93
8.2 Approval of the Washington State Department of Commerce Consolidated Homeless Grant(CHG)
Amendment A for additional funding in the amounts of$65,198 for State Fiscal Year(SFY)2026 and
$490,596 for SFY2027.
8.3 Approval of the letter of support for the Great Peninsula Conservancy's Washington Wildlife and Recreation
Program(WWRP)grant application for the Potlatch Tree Farm Protection Project.
8.4 Approval of the 2025 Oath of Inventory
8.5 Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday,June 23,2026,at 9:15 a.m. to inform citizens of the availability
of funds and eligible uses of the state Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)and receive comments
on proposed activities specifically funding the Community Action Council of Lewis,Mason, and Thurston
Counties(CAC),as well as receive comments on the 2025-2026 program.
8.6 Approval to set a Public Hearing for June 23,2026,at 9:15 a.m.to consider and approve supplemental budget
requests and budget transfers to the 2026 budget.
May 26,2026 I Page 1 of 2
8.7 Approval to award funding from the .09 Rural County Sales and Use Tax Fund No. 103 to the Port of Shelton
in the amount of$350,000.
9. Other Business(Department Heads and Elected Officials)
10. 9:15 a.m. Public Hearings and Items Set for a Certain Time
Please see above options to provide public testimony; 10 minutes per person.
10.1 Public Hearing to consider the Ordinance amending Mason County Code Chapter 6.64 Group B Water System
Regulations. Staff: Ian Tracy
10.2 Public Hearing to consider the Ordinance amending Mason County Code Chapter 9.48 Outdoor Burning
Program. Staff: Randy Collins
10.3 Public Hearing to consider an Ordinance on wake-enhanced motorboats. Staff: Travis Adams
11. Board's Calendar and Reports
12. Adjournment
MASON COUNTY
TO: Board of Mason County Commissioners Reviewed
FROM: Kariann Rutledge Ext. 380
DEPARTMENT: Support Services Action Agenda
DATE: May 26,2026 No. 4.1
ITEM: Correspondence
4.1.1 Received Administrative Order from State of Washington Department of Health
regarding Reclassifying a portion of Skookum Inlet Commercial Shellfish Grow Area
in Mason County.
4.1.2 Received Solid Waste Advisory Committee Application from Jeff Bickford.
4.1.3 Received Request to remove current use classification from Douglas Day.
4.1.4 Received Timberland Regional Library Board of Trustees Application from
Cassandra Jean Marie Ness.
4.1.5 Received Notice of Cannabis License Application from ROCKSTAR FARMS LLC.
4.1.6 Received Letter from United States Department of Commerce Economic
Development Administration regarding de-designation of Col-Pac RCEDD
4.1.7 Received Notice of Special Occasion License Application from WASHINGTON
INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION.
Attachments: Originals on file with the Clerk of the Board.
ti
MAY ?026
{4R�`$TATT.O
% Y
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OFFICE of ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH and SAFETY
PO Box 47824, Olympia, WA 98504
(360)236-3330 0 711 Washington Relay Service
May 4, 2026
The Honorable Pat Tarzwell, Chair
Mason County Board of Commissioners
411 North 5d'Avenue
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Chair Tarzwell:
Enclosed is an Administrative Order reclassifying a portion of the Skookum Inlet Commercial
Shellfish Growing Area in Mason County from Approved to unclassified. This change in
classification is prompted by the results of a comprehensive review of pollution conditions and
marine water quality data, difficulty in monitoring the area, and lack of commercial interest.
The area being reclassified is identified by boundary lines on Map 4 included in the enclosed
Sanitary Survey report and Exhibit A of the Administrative Order.
If you have any questions,please contact Scott Chemoff at(564) 999-1617.
Sincerely,
Todd Phillips, R.S.
Office Director
Enclosures
SANITARY SURVEY
OF
SKOOKUM INLET
MARCH 2026
' I. wuningien stall 01 an ai
HEALTH
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
SHELLFISH PROGRAMS
Prepared by:
Scott Chernoff
Reviewed and Approved
/s/Scott Berbells 3/2/2026
Sanitary Survey Officer Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION Page
I. Executive Summary..............................................................................................................2
II. Description of Growing Area..................................................................................................2
Ill. Pollution Source Survey........................................................................................................5
IV. Hydrographic and Meteorological Characteristics..................................................................7
V. Water Quality Studies..........................................................................................................10
VI. Interpretation of Data...........................................................................................................11
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................12
TABLES
1. Marine water data summary................................................................................................11
2. Emergency closure sampling results...................................................................................11
3. Marine water data: from 11/2/2020 to 10/15/2025..............................................................14
MAPS
1. General location of growing area...........................................................................................3
2. Detailed growing area map....................................................................................................4
3. Shoreline drainages map ......................................................................................................6
4. Updated growing area map.................................................................................................13
FIGURES
1. Flood tide directions..............................................................................................................7
2. Ebb tide directions.................................................................................................................8
3. Average annual precipitation.................................................................................................8
4. Probability of rain (inches) in 24 hours...................................................................................9
Executive Summary
Skookum Inlet is a narrow inlet that branches off of the west side of Totten Inlet in southern Puget
Sound. The area is currently used for commercial intertidal harvest of oysters and clams. There are no
geoduck tracts or leases in the growing area. No public recreational beaches are located in the bay.
Currently, the whole growing area is classified as Approved. A shoreline survey of Skookum Inlet,
completed in August 2025, did not find any Direct or Indirect impacts, This sanitary survey finds that the
growing area continues to meet NSSP standards for an Approved classification. However, due to
difficulty monitoring and lack of commercial interest, approximately 148 acres of the growing area in the
head of the inlet is unclassified by this report.
II. Description of Growing Area
A. Location map or chart showing growing area
• Map 1: General area map, page 3.
• Map 2: Detailed growing area map with stations and sanitary lines, page 4.
• Map 4: Growing area map showing changes made with this report, page 13.
B. Description of area
Skookum Inlet is a narrow inlet in south Puget Sound in Mason County. The growing area is
approximately 556 acres, 3.8 miles long, and one-half mile wide at its widest part in the
uppermost part of the inlet. Most of the bay is narrow with the narrowest part of the channel
about 290 feet wide. The depth can be very shallow in the head of the inlet with exposed mud at
the zero-tide level. A detailed map with marine sampling stations may be found on Page 4. The
land-use in the watershed is rural residential and undeveloped forestland. All residences in the
watershed use on-site septic systems (OSS). The area is highly productive for the commercial
harvest of shellfish. There are no recreational harvest areas within the inlet.
There are three main freshwater creeks that enter Skookum Inlet. The largest of these is
Skookum Creek near the head of the Inlet with a mean annual flow of 24,690 gpm. Ellison
Creek enters the inlet on the north side near the head of the inlet. Lynch Creek enters the inlet
on the north-side about half-way along the inlet.
C. History of growing area classification
1. Date of last Sanitary Survey
The last Sanitary Survey was written in October 2014. There have been no addendums
to the Sanitary Survey written since then.
2. Previous classifications
There have been no changes to the classification in Skookum Inlet since the last
Sanitary Survey.
2
Map 1. General location of growing area
Seattle
Bremerton r,
Skookum Inlet
Growing Area
Tacoma �
Olympia s
3
Map 2. Growing area map showing current classifications and locations of sanitary line boundaries and marine
water stations.
C3 Skookum Inlet / . an •i
�IiHealth
0 0.75 1.5 Miles Date Updated:7/112018
l 1. l
d
I _
, /•� 153 ■ 1.=;— _
TTTT � rte•.- 156 154--/'x-■ 152
■
`-�i� - ■58�
646 / w / I�S
76 _
� 1? j r-- . 73
III da / $l•CVT \ . - ...
I.i. 21✓ �-' c
Classification Sampling Stations N
Approved ■
Conditional
Prohibited
• s
Restricted
UnclasSified Some sampling stations are highlighted
grey box for ease of reading
4
III. Pollution Source Survey
A. Summary of Sources and Location
1. There are no actual or potential sources of pollution in Skookum Inlet Growing Area.
B. Identification and evaluation of pollution sources
A summary of the pollution source information is included below. Detailed information is
included in the 2025 Shoreline Survey Report(pages 3-10).
1. Domestic wastes
The residences along the shoreline of growing area are exclusively served by OSS. The
shoreline survey evaluated 103 individual shoreline parcels, with four of these OSS
identified as being High Risk. Two of these parcels were designated as High Risk due to
the systems using gravity dispersal close to Little Skookum Creek while the other two
High Risk parcels had setbacks less than 50 feet from saltwater. None of these four
parcels or any of the other parcels were deemed Direct or Indirect Impacts to the
growing area.
There was a pit privy identified during the survey that was near the beach and can be
flooded by king tides. This site was referred to Mason County Environmental Health
(MCEH) and was decommissioned.
There is a large onsite sewage system (LOSS), the Fawn Lake Community Septic
System located at the upstream end of Lynch Creek. The Department evaluates this
LOSS on a quarterly basis with its last inspection in March 2025. The LOSS is permitted
for a flow of 6,720 gpd and is in compliance with no current or active failures and no
past-due conditions. The drainfield is around 400 feet from Fawn Lake, which is the
headwaters of Lynch Creek.
See pages 7-8 of the 2025 Shoreline Survey of Skookum Inlet for more information on
domestic wastes.
2. Stormwater and Freshwater Discharges
As part of the 2025 shoreline survey, 80 drainages were identified in the growing area
with 30 of these sampled. Six of these are perennial creeks. The four largest creeks are
Lynch Creek, Ellison Creek, Skookum Creek, and Deer Creek. None of these creeks or
drainages had water quality of concern.
Site 296 had a geometric mean of 229 FC/100mL due to several 920 FC/100mL
samples. This drainage had low flows and had a maximum loading rate of 1.5 +E09
FC/day. This site is a culvert that feeds to Skookum Creek above the head of Skookum
Inlet. Site 366 had elevated fecal coliform (FC) loading rates—however this was likely
due to the high discharge rate of the drainage and recent rainfall. This site is at the
mouth of Deer Creek. There were no sources identified upstream of these drainages.
None of the stormwater or freshwater drainages are Direct or Indirect impacts. See Map
2, below for the locations of the shoreline sampling sites.
5
For more information regarding creeks and drainages, see pages 3-7 of the 2025
Shoreline Survey of Skookum Inlet.
360 361
354 355 j65 366 367
353 -1 .0 362 (1369
351352\ E7 363 370 0/371
350 b b 357 O-358 O-364 p\Q
349 b 374
347 b 378-0 O 318 373
V 330
, 344 319 322 324 O331
= St
`+^ma° X317 320 :b /OO PO-328
O. 346 381 0.321 316,0 ..0, 323 325 O. 376
343 345 315 326 375
' 0-31 314 327
c3.-312 ,aaft
O -311
O 310
341 O3Q9
340 342 p� --308/380
339�1�� 301
S 300 307/403
Kamllche b O3 304 35 306
433338 Q 302
0 299
40$ 1 �t q�
335
6 295' 1336\29977 298
.." Approved
O Sample Locations N
0 1.5 3
Miles
Map 3. Skookum Inlet shoreline drainages
3. Agricultural waste
There were five agricultural sites and three potential agricultural sites identified in the
shoreline survey. None of these sites are Direct or Indirect impacts to the growing area.
See page 8 of the 2025 Shoreline Survey of Skookum Inlet for more information.
4. Wildlife areas
There were no dense populations of wildlife observed during the shoreline survey.
5. Industrial wastes
There are no industrial wastes or inputs in Skookum Inlet.
6. Marinas
There are no marinas in the growing area.
6
IV. Hydrographic and Meteorological Characteristics
A. Tides
1 Type
The Skookum Inlet Growing Area is subject to mixed tides, predominantly semi-diurnal,
characterized by a large inequality in the high water heights, low water heights, or both.
There are usually two high and two low tides each day but occasionally the tidal pattern
will result in only one high or one low tide in a single day.
2. Amplitude
Mean tide range is listed at 10.4 feet. The mean higher water is 14.4 feet and the lower
low tide is 0 feet. The tidal exchange ranges from an extreme 17 feet above the MHHW
to 4 feet below MHHW.
5. Currents
According to the NANOOS Visualization System
(https://nvs.nanoos.org/WaysWaterMoves), incoming (flood) surface water moves into
Skookum Inlet and travels up the inlet, as shown by the arrows in Figure 1, below.
During an outgoing (ebb)tide, surface water move towards the mouth of Skookum Inlet
as shown by the arrows in Figure 2, page 8. Currents tend to circulate in the head of
Skookum Inlet. Varying tidal flux intensities may produce slightly different current
patterns. Figures 1 and 2 below show surface currents from an average tidal exchange.
L
c.�
ji
�uk v>en.t•
I•
f — r
Sep..r.cryl .1/ •
Figure 1. Flood tide direction in Skookum Inlet
7
coa o
•
Figure 2. Ebb tide direction in Skookum Inlet
B. Rainfall
1. Amount
The annual average rainfall between 1931 and 1999was approximately 65.17 inches as
measured at the Shelton Airport.
2. When
Figure 3 indicates the heaviest precipitation occurs November through January.
SHELTON, WASHINGTON (457584)
Period of Record S 6/ 2/1948 to 11/8/2882
1e
o a
.ti
A 6
M
O. 4
y
yV
2
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec
Dag of Year u.rt.nn
Regional
Average Total Monthly Precipitation J dint.
cote
Figure 3. Average Total Monthly Precipitation at Shelton, WA from 1948-2002
8
3. Frequency of significant rainfalls
SHELTON, WASHINGTON (457584)
Period • 09/01/1931 to 04/30(1999
100 Probability of 1.OH" precipitation.
90
90
70
80
60 Duration
40 — 1 day
a ao
20
10
Jan 1 Marl May 1 Jul 1 Sep 1 Nov 1 Dec 31
Feb 1 Rpr 1 Jun 1 Aug 1 Oct 1 Dec 1
Day of Year uK .rn
Probability of 1.00' precipitation during the indicated period Regional
l
t li Center
starting on the vlotled date. Croalhed with a Z9-day running mean filter. Center
Figure 4. Probability of a 1-inch Rainfall Event in 24-hours at Shelton, WA (based on
1931-1999 data).
C. Winds—Seasonality and effects on pollution dispersion
Wind is not a significant factor in the dispersion of pollutants in Skookum Inlet due to the natural
baffling produced by the narrow configuration of the inlet.
D. River discharges
The river discharges are discussed in Section III.B.2. In addition to the major drainages of
Skookum, Lynch, Ellison and Deer Creeks, staff evaluated a total of 80 different discharge
drainage points during the shoreline survey in 2025. As discussed on page 3 of the 2025
Shoreline Survey, the largest creek is Skookum Creek, which has 9 miles of mainstem and has
a mean annual flow of 24,690 gpm with an average 7-day low flow of 808 gpm.
E. Summary discussion concerning effects of pollution distribution and hydrographic
factors (dilution, dispersion, and time of travel) on water quality throughout the growing
area
The primary mechanisms for the transport of pollutants into Skookum Inlet are freshwater
streams and surface runoff during wet weather. The high tidal currents that are characteristic of
the inlet facilitate rapid dispersion of pollutants that enter the inlet.
9
V. Water Quality Studies
A. Map of sampling stations
See Map 2, page 4.
B. Sampling plan and justification
The Skookum Inlet Growing Area is sampled under the Systematic Random Sampling
(SRS) method, consisting of a minimum of six samples collected per year using fecal
coliform as the indicator organism. The sample schedule was spread throughout the
year to allow seasonal variations to be examined. The schedule for each sampling event
was developed several weeks in advance of the actual sampling run to eliminate the
targeting of meteorological conditions. A variety of tidal conditions were sampled.
Marine water samples were collected in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program Model Ordinance. The Department uses the following procedures when
collecting water samples from shellfish growing areas:
Samples are collected from approximately six inches below the surface using 120ml,
sterile plastic bottles. Samples are immediately placed in an iced, insulated cooler.
During the sampling, staff records the time, tidal phase, surface water temperature, and
salinity at each sampling station. The samples are transported to the Washington State
Public Health Laboratory in Seattle and processing begins within 30 hours after
collection. Water samples are processed using the American Public Health Association
A-1 Modified (5 tube, 3 dilution) method.
C. Sample Data Analysis and Presentation—Tables containing the basic NSSP statistics
1. Summary of water quality data
Table 1, page 11.
2. Daily sampling results and number of samples collected for survey
Table 3, page 14-23.
3. Overall compliance with NSSP criteria
As shown by the last 30 samples for each station in Table 3, all stations in Skookum
Inlet meet the Approved water quality standards. Station 646 nearest the head of the bay
meets the NSSP numeric criteria for an Approved classification, however the station is
approximately 3,400 feet away from the head of the bay and does not necessarily reflect
the water quality in the area. That area is too difficult to sample due to its shallow nature.
4. Classification of stations
All stations in Skookum Inlet are classified as Approved.
10
TABLE 1. Marine water quality data summary (last 30 samples)
Station Classification Date Range Range GeoMean E90th(FC/100 Meets
Number (FC/100 (FC/100 mL) Standard
mL) mL)
152 Approved 11/2/2020- 10/15/2025 1.7- 13.0 2.3 5.3 Y
153 Approved 11/2/2020 - 10/15/2025 1.7 - 11.0 2.0 3.6 Y
154 Approved 11/2/2020- 10/15/2025 1.7 - 13.0 2.8 6.7 Y
155 Approved 11/2/2020- 10/15/2025 1.7-33.0 2.9 8.3 Y
156 Approved 11/2/2020- 10/15/2025 1.7 -33.0 2.4 6.0 Y
157 Approved 11/2/2020- 10/15/2025 1.7 -33.0 2.8 7.8 Y
158 Approved 11/2/2020- 10/15/2025 1.7- 110.0 3.4 13.4 Y
645 Approved 11/2/2020 - 10/15/2025 1.7-33.0 3.1 9.0 Y
646 Approved 11/2/2020- 10/15/2025 1.7-27.0 3.4 9.9 Y
The standard for approved shellfish growing waters is fecal coliform geometric mean not greater than 14
organisms/t00 mL with an estimated 90th percentile not greater than 43 organisms/ 100 mL. The above table
shows bacteriological results in relation to program standards.
VI. Interpretation of Data in Determining Area Classification
A. Effects of meteorologic and hydrographic conditions on bacterial loading
Bacterial loadings are generally low under all expected meteorological and hydrographic
conditions. Station 646 represents water quality nearest to the head of the bay; however, the
station is approximately 3,400 feet away from the discharge from Skookum Creek and other
potential sources. This area may not be accurately represented by Staton 646. During rain
events with greater than three inches of rain in 24 hours, the growing area may be closed on an
emergency basis for five days. Marine water sample results from emergency closure sampling
in January 2015 (day of>3" rain) and December 2025 (1 day after >3" rain) showed that
extreme storm events can have an adverse impact on water quality in the growing area. See
Table 2, below for emergency closure sampling results.
TABLE 2. Emergency Closure sampling results in Skookum Inlet
Station Classification Results from 1/5/2015 Results from 12/10/2025
Number sampling (FC/100mL) sampling (FC/100mL)
152 Approved 49.0 33.0
154 Approved 31.0 49.0
156 Approved 70.0 49.0
157 Approved 130.0 220.0
158 Approved 130.0 33.0
646 Approved n/a 79.0
Due to the location of Station 646 and the unknown water quality impacts near the head of the
bay, that area of the inlet should be unclassified as shown in Map 4, page 13.
11
B. Variability in the data and causes
Water sample results indicate that there is little variability in water quality. Elevated bacteria
levels in water samples are infrequent and random.
VII. Conclusions
A. Map or chart showing classifications
Map 2, page 4.
B. Legal descriptions
Map 4, page 13.
D. Recommendations for Sanitary Survey improvement
1. Monitoring schedule, stations, etc.
Marine water sampling for the growing area should continue to follow the Systematic
Random Sampling (SRS) strategy for Approved shellfish growing waters. Sampling
frequency should continue six times per year.
Station 646 represents marine water quality at the head of the inlet; however, the
shallow conditions do not allow sampling closer than its current location. Based on the
location of Station 646 and elevated bacteria levels in drainages at the head of the inlet,
this report removes the classification of this portion of the growing area, as reflected in
Map 4 on page 13.
2 Comments
The Department should
• Unclassify the Approved portion of Skookum Inlet southwest of Station 646 (head
of Skookum Inlet) due to the difficulty sampling the head of Skookum Inlet and
lack of commercial interest. See Map 4, following page.
12
SE Cook Plant Fa,m Rd
221ft
SE Ellis Rd
take
EY^th
'F
SE lyntt,Rd
47.153400 N.,
123.01209°W.
2/3h
2
SE�Y^cn Fd ` 8 I
ae Point Rd
47.14060° N SE Ran"
123.07457°W. 47.15195°N 4715195°N
123.01558°W. 123.01209°W.
i
Qa ;40h
Qo`
4,F SE Dah,nan
co
F'
N13288
!
SE Eagles 4 /+/
ett Dr
248/t
O af,
O L
O
3
Classification IN Water Quality N
Approved Sampling Stations
Conditional WE
Prohibited
Restricted S
n Unclassified 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
i l l t l t t I i
MAP 4. Growing area map showing updated classifications, sanitary lines, and coordinates
13
TABLE 3. Marine water quality data by individual station
Station: 152 Classification: Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020-10/15/2025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7- 13.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 5.3
GeoMean (FC/100 mL): 2.3 Meets Standard: Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Coliform
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:03 Ebb 12 28 1.7
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:11 Flood 9 17 6.8
04/01/2021 Regulatory 08:51 Flood 10 26 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:09 Flood 16 28 2.0
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:37 Flood 20 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:21 Flood 14 30 1.7
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:18 Ebb 11 27 2.0
01/05/2022 Regulatory 10:45 Ebb 7 26 4.0
05/09/2022 Regulatory 11:54 Flood 12 25 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 10:47 Flood 17 28 1.7
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:33 Ebb 17 29 13.0
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:24 Ebb 16 29 13.0
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:20 Flood 13 29 1.7
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:24 Flood 7 28 1.7
04/24/2023 Regulatory 09:43 Ebb 10 26 1.7
06/12/2023 Regulatory 13:50 Flood 20 28 1.7
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:11 Ebb 19 29 1.7
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:05 Ebb 16 30 1.7
01/03/2024 Regulatory 10:42 Flood 10 27 1.8
03/12/2024 Regulatory 09:40 Ebb 9 26 1.7
05/14/2024 Regulatory 09:58 Flood 15 27 1.7
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:37 Flood 19 28 1.7
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:11 Flood 17 29 1.7
10/21/2024 Regulatory 09:56 Flood 14 29 1.7
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:23 Ebb 13 30 13.0
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:14 Ebb 9 27 1.7
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:17 Flood 15 26 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:03 Flood 17 28 1.7
08/11/2025 Regulatory 08:41 Ebb 19 27 2.0
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:03 Flood 15 27 1.7
14
Station: 153 Classification: Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020-10/15/2025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7-11.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 3.6
GeoMean (FC/100 mL): 2.0 Meets Standard: Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Colifomi
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:07 Ebb 12 28 1.7
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:16 Flood 9 13 11.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 08:56 Flood 10 26 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:13 Flood 16 28 1.7
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:42 Flood 20 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:27 Flood 14 29 1.7
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:26 Ebb 11 26 1.7
01/05/2022 Regulatory 10:49 Ebb 7 25 4.5
05/09/2022 Regulatory 12:02 Flood 12 25 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 10:54 Flood 17 28 1.7
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:38 Ebb 17 29 4.5
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:32 Ebb 17 29 1.7
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:26 Flood 13 29 2.0
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:34 Flood 7 28 1.7
04/24/2023 Regulatory 09:58 Ebb 10 26 1.7
06/12/2023 Regulatory 13:57 Flood 19 28 1.7
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:19 Ebb 19 29 1.7
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:12 Ebb 16 30 2.0
01/03/2024 Regulatory 10:48 Flood 10 27 1.7
03/12/2024 Regulatory 09:46 Ebb 9 25 1.7
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:04 Flood 15 27 1.7
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:44 Flood 20 28 1.7
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:15 Flood 17 29 2.0
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:05 Flood 14 29 2.0
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:28 Ebb 13 30 1.7
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:24 Ebb 9 27 1.7
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:25 Flood 15 26 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:09 Flood 17 27 1.7
08/11/2025 Regulatory 08:48 Ebb 19 27 4.5
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:10 Flood 15 27 2.0
15
Station: 154 Classification:Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020-10/15/2025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7- 13.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 6.7
GeoMean (FC/100 mL): 2.8 Meets Standard:Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Coliform
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:09 Ebb 12 28 1.7
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:18 Flood 9 15 13.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 08:58 Flood 10 26 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:15 Ebb 16 28 4.5
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:45 Flood 19 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:30 Flood 14 29 4.5
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:28 Ebb 11 26 1.7
01/05/2022 Regulatory 10:51 Ebb 7 26 2.0
05/09/2022 Regulatory 12:04 Flood 13 25 2.0
07/06/2022 Regulatory 10:57 Flood 17 27 2.0
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:41 Ebb 17 29 11.0
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:36 Ebb 17 29 4.0
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:29 Flood 13 29 1.8
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:37 Flood 8 28 1.7
04/24/2023 Regulatory 10:01 Ebb 10 27 1.7
06/12/2023 Regulatory 14:00 Flood 18 28 1.7
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:22 Ebb 19 29 4.5
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:14 Ebb 16 30 1.7
01/03/2024 Regulatory 10:50 Flood 10 26 2.0
03/12/2024 Regulatory 09:48 Ebb 9 25 1.7
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:06 Flood 15 26 1.7
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:47 Flood 20 28 1.7
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:17 Flood 18 29 7.8
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:08 Flood 14 29 13.0
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:30 Ebb 13 30 7.8
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:27 Ebb 9 27 2.0
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:28 Flood 15 26 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:11 Flood 17 27 1.7
08/11/2025 Regulatory 08:50 Ebb 19 27 4.0
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:12 Flood 15 27 2.0
16
Station: 155 Classification:Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 1110212020-10/15/2025
Range(FCI100 mL): 1.7-33.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 8.3
GeoMean(FC/100 mL): 2.9 Meets Standard: Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Coliform
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:05 Ebb 12 28 1.7
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:14 Flood 9 15 17.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 08:54 Flood 10 26 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:11 Flood 16 28 2.0
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:40 Flood 20 31 2.0
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:24 Flood 14 29 2.0
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:19 Ebb 11 24 1.7
01/05/2022 Regulatory 10:47 Ebb 7 22 6.8
05/09/2022 Regulatory 11:58 Flood 13 24 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 10:51 Flood 17 26 13.0
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:35 Ebb 17 29 2.0
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:27 Ebb 16 29 2.0
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:23 Flood 13 29 4.0
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:29 Flood 7 28 1.7
04/24/2023 Regulatory 09:54 Ebb 10 27 1.7
06/12/2023 Regulatory 13:54 Flood 18 28 2.0
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:15 Ebb 19 29 2.0
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:09 Ebb 16 30 4.5
01/03/2024 Regulatory 10:45 Flood 10 26 2.0
03/12/2024 Regulatory 09:44 Ebb 9 21 13.0
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:02 Flood 15 27 2.0
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:40 Flood 19 28 1.7
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:14 Flood 17 28 33.0
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:00 Flood 14 29 4.5
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:25 Ebb 13 30 1.7
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:19 Ebb 9 27 1.7
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:21 Flood 15 26 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:06 Flood 17 27 1.7
08/11/2025 Regulatory 08:46 Ebb 19 27 4.5
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:07 Flood 15 28 1.7
17
Station: 156 Classification: Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020-10/15/2025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7-33.0 E90th (FC/100 mL):6.0
GeoMean (FC/100 mL): 2.4 Meets Standard: Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Coliform
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:12 Ebb 12 28 2.0
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:21 Flood 9 8 17.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 09:01 Flood 10 26 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:18 Ebb 16 28 2.0
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:48 Flood 19 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:33 Flood 14 29 1.7
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:32 Ebb 11 23 1.7
01/05/2022 Regulatory 10:54 Ebb 6 14 33.0
05/09/2022 Regulatory 12:07 Flood 12 23 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 11:02 Flood 17 27 2.0
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:44 Ebb 17 29 4.0
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:40 Ebb 17 29 1.7
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:31 Flood 13 29 1.7
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:41 Flood 7 28 4.0
04/24/2023 Regulatory 10:03 Ebb 10 25 1.7
06/12/2023 Regulatory 14:04 Flood 18 28 2.0
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:26 Ebb 20 29 1.7
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:17 Ebb 16 30 1.7
01/03/2024 Regulatory 10:53 Flood 10 27 1.7
03/1212024 Regulatory 09:50 Ebb 9 25 2.0
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:09 Flood 15 26 2.0
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:49 Flood 20 28 1.7
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:20 Flood 18 29 4.5
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:10 Flood 14 29 1.7
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:33 Ebb 13 30 4.0
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:30 Ebb 9 27 1.7
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:31 Flood 15 25 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:13 Flood 17 27 4.5
08/11/2025 Regulatory 08:53 Ebb 19 27 1.7
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:14 Flood 15 27 2.0
18
Station: 157 Classification:Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020- 10/15/2025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7-33.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 7.8
GeoMean (FC/100 mL): 2.8 Meets Standard: Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Coliform
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:16 Ebb 12 28 1.7
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:24 Flood 9 7 33.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 09:04 Flood 10 26 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:20 Ebb 16 27 7.8
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:52 Flood 19 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:37 Flood 14 29 1.7
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:34 Ebb 11 21 7.8
01/05/2022 Regulatory 10:56 Ebb 6 20 23.0
05/09/2022 Regulatory 12:11 Flood 12 20 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 11:06 Flood 17 27 2.0
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:49 Ebb 17 29 1.7
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:42 Ebb 17 29 2.0
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:35 Flood 13 29 4.5
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:46 Flood 7 28 2.0
04/24/2023 Regulatory 10:05 Ebb 10 24 2.0
06/12/2023 Regulatory 14:08 Flood 18 28 1.7
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:31 Ebb 20 29 4.5
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:19 Ebb 16 30 2.0
01/03/2024 Regulatory 10:55 Flood 10 26 2.0
03/12/2024 Regulatory 09:52 Ebb 9 22 2.0
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:12 Flood 15 26 1.7
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:52 Flood 19 28 1.8
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:22 Flood 18 29 4.5
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:13 Flood 14 29 4.5
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:34 Ebb 13 30 2.0
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:34 Ebb 8 23 1.7
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:35 Flood 15 25 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:16 Flood 17 27 1.7
08/11/2025 Regulatory 08:56 Ebb 19 27 6.8
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:17 Flood 15 27 1.7
19
Station: 158 Classification: Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020-10/1512025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7-110.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 13.4
GeoMean (FC/100 mL): 3.4 Meets Standard:Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Colifomi
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:30 Ebb 12 28 2.0
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:49 Flood 9 14 11.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 09:20 Ebb 10 26 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:35 Ebb 17 28 1.7
08/18/2021 Regulatory 15:11 Flood 19 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:54 Flood 14 29 4.5
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:54 Ebb 11 27 2.0
01/05/2022 Regulatory 11:13 Ebb 6 22 110.0
05/09/2022 Regulatory 12:35 Flood 12 25 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 11:36 Flood 17 27 6.8
09/28/2022 Regulatory 10:11 Ebb 17 29 6.8
10/12/2022 Regulatory 11:03 Ebb 17 29 1.7
11/02/2022 Regulatory 12:00 Flood 13 28 2.0
02/27/2023 Regulatory 11:18 Ebb 7 28 2.0
04/24/2023 Regulatory 10:20 Ebb 11 26 1.7
06/12/2023 Regulatory 14:37 Flood 19 28 1.7
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:56 Ebb 20 29 7.8
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:39 Ebb 16 29 2.0
01/03/2024 Regulatory 11:14 Flood 10 24 1.7
03/12/2024 Regulatory 10:07 Ebb 8 20 4.5
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:27 Flood 16 26 2.0
07/17/2024 Regulatory 16:08 Flood 20 28 2.0
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:38 Flood 18 28 79.0
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:34 Flood 14 29 4.5
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:47 Ebb 13 30 6.8
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:48 Ebb 8 26 1.7
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:58 Flood 16 26 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:33 Flood 17 27 4.5
08/11/2025 Regulatory 09:17 Ebb 20 27 1.7
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:39 Flood 15 27 1.8
20
Station: 645 Classification:Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020-10/15/2025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7-33.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 9.0
GeoMean (FC/100 mL): 3.1 Meets Standard: Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Coliform
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:18 Ebb 12 28 1.7
02/22/2021 Regulatory 10:29 Flood 9 5 33.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 09:08 Ebb 10 24 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:23 Ebb 17 27 7.8
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:56 Flood 19 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:41 Flood 14 29 2.0
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:40 Ebb 10 18 1.7
01/05/2022 Regulatory 10:59 Ebb 6 15 11.0
05/09/2022 Regulatory 12:17 Flood 13 21 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 11:12 Flood 18 27 7.8
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:54 Ebb 17 29 4.5
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:47 Ebb 17 28 4.5
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:41 Flood 13 28 3.7
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:53 Flood 6 27 1.7
04/24/2023 Regulatory 10:08 Ebb 10 22 2.0
06/12/2023 Regulatory 14:14 Flood 19 28 2.0
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:36 Ebb 20 29 11.0
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:23 Ebb 16 29 4.0
01/03/2024 Regulatory 11:00 Flood 10 23 1.7
03/12/2024 Regulatory 09:55 Ebb 9 21 1.7
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:16 Flood 15 25 2.0
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:56 Flood 20 28 1.7
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:26 Flood 18 28 4.5
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:18 Flood 14 29 2.0
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:37 Ebb 13 28 4.0
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:36 Ebb 8 23 1.7
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:40 Flood 16 25 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:21 Flood 17 27 1.7
08/11/2025 Regulatory 08:59 Ebb 20 27 17.0
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:22 Flood 15 27 1.7
21
Station: 646 Classification:Approved Method: SRS
Total Samples: 30 Date Range: 11/02/2020-10/15/2025
Range(FC/100 mL): 1.7-27.0 E90th (FC/100 mL): 9.9
GeoMean (FC1100 mL): 3.4 Meets Standard:Y
Sample Event Type Time Tide SWT Salinity Fecal
Date Coliform
11/02/2020 Regulatory 10:21 Ebb 12 27 1.7
02/2212021 Regulatory 10:31 Flood 9 6 23.0
04/01/2021 Regulatory 09:09 Ebb 10 23 1.7
06/16/2021 Regulatory 10:25 Ebb 17 1 6.8
08/18/2021 Regulatory 14:59 Flood 19 31 1.7
10/13/2021 Regulatory 11:44 Flood 14 29 1.7
12/07/2021 Regulatory 11:42 Ebb 10 18 7.8
01/05/2022 Regulatory 11:02 Ebb 6 15 27.0
05/09/2022 Regulatory 12:19 Flood 13 21 1.7
07/06/2022 Regulatory 11:15 Flood 18 27 7.8
09/28/2022 Regulatory 09:57 Ebb 17 28 7.8
10/12/2022 Regulatory 10:51 Ebb 17 27 4.5
11/02/2022 Regulatory 11:44 Flood 13 28 2.0
02/27/2023 Regulatory 10:58 Ebb 5 26 2.0
04/24/2023 Regulatory 10:10 Ebb 11 23 1.7
06/12/2023 Regulatory 14:17 Flood 19 28 1.7
08/21/2023 Regulatory 10:39 Ebb 20 29 11.0
10/02/2023 Regulatory 10:26 Ebb 16 26 4.5
01/03/2024 Regulatory 11:02 Flood 10 20 2.0
03/12/2024 Regulatory 09:58 Ebb 8 21 4.5
05/14/2024 Regulatory 10:19 Flood 16 20 6.8
07/17/2024 Regulatory 15:58 Flood 20 28 1.7
09/11/2024 Regulatory 12:28 Flood 18 28 4.5
10/21/2024 Regulatory 10:21 Flood 14 29 4.5
11/04/2024 Regulatory 10:39 Ebb 13 28 1.7
02/04/2025 Regulatory 11:40 Ebb 8 22 2.0
05/05/2025 Regulatory 12:44 Flood 16 25 1.7
06/24/2025 Regulatory 17:24 Flood 17 27 1.7
08/11/2025 Regulatory 09:04 Ebb 20 26 4.5
10/15/2025 Regulatory 12:25 Flood 15 27 1.7
22
CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
MASTER CASE NO. 2026-8009
In the Matter of the Reclassification of the ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
Commercial Shellfish Growing Area in ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND INITIAL
Skookum inlet ) ORDER:
RECLASSIFYING THE COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH GROWING AREA
I To: The Honorable Pat Tarzwell, Chair
2 Mason County Board of Commissioners
3 411 North 5'"Avenue
4 Shelton, WA 98584
5
6 SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT
7 1.1 Under RCW 69.30.050 and WAC 246-282, the Department of Health has the authority
8 and responsibility to inspect and certify all commercial shellfish growing areas.
9 1.2 Under WAC 246-282-005(1), the Department certifies commercial shellfish growing
10 areas based on the Growing Area Classification defined under Section IV.@.03 of the
11 National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance ("the NSSP").
12 1.3 The Department has analyzed water quality data and reviewed pollution source
13 information for the commercial shellfish growing area in Skookum Inlet. The
14 Department's evaluation is attached to this Initial Order and is a part of this Initial Order.
15 1.4 The results of the Department's evaluation demonstrate that the part of the commercial
16 shellfish growing area that is currently classified as Approved now meets the
17 unclassified standards under the NSSP.
18 1.5 The area being changed in classification from Approved to unclassified in Skookum
19 Inlet is shown in EXHIBIT A.
20
21 SECTION 2. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22 Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Department makes the following
23 Conclusions of Law:
24 2.1 The Department of Health, Office of Environmental Health and Safety, has jurisdiction
25 over this matter.
26 2.2 Under RCW 69.30, WAG 246-282-005(1), and the NSSP, the findings of the
27 Department's evaluation of water quality data and pollution source information require
28 that the commercial shellfish growing area be reclassified as shown in EXHIBIT A.
29 2.3 Under RCW 34.05.461 and 43.70.115(2)(a), the Secretary of Health may determine
30 when this Initial Order may become a Final Order.
31
32 SECTION 3. INITIAL ORDER
33 Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and under the authority
34 of RCW 34.05.461, the Secretary enters the following Initial Order:
35 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the commercial shellfish growing area in
36 Skookum Inlet SHALL BE RECLASSIFIED as unclassified as shown in EXHIBIT A.
37 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that you may request a hearing in this matter.
38 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Initial Order will become a Final Order
39 without further notice thirty-five (35) days from date of signature, unless you request a
40 hearing in the time frame specified below.
41
42 SECTION 4. REQUEST FOR ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDING (HEARING)
43 If you wish to contest this decision, you (or your representative) must file a request for a
44 hearing within twenty-eight (28) days after you receive this document. To do this, you (or your
45 representative) must complete and file the"Application for Adjudicative Proceeding"that is
46 enclosed or complete and file a document that provides the same information. You must file the
47 request with the Department of Health's Adjudicative Service Unit in a way that shows that the
48 Adjudicative Service Unit received the request.
49 If you do not file a request within twenty-eight(28) days of your receipt of this decision,
50 your right to a hearing will be waived, and this Initial Order will become a Final Order without
51 further notice to you.
52 You must attach a copy of this Initial Order to your request. FILING IS NOT COMPLETE
53 UNTIL THE ADJUDICATIVE SERVICE UNIT ACTUALLY RECEIVES YOUR REQUEST.
Adjudicative Service Unit: Department of Health
Adjudicative Service Unit
310 Israel Road SE
PO Box 47879
Olympia WA 98504-7879
(360)236-4672
Dated this 4th day of May, 2026.
S Y
TODD PHILLIPS, R.S., Director
Office of Environmental Health and Safety
APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDING
CASE NO. 2026-8009
IF YOU WISH TO REQUEST AN ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDING in the above-referenced matter,
you or your representative must, within twenty-eight (28) days of your receipt of this decision, complete
and file this Application or a document providing substantially the same information with the Department's
Adjudicative Service Unit in a manner that shows proof of receipt by Adjudicative Service Unit.
FAILURE to submit an Application within twenty-eight(28)days of your receipt of the decision will
constitute waiver of your right to an adjudicative proceeding, and the Department may decide this matter
without your participation and without further notice to you.
In what follows, please check the appropriate response.
I do❑request an ADJUDICATIVE PROCEEDING in this matter.
IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CONTEST THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION, YOU DO NOT NEED
TO FILE THIS APPLICATION.
If you file an Application with the Adjudicative Service Unit, you must attach a copy of the
Department's decision. FILING SHALL NOT BE DEEMED COMPLETE UNTIL THE ADJUDICATIVE
SERVICE UNIT RECEIVES YOUR APPLICATION.
If, by filing an Application, you have requested an adjudicative proceeding, it may be conducted as
a formal hearing, at which you would have the opportunity to respond, present evidence and argument,
conduct cross-examination and submit rebuttal evidence. Alternatively, you may waive the formal hearing
and submit a written statement and supporting documents,which may set out your position,your defenses
and any mitigating circumstances that you may wish to bring to the Department's attention.
In what follows, please check the appropriate response and provide the information requested.
I do❑ do not❑waive my right to a formal hearing in this matter.
If you have chosen to waive your right to a formal hearing, please indicate whether you are❑are
not ❑ submitting any documents to the Department in support of your position. If you are submitting
documents to the Department, please list and briefly identify all such documents in the space provided and
on such additional sheets as may be necessary:
Whether or not you have chosen to waive your right to a formal hearing in this matter, please state
all grounds for contesting the Department's decision in the space provided and on such additional sheets
as may be necessary:
You have the right to be represented by an attorney in this matter. If you are a hearing-impaired
person or a limited-English speaking person,the Department will provide interpretation and assistance with
notices as provided for in WAC 246-10-121 and WAC 246-10-122.
In what follows, please check the appropriate responses and provide the information requested.
I will ❑ will not ❑ be represented by an attorney in this matter. If you have indicated that you
will be represented by an attorney, please provide your attorney's name and address in the space provided
below:
If, after submitting this request, you obtain attorney representation or change attorneys, you must
notify the Adjudicative Service Unit.
I do❑ do not O require the assistance of an interpreter in connection with this proceeding. If
you require the assistance of an interpreter, please indicate whether you are a hearing impaired person
and/or a limited-English-speaking person and the language you most readily understand below:
If you fail to timely file this Application or, if you timely file this Application, but fail to appear at any
scheduled settlement conference, prehearing conference or hearing without leave to do so, you will be
considered to have waived your right to a hearing and the Department may decide this matter without your
participation and without further notice to you.
Adjudicative Service Unit: Department of Health
Adjudicative Service Unit
310 Israel Road SE
PO Box 47879
Olympia WA 98504-7879
(360)236-4672
Dated this the day of 2025. Owner/Requester Contact
Phone&Address:
Party
Party's Representative
WSBA#
Received 05.11.2026
Commissioners Randy Nealherlln,
Sharon Trask and Pat Tarzwell.
Travis Adams,McKenzie Smith,
Wendy Thompson,Richard Dickinson,
Kelle Medcalf.
Entry#: 73 - Solid Waste Advisory Committee(SWAC) Status: Submitted Submitted: 5/8/2026 4:27 PM
SI CooNTo Advisory Board Name:
Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)
1854
Name: Today's Date:
Jeff Bickford 5/8/2026
Address
Voting Precinct: Phone Email
(
Community Service: Employment:
Previously served on the SWAC, left in 2021. Retiring from position as Solid Waste Manager for Thurston
County
What do you perceive is the role or purpose of this advisory board?
To provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on solid waste policy and programs.Assist with preparation
of the county's solid waste management plan.
What interest or skills do you wish to offer this advisory board?
I have worked in the solid waste field at the county level for over 30 years, 5 with Thurston County, and 26 with Marion County,
Oregon.
List any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations that could create a potential conflict of interest:
None
Required Training: Yes or No:
Participation is dependent on attending certain trainings such as the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) Yes
and Public Records Act (PRA) trainings at no cost to you. Will you be able to attend such trainings?
How much time can you commit to Are you a U.S.citizen and *For Civil Service applications ONLY,what
this advisory board: Mason County resident? is your political party?
Monthly Yes
Received 05.13.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin,
Sharon Trask and Pat Tarzwell.
Travis Adams,McKenzie Smith
K >> `r ��, c 1 -'^it' 4 -
Departmentof� x �G � NoticeoftO�wne �s Requestto Remove
Revenue - ,
Washington State Y
CurrentfUse GlasslfIcatI
Form 64 0070 a
' :��Chapter�84.34 RCW
DO NOT FILL OUT - Assessor Use Only
NOTICE:Within seven (7) days,the county assessor shall transmit one copy of this notice to the granting
authority which originally approved the application.
If the parcel If the parcel subject to this document is considered contiguous, as defined in RCW 84.34.020(6),
with other parcels having different ownerships, verify all remaining classified parcels with different ownerships
are still:
ElAdjoining ❑Being managed as part of a single operation
El Meeting the definition of"family" as defined in RCW 84.34.020(6)(b)(ii) with the owner of an adjoining
parcel
Grantor(Property Owner):
Grantee(County).
Legal Description: % .__ ___._ ,_ _ �.
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel or Account Number
Reference Numbers of Documents Assigned or Releaseds 's _- .
To the County Assessor:
I, � QS._ � � "„`,. _s: _..'a', hereby request withdrawal of current use
classification granted under Chapter 84.34 RCW from the previously described property. Said property is
presently classified as:' Open Space Land ❑Farm and Agricultural Land ❑Timber Land
This request for withdrawal includes: All El Part of the classified land area
For partial removals, provide the legal description of area to be removed:
cj S,k 4 vJ'ik 73 ZT
r"»fir -.: ''c`? '.P'"'& d '"` - Sx"e "" f`++�, z 3 ♦ t f.. µ5� .r� R
, `+ s «. ✓^w`,`3" r �a£ r� '`""' " `A„^tr t .- Y 'C C t�.�` e
...�.=..'v G...- -v_r�.t..✓T»s-w« ..'awu: sww.f_FR �... _tea ....r n. ..snA^1.. �.... - .
To ask about the ava labihty of i s^publication in.ànälternatè format for the visually impaired,please call
360-705-6705 Teletype(TTY)"users may use the WA Relay Service by calling 711
REV 64 0070 (7/17/25) Page 1
Notice of Owner's Request to Remove Current Use Department of
Revenue
Classification Washington State
I acknowledge that I am aware of the additional tax and interest liability that will be imposed when
classification is removed from the previously described land.
1. The additional tax to be collected shall consist of an amount equal to the difference between the property
tax that was levied on the current use value and the tax that would have been levied on its true and fair
value for the last seven years for removals of OS Timber or OS Open Space classification or, effective
9/1/2025,the last four years for removals of OS Farm/Ag classification, or the number of years the land
was classified, whichever is less, in addition to the portion of the tax year when the removal occurs, plus
interest at the rate charged on delinquent taxes specified in RCW 84.56.020 from April 30 of the year when
the tax could have been paid without penalty to the date when said tax is paid.
2. A penalty equal to 20%of the sum of the additional tax and interest specified in Item (1) above shall be
collected when land is removed from current use classification unless the land had been classified at least
10 years.
3. The additional tax, interest, and penalty shall not be imposed if removal of classification resulted solely
from:
(a) Transfer to a governmental entity in exchange for other land located within the State of
Washington;
(b) A taking through the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or sale or transfer to an entity
having the power of eminent domain in anticipation of the exercise of such power;
(c) A natural disaster such as a flood, windstorm, earthquake, wildfire, or other such calamity
rather than by virtue of the act of the landowner changing the use of such property;
(d) Official action by an agency of the State of Washington or by the county or city where the land is
located disallowing the present use of such land;
(e) Transfer of land to a church when such land would qualify for exemption pursuant to
RCW 84.36.020;
(f) Acquisition of property interests by state agencies or agencies or organizations qualified under
RCW 84.34.210 and 64.04.130 for purposes enumerated in those sections
[see RCW 84.34.108(6)(f)];
(g) Removal of land classified as farm and agricultural land under RCW 84.34.020(2)(f);
(h) Removal of land from classification after enactment of a statutory exemption that qualifies the
land for exemption and receipt of notice from the owner to remove the land from classification;
(i) The creation, sale, or transfer of forestry riparian easements under RCW 76.13.120;
(j) The creation, sale, or transfer of a conservation easement of private forest lands within
unconfined channel migration zones or containing critical habitat for threatened or
endangered species under RCW 76.09.040;
(k) The sale or transfer of land within two years after the death of the owner of at least a fifty
percent interest in the land if the land has been assessed and valued as classified forest
land, designated as forest land under chapter 84.33 RCW, or classified under this chapter
continuously since 1993.The date of death shown on a death certificate is the date used; or
(I) (i)The discovery that the land was classified under this chapter in error through no fault of the
owner. For purposes of this subsection (6)(I), "fault" means a knowingly false or misleading
statement, or other act or omission not in good faith, that contributed to the approval of
classification under this chapter or the failure of the assessor to remove the land from
REV 64 0070 (7/17/25) Page 2
Notice of Owner's Request to Remove Current Use Departmentof
Revenue
Classification Washington State
classification under this chapter.
(ii) For purposes of this subsection (6),the discovery that land was classified under this chapter
in error through no fault of the owner is not the sole reason for removal of
classification pursuant to subsection (1) of this section if an independent basis for removal
exists. Examples of an independent basis for removal include the owner changing the use of the
land or failing to meet any applicable income criteria required for classification under this
chapter; or
(m) The sale or transfer to a governmental entity if the governmental entity manages the
land in the same manner as designated forestland under chapter 84.33 RCW,
or as property classified as timberland under this chapter, and the governmental entity
provides the county assessor with a timber management plan or a notice of intent to manage
the land as required under this subsection (6)(m).The governmental entity must provide an
updated timberland or forestland management plan to the county assessor at least once
every revaluation cycle.The county is authorized to collect a fee from the governmental entity
for the filing of the forestland or timberland management plan in accordance with the county's
fee schedule. When the land is not managed as required under this subsection (6)(m),
or when the governmental entity sells or transfers the land at any time,the additional tax
specified in subsection (4) of this section is due from the current government owner,
unless the change in use of the land, sale or transfer, meets one of the other exceptions in this
subsection (6).
Signature of property owner: ` ✓� Date: �=20
REV 64 0070 (7/17/25) Page 3
Exhibit "A"
Property Description
Property 1:
That portion of the East quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 28,Township 19 North,Range 6 West,
W.M.,Mason County,Washington,lying Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of Satsop-Cloquallum
County Road No.02000;EXCEPTING therefrom that portion thereof particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southeast corner of said subdivision;thence North 87°47'42"West along the South line
of said subdivision,631.54 feet;thence North 3008'56"East,1370.06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the
tract of land hereby described;thence continuing North 3°08'56"East,300 feet to the South margin of the
Satsop-Cloquallum County Road No.02000;thence Easterly along said South margin North 86°16'47"East,
190.59 to the point of beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 235.00 feet;thence along said curve
to the right through a central angle of 21°29'06"for an arc distance of 88.12 feet;thence leaving said South
margin,South 3°08'56"West 316.88 feet;thence North 86°51'04"West,276.63 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
(Said land being also known and described as Lots 1,2,3 and 4 of survey recorded May 18,1989,1n Volume 13
of Surveys,page 243,Auditor's File No.493793,records of Mason County,Washington.)
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to Mason County in deed recorded September 24,2004,
Auditor's File No.1820645.
Received 05.13.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin,
Sharon Trask and Pat Tarzwell.
Travis Adams,McKenzie Smith,
Cheryl Heywood,Brenda Lane
Entry#: 74-Timberland Regional Library(TRL) Board of Trustees Status: Submitted Submitted: 5/12/2026 3:07 PM
S, cooNTo Advisory Board Name:
Timberland Regional Library(TRL) Board of Trustees
1854
Name: Today's Date:
Cassandra Jean Marie Ness 5/12/2026
Address
Voting Precinct: Phone Email
(
Community Service: Employment:
I currently Volunteer with "Saint Bernards of the PNW" a local Kitsap Credit Union, Learning & Development Operations
non profit dedicated to rescuing large breed dogs. Specialist, 4 years.
At Kitsap Credit Union I also serve on our Employee
Engagement and Events Committee as the Chair.This
committee is responsible for hosting, and planning events for
employees of the credit union. In my role as Chair I oversee
the committee, host our meetings, ensure our budget is on
track along with other duties as they come up.
What do you perceive is the role or purpose of this advisory board?
The Purpose of the Timberland Regional Library Board of Trustees is to steward a strong, equitable public library system by
setting clear policy direction and long-term vision.This board ensures communities across the region but especially in rural
communities like Mason County have access to free public library services that support learning, connection, and opportunity for
all.
What interest or skills do you wish to offer this advisory board?
I bring a strong background in learning operations, and community focused work. Professionally I offer strengths in work that is
adjacent to governance such as policy awareness, process improvement, and thoughtful decision making that is grounded in
impact and data.As a lifelong resident of Mason County I also bring a local perspective with a collaborative mindset and
commitment to stewarding public resources responsibly.
List any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations that could create a potential conflict of interest:
NA
Required Training: Yes or No:
Participation is dependent on attending certain trainings such as the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) Yes
and Public Records Act (PRA)trainings at no cost to you. Will you be able to attend such trainings?
How much time can you commit to Are you a U.S. citizen and *For Civil Service applications ONLY,what
this advisory board: Mason County resident? is your political party?
Monthly,Weekly Yes
Received 05.18.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin,
Sharon Trask and Pat Tarzwell.
Travis Adams,McKenzie Smith,
LIQUOR&CANNABIS
Washington State Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
g Licensing Division: Cannabis Unit
Liquor and Cannabis Board 1025 Union Ave SE, P.O.Box 43098
Olympia,WA 98504-3098
Customer Service: (360)664-1600
Fax:(360)753-2710\Website:www.Icb.wa.gov
NOTICE OF CANNABIS LICENSE APPLICATION
Please reply to the original email and attach your completed form.
Click the Reply or Reply All option to make sure your response is correctly routed.
DATE: 5/15/2026
TO: MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RE: Change of Location
UBI:I: 6035159930010001
License:416953-7R APPLICANTS:
ROCKSTAR FARMS LLC
Trade Name: ROCK STAR FARMS
SEAN FOSTER ROCK, 12/02/1986
Loc Addr: 141 W WESTFIELD CT UNIT 1-4
SHELTON WA 98584-4604
CORT RODNEY LECHELT, 08/19/1951
Mail Addr: 19123 3RD AVE NE
POULSBO WA 98370-7346
MICHAEL J MAZZOLA, 04/12/1985
Contact Phone No.: 609--46-2-82
Privileges Applied For:
Cannabis Producer Tier 3
Cannabis Processor
Endorsements Applied For:
As required by RCW 69.50.331(7), the Liquor and Cannabis Board is notifying you that the
above has applied for a cannabis license. You have 20 days from the date of this notice to provide
input on this application. If we do not receive this notice back within 20 days, we will assume you
have no objection to the issuance of the license. If you need additional time to respond, you must
submit a written request for an extension of up to 20 days, with the reason(s) you need more
time.
Washington State Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
gLicensing Division: Cannabis Unit
Liquor and Cannabis Board 1025 Union Ave SE, P.O.Box 43098
Olympia,WA 98504-3098
Customer Service: (360)664-1600
Fax:(360)753-2710\Website:www.Icb.wa.gov
If you need information on SSN, contact LCB's Cannabis CHRI at (360) 664-1704.
YES NO
1. Do you approve of the applicant? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ ❑
2. Do you approve of the location? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ❑ ❑
If you disapprove, per RCW 69.50.331(7)(c) you MUST attach a letter to the Board detailing the reason(s)for
the objection providing facts on which your objection(s) are based.
DATE SIGNATURE OF MAYOR,CITY MANAGER,COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS,OR DESIGNEE
Received 05.18.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin,
Sharon Task end Pat Terzwell.
Travis Adams,Mckenzie Smith
QPp4e,NT OC'OA
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
"'4TE5 OF
May 18, 2026
Randy Neatherlin, District 1 Commissioner
Pat Tarzwell, District 2 Commissioner
Sharon Trask, District 3 Commissioner
Mason County Board of Commissioners
411 North 5th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Commissioners:
I regret to inform you that the Economic Development Administration(EDA) has de-
designated Columbia-Pacific Resource Conservation and Economic Development District (Col-
Pac RCEDD) as an EDA-designated Economic Development District(EDD). Col-Pac RCEDD
was comprised of Grays Harbor, Pacific, Mason and Wahkiakum counties.
The de-designation of Col-Pac RCEDD is authorized under Section 402 of the Public
Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as amended(42 U.S.C. § 3172), and will take
effect as of the date on the enclosed Memorandum of Official De-Designation of an Economic
Development District. This action is necessary due to Col-Pac RCEDD's inability to meet the
EDD staffing and operations requirements of 13 C.F.R. § 304.2.
EDA will continue to work with stakeholders in your region to identify opportunities to
pursue EDA assistance for economic development activities. Our mission is to lead the Federal
economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness and preparing
American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy.
If you have any questions or need further information regarding this matter,please
contact Kerstin Millius,Acting Seattle Regional Office Director, at (206) 844-3909.
Sincerely,
Ben Page
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Economic Development
and Chief Operating Officer
Received 05.19.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin,
Sharon Trask and Pat Tarzwell.
Travis Adams,McKenzie Smith,
LIQUOR&CANNABIS
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board
Licensing Division:Alcohol Unit
Washington State 1025 Union Ave SE, P.O. Box 43098
Liquor and Cannabis Board
Olympia, WA 98504-3098
Customer Service: (360)664-1600
Fax: (360)753-2710 Website:www.Icb.wa.gov
NOTICE OF SPECIAL OCCASION LICENSE APPLICATION
RETURN THIS NOTICE TO: LARESPONSE(a_LCB.WA.GOV
May 19,2026
To: MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Organization Name: WASHINGTON INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION
Organization Address: 525 PEAR ST SE, OLYMPIA,WA, USA, 98501
Contact Name: REBECCA GEORGE
Contact DOB: 9/26/1976
Contact Phone: 360-352-3248
Special Occasion#: 036227
Event Date(s)/Time: 6/16/2026-6/17/2026; 12:00 PM -6:00 PMNORTHWEST INDIAN GAMING CONFERENCE& EXPO
Event Location(s):
LITTLE CREEK CASINO RESORT-91 WA-108, SHELTON,WA 98584-9998
A SPECIAL OCCASION LICENSE ALLOWS THE ORGANIZATION TO:
_Sell beer for consumption at the above specified date,time, and location.
_Sell wine for consumption at the above specified date,time, and location.
_Sell spirits by the individual serving for consumption at the above specified date,time, and location.
_Sell beer,wine and spirits in unopened bottles or packages in limited
quantities for off premise consumption at the above specified date,time, and location.
You have 20 days from the date of this notice to provide input regarding this application. If we do not receive a response within
20 days,we will assume you have no objections to the issuance of the license. If you need additional time to respond,you must
submit a written request with your reason(s)for an extension of up to 20 days.
1. Do you approve of the applicant? YES NO
2. Do you approve of the event location? YES NO
If you have indicated disapproval of the applicant, location,or both, please submit a statement of all facts on which your objection(s)
are based.
Date Signature of Mayor, City Manager, County Commissioner or Designee
Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes
Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5th Street,Shelton,WA 98584
Week of May 11,2026
Monday,May 11,2026
9:00 A.M. Closed Session—RCW 42.30.140(4)Labor Discussion
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask met in closed session for labor negotiation from 9:00
a.m.to 10:00 a.m.Attendees:Travis Adams,Kim Monroe,Kayla Brinckmeyer,Christopher Pinkston.
10:00 A.M. Executive Session—RCW 42.30.110(1)(c)Real Estate
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask met in executive session from 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m.
Attendees:Travis Adams and Christopher Pinkston.
10:15 A.M. Planning Advisory Commission Interview
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• Interview with William Bezanson for the Planning Advisory Commission(PAC)was cancelled.
10:20 A.M. Community Development—Kell Rowen
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• Kell shared that Community Development will be closed for an all staff meeting on Tuesday,June 2,
2026.
• Kell provided an update on the Public Hearing for proposed amendments Mason County Code Section
17.05.034 Granting of Variances Authorized and asked to postpone the Public Hearing until a future
date due to staff identified internal workflow issues.
10:25 A.M. Superior Court—Paddy McGuire
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• Paddy provided an update on Superior Court budget items that are increasing: interpreters,travel for
interpreters,jury supplies,jury fees,and jury meals.The main Courtroom also needs the JAVS
recording system replaced for an estimated$90,000.
10:30 A.M. Public Health—David Windom
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• Melissa Casey shared the Department of Commerce Consolidated Homeless Grant(CHG)amendment
for additional funding of$65,198 for fiscal year 2026 and$490,596 for fiscal year 2027.Approved to
move forward.
10:35 A.M. Public Works—Loretta Swanson
Utilities&Waste Management
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• Loretta and Richard Dickinson discussed the revision to Mason County Code Chapter 13.34—Water
Leak Policy. Commissioners discussed a$2,000 cap for staff approval.
• Loretta discussed budget amendment requests for Paths and Trails,Road Fund,and Beard's Cove
Water.
• Loretta shared the Victor Improvement Club(VIC)lease agreement.An extension was granted on the
current lease agreement,but another extension is needed.Public Works recommends purchasing the
land from the VIC.
• Richard shared a mixer at the Belfair facility failed,currently using the backup but needs to replace the
backup. Cost is estimated at$14,000.
10:45 A.M. Support Services—Travis Adams
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• McKenzie Smith shared a request for letter of support from the Great Peninsula Conservancy
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program(WWRP)Grant Application(Potlatch Tree Farm
Protection Project)No.26-1697.Approved to move forward.
May 11,2026 I Page 1 of 2
Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes
Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5th Street,Shelton,WA 98584
• McKenzie shared the 2025 Oath of Inventory.Approved to move forward.
• Jennifer Beierle requested to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday,June 23,2026,at 9:15 a.m.to inform
citizens of the availability of funds and eligible uses of the state Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG)and receive comments on proposed activities specifically funding the Community Action
Council of Lewis,Mason,and Thurston Counties(CAC),as well as receive comments on the 2025-
2026 program.Approved to move forward.
• Jennifer shared the requests for supplemental appropriations and amendments to the 2026 budget.Net
total of adjustments to the 2026 authorized expenditure appropriations in the General Fund is an
increase of$164,551 and in funds other than the General Fund is an increase$442,358 before the
$75,000 change from Paths and Trails.Approved to move forward.
• Jennifer shared the draft 2027 Mason County Preliminary Budget Guidelines.
• Travis discussed the Port of Shelton.09 Fund request to make upgrades to the Port to assist with a
Canadian Manufacturing Company's relocation.
• Cmmr.Neatherlin discussed resigning from the Cemetery Board.
• Commissioners discussed derelict properties and the code enforcement task force.
Respectfully submitted,
McKenzie Smith,
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Sharon Trask,
Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner
May 11,2026 I Page 2 of 2
Board of Mason County Commissioners
Proceedings
Commission Chambers
411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA 98584
May 12, 2026
1. Call to Order—The Chairperson called the regular meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance—Dan Cameron led the flag salute.
3. Roll Call—Present: Commissioner District 1 —Randy Neatherlin; Commissioner District 2—
Pat Tarzwell; Commissioner District 3 —Sharon Trask.
4. Correspondence and Organizational Business
4.1 Correspondence
4.1.1 Letters regarding the potential wake boat Ordinance were received from Travis Duty,
David Meinert,Le Powers,Michael Jones,Teresa Stoddard,Kevin Rae,Brian Bare,Mike
and Connie Stoney,Mike Stoney,Josh Steele,and Doug Stankavich.
4.1.2 Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board sent in a notice of cannabis license
application from Purple Light Inc and Three Plus A LLC.
4.1.3 Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board sent in local authority renewal notice.
4.1.4 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC)sent Spillway Gate Inspection Reports
(GIRs)annual recommendation status updates for Tacoma Power projects.
4.1.5 Washington State County Road Administration Board(CRAB)sent in a Certificate of
Good Practice for Mason County.
4.2 Kevin Guijosa read the Solid Waste Advisory Committee(SWAG)Vacancy news release.
4.3 Loretta Swanson read the Transportation Improvement Program Citizens Advisory Panel(TIP-
CAP)Vacancy news release.
4.4 McKenzie Smith read the Mason County Cemetery District No. 1 Commissioner Vacancy news
release.
5. Open Forum for Citizen Input
Susan Kirchoff,Executive Director and Founder of The Youth Connection,gave her thanks and
kudos to the Commissioners for the work they do and shared that The Youth Connection is on
track for the remodel and is going out to bid.
Tamra Ingwaldson,New Horizon Communities,echoed kudos for the Commissioners and their
efforts.New Horizons is hosting a Garden Party Where Hope Takes Root on September 19,2026,
from 4:00 p.m.to 7:00 p.m. at the Lacey Community Center. The annual 2025 report is also
available on the website.
Ken Van Buskirk shared he was pleased regarding the Great Peninsula Conservancy letter of
support.
6. Adoption of Agenda
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to adopt the agenda with the removal of Item
8.10.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye.
7. Approval of Minutes
Cmmr.Trask/Neatherlin moved and seconded to adopt the April 27 and May 4,2026,Briefing
Minutes and April 28,2026,Regular Minutes as presented.Motion carried unanimously.
Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye.
8. Approval of Action Agenda
8.1 Approval of Warrants and Treasurer Electronic Remittances
Claims Clearing Fund Warrant#8120745-8120997 $ 815,306.73
Direct Deposit Fund Warrant# 125483-125890 $1,023,018.31
Salary Clearing Fund Warrant#7009638-7009663 $ 653,121.89
Treasurer Electronic Remittance $ 342,983.49
8.2 Approval of the Crossroads Housing—Housing&Essential Needs(HEN)amendment funding
increase in the amount of$62,098. (Contract No.25-030)
8.3 Approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday,June 9,2026,at 9:15 a.m.to consider proposed
amendments and map changes to the Skokomish Valley.
8.4 Approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday,June 9,2026, at 9:15 a.m.to consider proposed
amendments to Title 17 related to densities in the Allyn and Belfair Urban Growth Areas
(UGAs).
8.5 Approval for Public Works to issue a water leak credit for Beards Cove water customer
#304062 in the amount of$1,320,plus applicable late fees,based on verification that the leak
has been repaired.
8.6 Approval of the Mason County Public Facilities Fund(.09 Fund)Grant Process.
8.7 Approval of the Emergency Management Performance Grant(EMPG)FY24 Reallocation
contract E26-257,awarding$4,800 from Washington State Military Department(EM[))and
U.S.Department of Homeland Security to Mason County for the performance period of January
1,2026,through September 30,2026. (Contract No.26-021)
8.8 Approval of the contribution to Teamsters Pension Trust Fund for the General Services
Collective Bargaining Agreement(CBA).
8.9 Approval for Facilities to complete the roof rehabilitation project for the Courthouse,Building
3,and Building 12 for the estimated cost of$60,000 using Real Estate Excise Tax(REET)
funds.
8.10 Approval to award funding from the.09 Rural County Sales and Use Tax Fund No. 103 to the
Port of Shelton in the amount of$350,000.
Cmmr.Trask/Neatherlin moved and seconded to approve action items 8.1 through 8.9. Motion
carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye.
9. Other Business(Department Heads and Elected Officials)
Loretta Swanson,Public Works,thanked staff for the receipt of the Good Practice award from the
County Road Administration Board.
10. 9:15 a.m. Public Hearings and Items Set for a Certain Time
Please see above options to provide public testimony. These options are available only while COVID-19 OPMA
meeting restrictions are in place.
10.1 Public Hearing to consider amendments to Mason County Code Section 17.05.034—Granting
of Variances Authorized. Staff:Kell Rowen
Kell Rowen,Community Development Director,requested to continue to Tuesday,June 9,
2026,at 9:15 a.m.Amendments to require for individual administrative variance under certain
circumstances—to reduce the minimum setback from property lines to a minimum of 10 feet
for front and rear yards(otherwise 25 feet and 20 feet respectively), and a minimum of five(5)
feet for side yards(otherwise 20 feet),require to get a survey for property lines or identify
from previous survey there are markers,or work with neighbor/WSDOT and sign affidavit.
May 12,2026 I Page 2 of 3
When discussed with staff,internal workflow issues were identified that need to be worked out
between permit and planning.
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to table the Public Hearing concerning
amendments to Mason County Code Section 17.05.034—Granting of Variances
Authorized to Tuesday,June 9,2026,at 9:15 a.m.Motion carried unanimously.
Neatherlin-aye;Tarzwell-aye; Trask-aye.
10.2 Public Hearing to consider the South Mason Fire District territory withdrawal. Staff: Travis
Adams
Travis Adams,County Administrator, shared this is a continuance of previous Public Hearing.
A Resolution was received from the South Mason Fire District withdrawing the request to
remove certain territories from service jurisdiction.
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Trask moved and seconded to accept letter from South Mason Fire
District and close out the Public Hearing.Motion carried unanimously.Neatherlin-aye;
Tarzwell-aye;Trask-aye.
11. Board's Calendar and Reports—The Commissioners reported on meetings attended the past
week and announced their upcoming weekly meetings.
12. Adjournment—The meeting adjourned at 9:29 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board Pat Tarzwell, Chair
Randy Neatherlin,Vice-Chair
Sharon Trask, Commissioner
May 12,2026 I Page 3 of 3
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Kariann Rutledge Ext: 380
Department: Central Services Briefing: ❑
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): Click or tap here to enter text. Agenda Date(s): May 261,2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Item:
Approval of Warrants &Treasurer Electronic Remittances
Claims Clearing Fund Warrant#8120998-8121278 $ 2,043,684.33
Direct Deposit Fund Warrant# 125891-126305 $ 981,719.63
Salary Clearing Fund Warrant#7009664-7009703 $ 1,295,811.93
Background/Executive Summary:
The Board approved Resolution no. 80-00 Payment of Claims Against County: Procedure Authorizing
Warrant Issue and Release Prior to Board Claim Approval. Mason County Code 3.32.060(a)requires that
the Board enter into the minutes of the County Commissioners the approval of claims listing warrant
numbers.
Claims Clearing YTD total $ 22,291,435.39
Direct Deposit YTD total $ 8,943,401.26
Salary Clearing YTD total $ 9,155,065.80
Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
See above.
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Approval of the aforementioned Claims Clearing Fund,Direct Deposit Fund, Salary Clearing Fund, and
Treasurer Electronic Remittance warrants.
Attachment(s):
Originals on file with Financial Services and the Treasurer's Office; copies on file with the Clerk of the
Board
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Melissa Casey Ext:404
Department: Public Health Briefing: ❑X
Action Agenda: ❑x
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): 5/11/26 Agenda Date(s): 5/26/26
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item: Consolidated Homeless Grant Additional Funds
Background/Executive Summary:
The Department of Commerce has awarded additional funds for SFY26 and SFY27 to support existing
homeless response system programs. Funds are prioritized for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing
rental assistance.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
Additional funds from Department of Commerce Consolidated Homeless Grant: $65,198 for SFY26 and
$490,596 for SFY27
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Move amendment to 5/26/26 action agenda for approval
Attachment(s):
Commerce Contract 26-46108-20 Amendment A
Docusign Envelope ID: B59EF98D-EB38-41E4-BF83-AA47E237FB6A Ds
,- mendment 5AA
Washington Stale
Department of
V� Commerce
Contract Number:26-46108-20
Amendment:A
Washington State Department of Commerce
Housing Division
Homelessness Assistance Unit
Consolidated Homeless Grant(CHG)
1.Contractor 2.Contractor Doing Business As(optional)
Mason County Public Health&Human Services
415 N 6th Street
Shelton,WA 98584
3.Contractor Representative 4.COMMERCE Representative
Todd Parker Tia Stoner PO Box 42525
Community Health Specialist Contract Manager 1011 Plum St SE
(360)427-9670 x 293 360-725-5060 Olympia,WA 98504-2525
tparker@masoncountywa.gov Tia.Stoner@Commerce.wa.gov
5.Original Contract Amount 6.Amendment Amount 7.New Contract Amount
(and any previous amendments)
$7,453,546.00 $555,794.00 $8,009,340.00
8.Amendment Funding Source 9.Amendment Start Date 10.Amendment End Date
Federal: State:X Other: N/A: SFY 26 funds: February 1,2026 SFY 26 funds: June 30,2026
SFY 27 funds:July 1,2026 SFY 27 funds: June 30,2027
11.Federal Funds(as applicable): Federal Agency: CFDA Number:
N/A N/A N/A
12.Amendment Purpose:
• Adds SFY 26 and SFY 27 funds.
• Funds must be prioritized for existing programs.
• SFY 26 funds are available February 1,2026 and must be spent by June 30,2026.
• SFY 27 funds are available July 1,2026 and must be spent by June 30,2027.
COMMERCE,defined as the Department of Commerce, and the Contractor,as defined above,acknowledge and accept the terms
of this Contract As Amended and attachments and have executed this Contract Amendment on the date below to start as of the date
and year referenced above. The rights and obligations of both parties to this Contract As Amended are governed by this Contract
Amendment and the following other documents incorporated by reference: CHG Guidelines(as they may be revised from time to
time),and Contract Terms and Conditions including Attachment"B"—Budget.A copy of this Contract Amendment shall be
attached to and made a part of the original Contract between COMMERCE and the Contractor.Any reference in the original
Contract to the"Contract"shall mean the"Contract as Amended".
FOR GRANTEE FOR COMMERCE
Pat Tarzwell,County Commissioner Tedd Kelleher,Interim Assistant Director
Housing Division
Date Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY
BY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
APPROVAL ON FILE
Department of Commerce
Docusign Envelope ID: B59EF98D-EB38-41 E4-BF83-AA47E237FB6A
Amendment
This Contract is amended as follows:
Attachment B
Budget
Budget Categories Current Contract Amendment A New Total
Amount
(and any previous
amendments and
revisions)
Standard(SFY 2026 and 2027)
Standard Admin $229,147.00 $229,147.00
Standard Operations $194,916.00 $194,916.00
Homeless Prevention(SFY 2026 and 2027)
Homelessness Prevention Admin $314,634.00 $314,634.00
Homelessness Prevention Rent $821,241.00 $821,241.00
Homelessness Prevention Operations $625,960.00 $625,960.00
Emergency Housing(SFY 2026
Emergency Housing Admin 2026 $81,433.00 $81,433.00
Emergency Housing Rent 2026 $49,976.00 $49,976.00
Emergency Housing Facility Support 2026 $769,162.36 $769,162.36
Emergency Housing Operations 2026 $4,240.64 $4,240.64
Emergency Housing(SFY 2027
Emergency Housing Admin 2027 $131,409.00 $131,409.00
Emergency Housing Rent 2027 $0.00 $0.00
Emergency Housing Facility Support 2027 $773,403.00 $773,403.00
Emergency Housing Operations 2027 $0.00 $0.00
Inflation Increase
Inflation Increase 2026 $183,100.00 $183,100.00
Inflationary Increase 2027 $183,100.00 $183,100.00
Document Recording Fee(DRF)Backfill
DRF Backfill 2026 $424,582.00 $17,370.00 $441,952.00
DRF Backfill 2027 $0.00 $435,004.00 $435,004.00
HEN SFY 2026
HEN Admin 2026 $253,276.00 $253,276.00
HEN Rent/Facility Support 2026 $799,112.00 $47,828.00 $846,940.00
HEN Operations 2026 $281,233.00 $281,233.00
HEN SFY 2027
HEN Admin 2027 $200,000.00 $200,000.00
HEN Rent/Facility Support 2027 $883,621.00 $55,592.00 $939,213.00
HEN Operations 2027 $250,000.00 $250,000.00
TOTAL $7,453,546.00 $555,794.00 $8,009,340.00
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTRACT REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT
2
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: McKenzie Smith Ext: 589
Department: Support Services Briefing:
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): May 11,2026 Agenda Date(s): May 26,2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item:
Letter of Support for Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program(WWRP) Grant Application(Potlatch
Tree Farm Protection Project)No.26-1697
Background/Executive Summary:
Great Peninsula Conservancy is seeking funding through the Washington Wildlife and Recreation
Program(WWRP)to acquire a permanent conservation easement on approximately 459 acres of privately
owned forestland located approximately one mile south of the community of Hoodsport along Highway
101 in Mason County.
The property, a family-owned tree farm,has been actively managed as a working forest for more than 80
years and includes mixed species and mixed-aged stands. The proposed conservation easement would
protect the property from development, subdivision, and other non-compatible uses while maintaining its
long-term viability for timber production and sustainable forest management.
The project is intended to provide multiple public benefits, including preservation of working forestland,
protection of wildlife habitat, continued support of the local natural resource-based economy,and
conservation of scenic views along a highly traveled corridor adjacent to Hood Canal.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
N/A
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Approval of the letter of support for the Great Peninsula Conservancy's Washington Wildlife and
Recreation Program(WWRP)grant application for the Potlatch Tree Farm Protection Project.
Attachment(s):
Letter of Support
Great Peninsula Conservancy Letter
,v Cot+
May 26,2026
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program
7854 PO Box 40917
Olympia,WA 98504
MASON COUNTY
BOARD Re: Great Peninsula Conservancy's RCO Grant Application No.26-1697
OF
COMMISSIONERS Dear WWRP Grant Review Committee,
The Mason County Board of County Commissioners is pleased to offer its strong support for the
1ST District Great Peninsula Conservancy's application to the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program
RANDY NEATHERLIN (WWRP)for funding to acquire a permanent conservation easement on approximately 459 acres of
working forestland located just south of the community of Hoodsport along Highway 101.
2nd District This project represents a meaningful opportunity to conserve a significant expanse of productive
PAT TARZWELL forestland that has been actively and responsibly managed by a local family for more than 80 years.
The proposed conservation easement will ensure the long-term protection of this property from
3rd District subdivision, development, and other non-compatible uses, while maintaining its viability as a
SHARON TRASK working forest that contributes to Mason County's natural resource-based economy.
The Commission recognizes the multiple public benefits associated with this project.Protection of
this landscape will support sustained timber production and local economic activity, preserve
Mason County Building 1 important wildlife habitat, and maintain the ecological integrity of forest resources along the Hood
Canal corridor.In addition,conserving this property will help retain the scenic character of a highly
traveled segment of Highway 101,which is valued by both residents and visitors.
411 North Fifth Street
Projects such as this reflect a balanced approach to land stewardship—one that honors the region's
Shelton,WA 98584-3400 forestry heritage while advancing long-term conservation and community objectives. The
willingness of the landowners to participate in this effort further underscores the strength of this
(360)427-9670 ext.419 proposal and its alignment with local values.
Fax(360)427-8437 For these reasons,Mason County strongly supports the Great Peninsula Conservancy's request for
WWRP funding. We respectfully encourage the Recreation and Conservation Office to give this
project full and favorable consideration.
Sincerely,
Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Sharon Trask,
Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner
►*A 6536 Kitsap Way
W Great Bremerton,WA 98312
Peninsula info@greatpeninsula.org
`. (360)373-3500
' ' Conservancy greatpeninsula.org
April 29, 2026
County Commissioner Sharon Trask
411 North 5th Street
Shelton, WA, 98584
Subject: Notice of Property Acquisition in Mason County
RCO Grant Application #26-1697
Honorable Sharon Trask,
I am writing to inform you that Great Peninsula Conservancy is applying for a grant through the
Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP)to acquire a conservation easement located just
south of the community of Hoodsport, Mason County. If awarded, this grant funding would allow
acquisition from willing landowners of an approximately 459-acre conservation easement on a family-
owned tree farm along Highway 101. This acquisition is intended to provide community benefit through
conserving forestland for timber production and natural resource protection.
State law, Revised Code of Washington 79A.15.110, requires that we notify the local legislative body of
our intent to apply for a state grant to acquire real property from the WWRP, administered by the
Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO). This letter is your notification. The law states that the local
legislative authority may, at its discretion, submit a letter to the RCO identifying its position with about the
acquisition project. Any letters received will be made available to the governor and the state Legislature
when the prioritized project list is submitted as part of the RCO's capital budget request.
The law also states that we must"confer"with local officials on this acquisition. And to meet grant
program deadlines, we must complete this before July 15, 2026. Please let me know who the appropriate
contact(s) is/are so we may begin discussions.
Enclosed is the application project description, location map, and parcel map of the proposed project.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information about this acquisition
proposal. I can be reached at(360)373-3500 ext. 103 or at ali@greatpeninsula.org.
Sincerely,
A61qua
Ali Querin
Senior Conservation Project Manager
►*A 6536 Kitsap Way
G reat Bremerton,WA 98312
Peninsula info@greatpeninsula.org
`. (360)373-3500
' Conservancy greatpeninsula.org
For reference:
Revised Code of Washington 79A.15.110
Review of proposed project application.
State or local agencies or nonprofit nature conservancies shall review the proposed project
application and confer with the county or city with jurisdiction over the project area prior to
applying for funds for the acquisition of property under this chapter. The appropriate county or
city legislative authority may, at its discretion, submit a letter to the board identifying the
authority's position with regard to the acquisition project. The board shall make the letters
received under this section available to the governor and the legislature when the prioritized
project list is submitted under this chapter.
Revised Code of Washington 79A.15.010
"Confer" means a dialogue between project sponsors and local county and city officials with the
purpose of early review of potential projects. The dialogue may include any matter relevant to a
particular project, which may include but need not be limited to: Project purpose and scope;
project elements; estimated project cost; costs and benefits to the community; plans for project
management and maintenance; and public access.
Project Description:
Great Peninsula Conservancy seeks to acquire a permanent conservation easement to protect
459 acres of forestland along Hood Canal in Mason County, approximately one mile south of
the community of Hoodsport. The Potlach Tree Farm Protection project will protect productive
forestland, including mixed species and mixed aged stands, by protecting the property from
development, subdivision, and non-compatible uses. This property has been actively managed
as a working forest for more than 80 years by the current landowning family, with multiple
generations providing timber and other forest products for local mills and communities, while
prioritizing forest health and ecosystem benefits. This project aims to protect the property from
conversion to development in order to protect sustained forest products, local economic impact,
wildlife habitat, and visual impacts to a popular travel corridor along Highway 101.
►*A 6536 Kitsap Way
W G rest Bremerton,WA 98312
Peninsula info@greatpeninsula.org
`. (360)373-3500
' Conservancy greatpeninsula.org
ii — J !I
o �
I
c'"' -O � Li pu10i r0 J C p� � N y O NcOU1 QE = 2 OOZ 01� � U � O
v a a a a
w
a z a Ul O O U'
a JIll k1
0
a N 0
E �o Bdp
Mo
L L �
f0 fY d' .I /P`PJ a° d
E
O 9
O
z In
�.=1
2) I
■
0 U o
z z
'G4 Great 6536 Kitsap Way
Bremerton,WA 98312
Peninsula info@greatpeninsula.org
` . Conservancy (360)373-3500
greatpeninsula.org
;* Great Potlatch Tree Farm Protection
;J Peninsula RCO Project #26-1697
'' Conservancy Parcel Map
Potlatch Tree Farm -
Main Ownership 422144300000
—447 acres
422231100p050
422231100040 FI
422232100000 422231200000
0-
422231100000
422232000000 422231�1O
*1' :
422232400000 422231300050 b
422231300000 •
•
422234200000
422233200000 Potlatch Tree Farm-
422233100000 ' Additional Ownership
422234200660 -12 acres
42223430c1.
422233400080
422233300000
422233400090 ��1 �
Project Area Main Ownership Additional Ownership , Highway 101
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: McKenzie Smith Ext: 589
Department: Support Services Briefing:
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): May 11,2026 Agenda Date(s): May 26,2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item:
2025 Oath of Inventory
Background/Executive Summary:
Per RCW 36.32.210,each Board of County Commissioners shall file with the Auditor a full and complete
inventory of all capital assets. The Oath of Inventory includes equipment that costs $5,000 or more and
other capital assets.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
N/A
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Approval of the 2025 Oath of Inventory.
Attachment(s):
Oath of Inventory
MASON COUNTY
OATH OF INVENTORY
AS OF DECEMBER 31,2025
As required by RCW 36.32.210,and in compliance with Chapter 3.56 of the
Mason County Code,we,the Commissioners of Mason County,do solemnly
swear that this is the full and complete inventory,to the best of our knowledge,
of all capitalized machinery and equipment and capital assets for
Mason County as of December 31, 2025.
Supporting documentation for this inventory is on file in the Mason County
Support Services Department and Public Works Department.
Current Expense&Sheriff Special Funds $ 5,980,508.07
Information Technology Fund (#500) $ 1,032,935.23
Reserve for Tech Fund(#119) $ 595,547.67
County Road $ 574,154.58
Public Health Fund $ 276,591.06
Equipment Rental&Revolving Fund(#501)* $ 16,056,700.15
Total Machinery and Equipment $24,516,436.76
Capital Assets*:
Land $ 7,520,428.85
Other Improvements-Land $ 9,027,816.46
Buildings with Improvements $ 34,317,180.36
Construction in Progress $ 3,664,217.18
Public Works Road Land $ 3,766,357.34
Road Infrastructure $ 197,321,634.38
Road-Bridges $ 18,561,319.95
Road-Construction in Progress $ 1,020,887.30
ER&R Buildings(#501) $ 880,980.06
LandFill/Transfer Stations(#402) $ 2,289,089.00
North Bay/Case Inlet Sewer Utility(#403) $ 23,532,155.00
Rustlewood Sewer&Water(#411) $ 3,084,704.00
Beard's Cove Water(#412) $ 416,378.00
Belfair WW&Water Reclamation(#413) $ 50,139,142.00
*Source:Auditor's Report
See attachment A
2025 Oath of Inventory
Subscribed and sworn this date:
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Pat Tarzwell,Chair
Randy Neatherlin,Vice-Chair
Sharon Trask,Commissioner
J:\Capital Assets\2025 Equipment Lists\2025 Oath and Att A 1 of 1
Attachment A
Inventory Balance
Department/Fund As of 12/31/2025
Assessor -
Auditor Recording 63,191 .61
Facilities & Grounds 215,417.59
Clerk 88,359.98
Central Operations -
Coroner 104,968.14
District Court 7,702.67
Emergency Management 79,774.00
Public Defense -
Juvenile Facility 69,379.92
Parks 614,751 .77
Prosecuting Attorney 5,561 .74
Sheriff 2,159,706.73
K9 Sheriff 26,100.00
Superior Court 45,398.51
Treasurer 127,150.46
Motor Pool Vehicle & Equipment 2,373,044.95
Total Current Expense Fund, Sheriff
Special Funds $5,980,508.07
Information Technology Fund (#500) 1 ,032,935.23
Reserve for Tech Fund (#119) note: in 2020 Fund
119 merged with Fund 500 595,547.67
County Road Fund 574,154.58
Public Health Fund 276,591 .06
ER&R Fund 16,056,700.15
Total Other Funds: $18,535,928.69
Total Machinery & Equipment
Inventory as of 12/31/25 $ 24,516,436.76
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Jennifer Beierle Ext: 532
Department: Central Services Briefing: ❑X
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑X
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): 05/11/26 Agenda Date(s): 05/26/26
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Item:
Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday,June 23,2026 at 9:15 a.m. to inform citizens of the
availability of funds and eligible uses of the state Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) and
receive comments on proposed activities specifically funding the Community Action Council of Lewis,
Mason, and Thurston Counties(CAC), as well as receive comments on the 2025-2026 program.
Background/Executive Summary:
Mason County coordinates with the CAC on an annual basis to apply for,receive, and provide
services through a PS-CDBG grant administered by the Washington State Department of Commerce
(DOC).
For the 2026 program year(July 2026 -June 2027),up to $103,000.00 is proposed to be available
to Mason County and CAC-Mason, Lewis Counties to fund public services that principally benefit low-
and moderate-income persons. For the 2025 program years,Mason County and CAC-Mason,Lewis
Counties received$105,000.00.
As a part of the PS-CDBG application process,applicants are required to solicit public input on
the proposed activities and services to be provided as well as receive comments on current programming.
This citizen input is to be solicited at a published Public Hearing.
Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
This project is fully funded by the CDBG grant.
Public Outreach:
Notice of public hearing posted in newspaper; information regarding eligible activities and grant
amounts posted on Mason County website.
Requested Action:
Approval to set a public hearing on Tuesday,June 23,2026 at 9:15 a.m. to inform citizens of the
availability of funds and eligible uses of the state Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) and
receive comments on proposed activities specifically funding the Community Action Council of Lewis,
Mason, and Thurston Counties(CAC), as well as receive comments on the 2025-2026 program.
Attachment(s)
Eligible CDBG Public Service Activities
2026/2027 Proposed CDBG Public Service Grant Amounts
CDBG Fact Sheet
Public Hearing Notice
Summary of Eligible Activities
Public Facilities—Activities to design, construct, or reconstruct water and sewer systems, flood
and drainage facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, streets and sidewalks, and other public
facilities.
Special assessments for low- and moderate-income homeowners are eligible if the
improvements meet CDBG requirements, such as Labor Standards and Environmental Review.
For purposes of the CDBG program, "special assessment" is defined as the recovery of the
capital costs of a completed public improvement through:
1) a fee or charge levied or filed as a lien against a parcel of real estate as a direct result of a
benefit derived from the installation of a public improvement; or
2) a one-time charge made as a condition of access to the improved public system.
Low- and moderate-income property owners cannot be assessed or charged a fee to recover
the capital costs of any CDBG-funded public facility.
Community Facilities—Acquisition, design, construction, or reconstruction of community
facilities to serve lower income communities or lower income youth, elderly, or other lower
income groups with special needs. This includes shelters and transitional housing facilities. It
also includes acquisition, design, construction, or rehabilitation of fire protection facilities, and
purchase of fire protection equipment. Community facility projects must provide the intended
benefit for at least 10 years.
Economic Development—Construction or reconstruction of public infrastructure or facilities in
support of private for-profit entities when the project will create or retain full-time equivalent
(FTE), permanent jobs primarily for low- and moderate-income persons. Local microenterprise
assistance programs offering direct loans and technical assistance/training to commercial
enterprises with 5 or fewer employees, when at least one is the enterprise owner. Downtown
revitalization activities, including infrastructure improvements, facade rehabilitation, and
correction of code violations. Capitalizing a local economic development revolving loan fund for
eligible private for-profit entities to create or retain FTE permanent jobs primarily for low- and
moderate-income persons, or when the business provides essential services to residents of a
low- and moderate-income residential area. Limited assistance to private for-profit entities such
as loans, loan guarantees, interest supplements, and interim financing/float loans to create or
retain FTE, permanent jobs primarily for low- and moderate-income persons. The need for
public funds to benefit private for-profit entities must clearly balance the extent of public benefit
received.
Housing Rehabilitation —Activities to rehabilitate public or privately-owned, single- or multi-
family housing units, commercial buildings and other non-residential structures. Substantial
housing rehabilitation, lead-based paint mitigation, minor home repairs, energy conservation
improvements and removal of architectural barriers are eligible rehabilitation activities. Also
eligible is the cost of connecting residential structures to available water and sewer lines.
Rehabilitation assistance may be provided in the form of grants, loans, loan guarantees or
interest supplements. Housing rehabilitation grants are limited to $500,000 each. CDBG funds
available for general administration and housing rehabilitation administration costs are generally
limited to 25 percent of the CDBG award.
Comprehensive -A comprehensive project includes activities listed in at least two of the other
categories. For example, neighborhood revitalization by improving streets, sewer, water, and
housing rehabilitation, is considered comprehensive. These activities must be related and
coordinated to achieve more results than would be possible when addressed individually.
2019 CDBG General Purpose Grant Application Handbook 1 March 2019
Other Eligible Activities -The following activities are eligible, and depending on the context,
may qualify as elements of any of the above project categories:
■ Local Match - For the non-federal share required by other federal or state grant programs
used to support CDBG-eligible activities.
■ Relocation - Relocation payments and assistance to permanently or temporarily displaced
individuals, families, or businesses. All CDBG proposals that may cause displacement must
include relocation assistance in the project plan and budget.
TITLE 1 OF THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1974
This Act is the congressionally adopted statute from which most of the CDBG Program
regulations are developed. Section 105(a) identifies eligible activities and is reproduced, in its
entirety, below:
Eligible Activities - Section 105 (a) Activities assisted under this title may include
only:
(1) the acquisition of real property (including air rights, water rights, and other interests therein)
which is (A) blighted, deteriorated, deteriorating, undeveloped, or inappropriately developed
from the standpoint of sound community development and growth; (B) appropriate for
rehabilitation or conservation activities; (C) appropriate for the preservation or restoration of
historical sites, the beautification of urban land, the conservation of open spaces, natural
resources, and scenic areas, the provision of recreational opportunities, or the guidance of
urban development; (D) to be used for the provision of public works, facilities, and
improvements eligible for assistance under this title; or(E) to be used for other public purposes.
(2) the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, or installation (including design features and
improvements with respect to such construction, reconstruction, or installation that promote
energy efficiency) of public works, facilities (except for buildings for the general conduct of
government), and site or other improvements.
(3) code enforcement in deteriorated or deteriorating areas in which such enforcement, together
with public or private improvements or services to be provided, may be expected to arrest the
decline of the area.
(4) clearance, demolition, removal, and rehabilitation (including rehabilitation which promotes
energy efficiency) of buildings and improvements (including interim assistance, and financing
public or private acquisition for rehabilitation, and rehabilitation of privately owned properties
and including the renovation of closed school buildings).
(5) special projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers which restrict
the mobility and accessibility of elderly and handicapped persons.
(6) payments to housing owners for losses of rental income incurred in holding for temporary
periods housing units to be utilized for the relocation of individuals and families displaced by
activities under this title.
(7) disposition (through sale, lease, donation or otherwise) of any real property acquired
pursuant to this title or its retention for public purposes.
2 March 2019
(8) provisions of public services, including but not limited to those concerned with employment,
crime prevention, child care, health, drug abuse, education, energy conservation, welfare or
recreation needs, if such services have not been provided by the unit of general local
government (through funds raised by the said unit, or received by such unit from the state in
which it is located) during any part of the twelve-month period immediately preceding the date of
submission of the statement with respect to which funds are to be made available under this
title, and which are to be used for such services, unless the Secretary finds that the
discontinuation of such services was the result of events not within the control of the unit of
general local government, except that not more than 15 percent of the amount of any assistance
to a unit of general local government under this title may be used for activities under this
paragraph unless such unit of general local government used more than 15 percent of the
assistance received under this title for fiscal year 1982 or fiscal year 1983 for such activities
(excluding any assistance received pursuant to Public Law 98-8), in which case such unit of
general local government may use not more than the percentage or amount of such assistance
used for such activities for such fiscal year, whichever method of calculation yields the higher
amount.
(9) payment of the non-federal share required in connection with a federal grant-in-aid program
undertaken as part of activities assisted under this title.
(10) payment of the cost of completing a project funded under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949.
(11) relocation payments and assistance for displaced individuals, families, businesses,
organizations, and farm operations, when determined by the grantee to be appropriate.
(12) activities necessary (A) to develop a comprehensive community development plan, and (B)
to develop a policy-planning-management capacity so that the recipient of assistance under this
title may more rationally and effectively (i) determine its needs, (ii) set long-term goals and
short-term objectives, (iii) devise programs and activities to meet these goals and objectives, (iv)
evaluate the progress of such programs in accomplishing these goals and objectives, and (v)
carry out management, coordination, and monitoring of activities necessary for effective
planning implementation.
(13) payment of reasonable administrative costs related to establishing and administering
federally approved enterprise zones and payment of reasonable administrative costs and
carrying charges related to the planning and execution of community development and housing
activities, including the provision of information and resources to residents of areas in which
community development and housing activities are to be concentrated with respect to the
planning and execution of such activities, and including the carrying out of activities as
described in section 701(e) of the Housing Act of 1954 on the date prior to the date of
enactment of the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981.
(14) provision of assistance including loans (both interim and long term) and grants for activities
which are carried out by public or private nonprofit entities, including (A) acquisition of real
property. (B) acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or installation of(i) public
facilities (except for buildings for the general conduct of government), site improvements, and
utilities, and (ii) commercial or industrial buildings or structures and other commercial or
industrial real property improvements; and (iii) planning.
(15) assistance to neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations, local development corporation,
nonprofit organizations serving the development needs of the communities or non-entitlement
areas, or entities organized under section 301(d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958
to carry out a neighborhood revitalization or community economic development or energy
conservation project in furtherance of the objectives of Section 101(c), and assistance to
3 March 2019
neighborhood-based nonprofit organizations, for the purpose of assisting, as part of
neighborhood revitalization or other community development, the development of shared
housing opportunities (other than by construction of new facilities) in which elderly families (as
defined in Section 3(b)(3) of the United States Housing Act of 1937) benefit as a result of living
in a dwelling in which the facilities are shared with others in a manner that effectively and
efficiently meets the housing needs of the residents and thereby reduces their cost of housing.
(16) activities necessary to the development of energy use strategies related to recipient's
development goals, to assure that those goals are achieved with maximum energy efficiency,
including items such as:
(A) an analysis of the manner in, and the extent to which energy conservation objectives will
be integrated into local government operation, purchasing and service delivery, capital
improvements budgeting, waste management, district heating and cooling, land use
planning and zoning, and traffic control, parking, and public transportation functions.
(B) a statement of the action the recipient will take to foster energy conservation and the use
of renewable energy resources in private sector, including the enactment and enforcement
of local codes and ordinances to encourage or mandate energy conservation or use of
renewable energy resources, financial and other assistance to be provided (principally for
the benefit of low- and moderate-income persons) to make energy conserving
improvements to residential structures, and any other proposed energy conservation
activities.
(17) provisions of assistance to private, for-profit entities, when the assistance is necessary or
appropriate to carry out an economic development project.
(18)the rehabilitation or development of housing assisted under Section 17 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937.
(19) provision of assistance to facilitate substantial reconstruction of housing owned and
occupied by low-income persons (A) where the need for reconstruction was not determinable
until after rehabilitation under this section had already commenced, or(B)where the
reconstruction is part of a neighborhood rehabilitation effort and the grantee (i) determines the
housing is not suitable for rehabilitation, and (ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the cost of substantial reconstruction is significantly less than the cost of new
construction and less than the fair market value of the property after substantial reconstruction.
(20) provision of technical assistance to public or nonprofit entities to increase the capacity of
such entities to carry out eligible neighborhood revitalization or economic development
activities, which assistance shall not be considered a planning cost as defined paragraph (12) or
administrative cost as defined in paragraph (13).
(21) housing services, such as housing counseling, energy auditing, preparation of work
specification, loan processing, inspections, tenant selection, management of tenant-based
rental assistance, and other services related to assisting owners, tenants, contractors, and other
entities, participating or seeking to participate in housing activities authorized under this section,
or under Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, except that activities
under this paragraph shall be subject to any limitation on administrative expenses imposed by
any law.
(22) provision of assistance by recipients under this title to institutions of higher education
having a demonstrated capacity to carry out eligible activities under this subsection for carrying
out such activities.
4 March 2019
(23) provision of assistance to public and private organizations, agencies, and other entities
(including nonprofit and for-profit entities) to enable such entities to facilitate economic
development by:
(A) providing credit (including providing direct loans and loan guarantees, establishing peer
lending programs) for the establishment, stabilization, and expansion of microenterprises.
(B) providing technical assistance, advice, and business support services (including
assistance, advice, and support relating to developing business plans, securing funding,
conducting marketing, and otherwise engaging in microenterprise activities) to owners of
microenterprises and persons developing microenterprises.
(C) providing general support (such as peer support programs and counseling) to owners of
microenterprises and persons developing microenterprises.
(24) activities necessary to make essential repairs and to pay operating expenses necessary to
maintain the habitability of housing units acquired through tax foreclosure proceedings in order
to prevent abandonment and deterioration of such housing in primarily low-income
neighborhoods.
(25) provision of direct assistance to facilitate and expand home ownership among persons of
low-income (except that such assistance shall not be considered a public service for purpose of
paragraph (8)) by using such assistance to:
(A) subsidize interest rates and mortgage principal amounts for low-income home buyers.
(B) finance the acquisition by low-income home buyers of housing that is occupied by the
home buyers.
(C) acquire guarantees for mortgage financing obtained by low-income home buyers from
private lenders (except that amounts received under this title may not be used under this
subparagraph to directly guarantee such mortgage financing and grantees under this title
may not directly provide such guarantees).
(D) provide up to 50 percent of any down payment required from low-income home buyer.
(E) pay reasonable closing costs (normally associated with the purchase of a home)
incurred by low-income home buyer.
(b) Upon the request of the recipient of assistance under this title, the Secretary may agree
to perform administrative services on a reimbursable basis on behalf of such recipient in
connection with loans or grants for the rehabilitation of properties as authorized under
subsection (a)(4).
(c)(1) In any case in which an assisted activity described in paragraph (14) or (17) of
subsection (a) is identified as principally benefiting persons of low-income, such activity
shall:
(A) be carried out in a neighborhood consisting predominately of person of low-income and
provide services for such person.
(B) involve facilities designed for use predominately by person of low-income.
(C) involve employment of persons, a majority of whom are persons of low-income.
5 March 2019
(2)(A) In any case in which an assisted activity described in subsection (a) is designed to
serve an area generally and is clearly designed to meet identified needs of persons of low-
income in such area, such activity shall be considered to principally benefit persons of low
income if(i) not less than 51 percent of the residents of such area are persons of low-
income; (ii) in any metropolitan city or urban county, the area served by such activity is
within the highest quartile of all areas within the jurisdiction of such city or county in terms of
the degree of concentration of persons of low-income; or(iii) the assistance for such activity
is limited to paying assessments (including any charge made as a condition of obtaining
access) levied against properties owned and occupied by persons of low-income to recover
the capital cost for a public improvement.
(B) The requirements of subparagraph (A) do not prevent the use of assistance under this
title for the development, establishment, and operation for not to exceed 2 years after its
establishment of a uniform emergency telephone number system if the Secretary
determines that.
(i) such system will contribute substantially to the safety of the residents of the area served
by such system.
(ii) not less than 51 percent of the use of the system will be by persons of low-income.
(iii) other federal funds received by the grantee are not available for the development,
establishment, and operation of such system due to the insufficiency of the amount of such
funds, the restrictions on the use of such funds, or the prior commitment of such funds for
other purposes by the grantee. The percentage of the cost of the development,
establishment, and operation of such a system that may be paid from assistance under this
title and that is considered to benefit low-income persons is the percentage of the population
to be served that is made up of persons of low-income.
(3) Any assisted activity under this title that involves the acquisition or rehabilitation of
property to provide housing shall be considered to benefit persons of low-income only to the
extent such housing will, upon completion, be occupied by such persons.
Ineligible Activities
Although ineligible activities are not specifically identified in the Act, the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR's), developed from the Act, provide guidance. According to 24 CFR
570.207, the general rule is that any activity that is not authorized under the provisions of
570.201 - 570.206 of this Subpart is ineligible to be carried out with CDBG funds. This
section identifies three specific activities that are ineligible and provides guidance thought to
be necessary in determining the eligibility of several other activities frequently associated
with housing and community development.
(A) the following activities may not be carried out using CDBG funds:
(1) Buildings or portions thereof used predominantly for the general conduct of government
cannot be assisted with CDBG funds. Such buildings include, but are not limited to: city
halls and other headquarters of government where governing body of the recipient meets
regularly, courthouses, and other state or local government office buildings. This does not
exclude, however, the removal of architectural barriers under Subpart 570.201(k) and
historic preservation under 570.202(d) involving any such building. Also, where acquisition
of real property includes an existing improvement which is to be utilized in the provision of a
building or facility for the general conduct of government, the portion of the acquisition cost
6 March 2019
attributable to the land is eligible provided such acquisition meets a national objective,
(570.208).
(2) General government expenses. Except as otherwise specifically authorized in this
Subpart or under 2 CFR 200, expenses required to carry out the regular responsibilities of
the unit of general local government are not eligible for assistance under this Part.
(3) Political activities. CDBG funds shall not be used to finance the use of facilities or
equipment for political purposes or to engage in other partisan political activities, such as
candidate forums, voter transportation, or voter registration. However, a facility originally
financed in whole or in part with CDBG funds may be used on an incidental basis to hold
political meetings, candidate forums, or voter registration campaigns, provided that all
parties and organizations have access to the facility on an equal basis, and are assessed
equal rent or use charges, if any.
(B) The following activities may not be carried out with CDBG funds unless authorized under
provisions of 570.203 or as otherwise specifically noted herein, or when carried out by a
subrecipient under the provisions of 570.204.
(1) Purchase of equipment. The purchase of equipment with CDBG funds is generally
ineligible.
(i) Construction equipment. The purchase of construction equipment is ineligible, but
compensation for the use of such equipment through leasing, depreciation, or use
allowances pursuant to 200 as applicable for an otherwise eligible activity is an eligible use
of CDBG funds. However, the purchase of construction equipment for use as part of a solid
waste disposal facility is eligible under Subpart 570.201(c),
(ii) Fire protection equipment. Fire protection equipment is considered for this purpose to be
an integral part of a fire protection facility and thus, purchase of such equipment would be
eligible under 570.201(c).
(iii) Furnishings and personal property. The purchase of equipment, fixtures, motor vehicles,
furnishings, or other property which is not an integral structural fixture is generally ineligible.
CDBG funds may be used, however, to purchase, or to pay depreciation or use allowances
(in accordance with 2 CFR 200, as applicable), for such items when necessary for use by a
recipient or its subrecipients in the administration of activities assisted with CDBG funds, or
when eligible as firefighting equipment, or as a public service pursuant to Subpart
570.201(e).
(2) Operating and maintenance expenses. The general rule is that any expense associated
with repairing, operating or maintaining public facilities and services is ineligible. Specific
exceptions to this general rule are operating and maintenance expenses associated with
public service activities, interim assistance and office space for program staff employed in
carrying out the CDBG program. For example, where a public service is being assisted with
CDBG funds, the cost of operating and maintaining that portion of the facility in which the
service is located is eligible as part of the public service. Examples of ineligible operating
and maintenance expenses are:
(i) Maintenance and repair of streets, parks, playgrounds, water and sewer facilities,
neighborhood facilities, senior centers, centers for the handicapped, parking and similar
public facilities. Examples of maintenance and repair activities for which CDBG funds may
not be used include the filling of pot holes in streets, repairing cracks in sidewalks, the
mowing of recreational areas, and the replacement of expended street light bulbs.
7 March 2019
(ii) Payment of salaries for staff, utility costs and similar expenses necessary for the
operation of public works and facilities.
(3) New housing construction. Assistance may not be used for the construction of new
permanent residential structures or for any program to subsidize or finance such new
construction, except:
(i)As provided under the last resort housing provisions set forth in 49 CFR Part 24.
(ii)As authorized under 570.201(m).
(iii)When carried out by a subrecipient pursuant to 570.204(a).
8 March 2019
2026 Community Development Block Grant
PUBLIC SERVICES GRANT AMOUNTS
COUNTY SUBRECIPIENT-SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICE AREA GRANT TOTAL
COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY (including county admin)
Asotin Community Action Partnership Asotin $41,000
Benton Benton Franklin Benton, Franklin $67,000
Community Action Connections
Chelan Chelan-Douglas Chelan, Douglas $58,000
Community Action Council
Cowlitz Lower Columbia Cowlitz, Wahkiakum $68,000
Community Action Council
Grant Opportunities Industrialization Center Grant, Adams $135,000
Grays Harbor Coastal Community Action Program Grays Harbor, Pacific $109,000
Jefferson Olympic Community Action Programs Jefferson, Clallam $101,000
Kittitas HopeSource Kittitas $81,000
Klickitat Washington Gorge Action Programs Klickitat, Skamania $69,000
Mason Community Action Council Mason, Lewis $103,000
of Lewis, Mason and Thurston Counties
Okanogan Okanogan County Community Action Council Okanogan $88,000
Skagit Community Action of Skagit County Skagit $65,000
Stevens Rural Resources Community Action Stevens, Lincoln, $88,000
Ferry, Pend Oreille
Walla Walla Blue Mountain Action Council Walla Walla, $45,000
Columbia, Garfield,
Whm,
Whatcom Opportunity Council $133,000
Island, San Juan,
Whitman Community Action Center Whitman $97,000
Yakima Northwest Community Action Center Yakima $152,000
TOTAL $1,500,000
Ver 04/27/2026
6 Washington State
r�s
Department of
Commerce
a2 1h1�.11 ��1�I���dfLt� l
h y
RURAL COMMUNITY GRANTS FOR ACTIVITIES THAT BENEFIT LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME PERSONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
General Purpose Grants - $11 ,500,000 Jon Galow
PROGRAM MANAGER
For planning or construction of public infrastructure, community
facilities, affordable housing, and economic development projects. Local Government Division
Competitive. Maximum grant up to $1,000,000 based on project ion.galow@commerce.wa.gov
type. Application materials available in March and due in June. Phone: 509.847.5021
www.commerce.wa.gov/CDBG
t₹gyp� ® i ®® };
Public Services Grants - $1 ,500,000 `
For 17 counties and community action agencies to fund services for
lower income persons. Allocated by a formula based on population 00
and poverty. Application materials available in February and due in °°° ° ° °° °'
April.
• • • • • •
00 000
National Objectives 0 - ® ° - °
Funded by the US Department of Housing &Urban Development,
CDBG activities must meet one of these national objectives: ®® ° ® ° • ®
o Principally benefits low-and moderate-income (LMI) persons ® . ® . : °
o Aids in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight - • • - • • •
o Addresses imminent threat to public health or safety
Funding is contingent on HUD approval of the state CDBG Action COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Plan. BLOCK GRANT(CDBG)
February 2022
PUBLIC HEARING HANDOUT
Reuisitos de Participacion Ciudadana Federal
Para Solicitantes del Gobierno Local al Programa de CDBG
Regulacion Federal 24 CFR 570.486(a)
(a) Requisitos de participacion ciudadana de una unidad general del gobierno local. Cada unidad general del
gobierno local, debe cumplir los siguientes requisitos como es solicitado por el estado, en el Sec.
91.115(e) de este articulo.
(1) Contribuir y motivar a Ia participacion ciudadana, particularmente en personas de recursos bajos y
moderardos quienes residen en condiciones precarias o areas insalubres y areas donde el
Programa de CDBG tiene como objetivo apoyar con financiamiento;
(2) Asegurar que los ciudadanos tengan acceso oportuno y suficiente a reuniones locales,
informacion y estadisticas relacionadas a la unidad de gobierno local que ha sido propuesta o que
utiliza los fondos de financiamiento del programa de CDBG;
(3) Proveer informacion a los ciudadanos, incluyendo:
i. La cantidad de financiamientos del de CDBG que se espera sea otorgada en el ano fiscal en
curso (incluyendo las subvenciones y los ingresos anticipados del programa):
ii. El tipo de actividades probables a Ilevarse a cabo con el financiamiento del de CDBG:
iii. La cantidad estimada de financiamientos del de CDBG propuesta para ser usada en
actividades que cumpliran con el objetivo nacional de beneficiar a personas de bajos
recursos economicos; y
iv. Las actividades propuestas del programa de CDBG que son probables de resultar
declinadas y la unidad general de gobierno y los planes de reemplazo requeridos bajo el
Sec. 570.488
(4) Proveer asistencia tecnica a grupos representativos de personas de bajos y moderados recursos
que soliciten ayuda en el desarrollo de sus propuestas de acuerdo con el procedimiento
desarrollado por el estado. Dicha asistencia no incluye proveer financiamiento a tales grupos;
(5) Participar en un minimo de dos audiencias publicas, cada una en diferentes etapas del programa,
con el proposito de obtener puntos de vista de los ciudadanos y responder a propuestas y
preguntas. La audiencia en conjunto debe cubrir las necesidades de casa y desarrollo en Ia
comunidad, desarrollo de actividades propuestas y Ia revision del cumplimiento del programa. La
audiencia publica que cubre el desarrollo de la comunidad y las necesidades de casa debe ser
llevada a cabo en la fecha y lugares convenientes a beneficiarios actuales a potenciales, con
lugares accesibles para discapacitados. Las audiencias publicas deben Ilevarse a cabo de cierta
forma que cumplan las necesidades de residentes que no hablen Ingles ya que se espera que un
numero razonable de estos participe en el programa.
(6) Informar a los ciudadanos con suficiente anticipacion, y oportunidad de comentar al respecto,
sobre actividades propuestas en solicitud al estado y, por subvenciones ya efectuados,
actividades que sean propuestas para agregarse, eliminarse a ser cambiadas substancialmente
de Ia solicitud de unidad general de gobiernos locales al estado. Cambiadas substancialmente
significa que los cambios sean en terminos de objetivo, alcance, lugar o beneficiario, como es
definido bajo el criterio establecido por el estado.
(7) Proveer a los ciudadanos la direccion, el telefono y las fechas y horario para entregar quejas y
objeciones, y proveer oportunas respuestas por escrito a quejas entregadas por escrito, dentro de
los primeros 15 dias habiles, cuando asi pueda aplicarse.
-,,
�=mss€ .? - _
Washington State
Department of
Commerce
�ti s
1"n±lt_ fln+ ioK tgCloilbpldudJi1K1r
AYUNDANDO LAS COMUNIDADES RURALES CON PROYECTOS QUE BENEFICIAN PERSONAS DE INGRESO BAJO
Becas Consolidadas para el Desarrollo Communitario
BECAS DE PROPOSITO GENERAL - $11,500,000 Jon Galow
Para planeamiento o construccion de infraestructura publica, DIRECTOR DE PROGRAMA
facilidades comunitarias,viviendas economicas o proyectos de
desarrollo economico. Competitivo. El maximo de becas Ilega hasta Division del Gobierno Local
$1,000,000 basado en el tipo de proyecto. Las solicitudes estan ion.galowna com wa gov
disponibles en Marzo y son recibidos en Junio. Telefono: 509.847.5027.502 1
www.commerce.wa.gov/CDBG
BECAS DE SERVICIO PUBLICO - $1 ,500,000 ® B DAD
Para proveer Tondos a agencias de condados y accion comunitaria m m - -m ® .
que ofrezcan servicios a personas de bajos recursos. La solicitud m,m- m -m m m- ,e m m
esta disponible en Febrero para ser recibidos en Abril. ® ® 0 • 0 0 0 0 m
0 0- 0 010 m
0. 0. 0 0 0- 0
0 0 00 0 0.0 0 0. 0 0
®o m m.mm m
HUD OBJETIVOS NACIONALES °° - ° oo ��a
Los proyectos del CDBG deben cumplir con los tres Objetivos - .® m . °•°
Nacionales del HUD: .®® m. -
m- ®"o
Debe beneficiar personas de ingreso bajo o moderado
o Ayuda a la prevencion o eliminacion de la contaminacion
4 Trata las amenazas inminentes a la salud del publico
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT(CDBG)
Febrero 2022
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC SERVICE-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Mason County Commissioners will hold a public
hearing in the Commission Chambers at Mason County Building I, located at 411 N. 5th Street,
Shelton, Washington, on Tuesday, June 23, 2026 at 9:15 am.
The purpose of the public hearing is to review community development and housing needs,
inform citizens of the availability of funds and eligible uses of the state Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG), and receive comments on proposed activities, particularly from lower
income persons residing in the Mason and Lewis County areas. Comments on Mason County's
and Community Action Council of Lewis, Mason and Thurston Counties program's past
performance and use of prior CDBG Public Services Grants will also be received.
For the 2026 program year (July 2026 —June 2027) up to $103,000 is proposed to be available
annually to the County and the Community Action Council of Lewis, Mason and Thurston
Counties to fund public services that principally benefit low-to moderate-income persons. For
the 2025-2026 program years, Mason County and Community Action Council of Lewis and
Mason Counties received $105,000.
An outline of the proposed activities and services for the 2026 program year will be available for
review at the Mason County Commissioners' Office located at 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton,
Washington from May 22, 2026, through June 22, 2026 and on Mason County's website—
www.masoncountywa.gov. Comments may also be submitted in writing to the Mason County
Commissioners, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA 98584. Comments will be accepted until June
22, 2026.
The Commission Chambers are handicap accessible. Arrangements to reasonably
accommodate special needs, including handicap accessibility or interpreter, will be made upon
receiving 24-hour advance notice. If special accommodation is needed, please contact the
Commissioners' office, Shelton (360) 427-9670, Belfair (360) 275-4467, or Elma (360) 482-
5269, ext. 419.
Dated this day of , 2026
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Jennifer Beierle Ext: 532
Department: Support Services Briefing: ❑X
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑X
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): May 11,2026 Agenda Date(s): May 26,2026
Internal Review: ® Finance ❑ Human Resources ® Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item:
Requests for supplemental appropriations and amendments to the 2026 budget
Back2round/Executive Summary:
Requests for supplemental appropriations and amendments to the 2026 budget are attached.
Associated CostsBudget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
See Attached
Public Outreach:
RCW 36.40.100 requires the Board to publish notice in the official county newspaper for two consecutive
weeks prior to the budget hearing.
Requested Action:
Request to set a public hearing for June 23,2026, at 9:15 a.m. to consider and approve supplemental
budget requests and budget transfers to the 2026 budget.
Attachment(s):
Draft Resolution for Budget Supplemental Appropriations and Amendment Requests and
Proposed 2026 Budget Amendment#1 Detail and Detailed Budget Entries
RESOLUTION NO.
2026 BUDGET
BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDMENT REQUESTS-NOTICE OF HEARING
WHEREAS, by reason of conditions which could not be reasonably foreseen at the time of making the budget
for the year 2026, it is necessary to make provisions for supplemental appropriations and amendments to the budget
as required by RCW 36.40.100,and RCW 36.40.195;and
WHEREAS, the revenue and expenditure adjustments to County funds, as listed in Attachments A&B to this
Resolution, are required in order to incorporate into the budget the revenues and expenditures now identified,which
were not known at the time of original budget adoption;and
WHEREAS,the net total of adjustments to 2026 authorized expenditure appropriations in the General Fund is
an increase of$164,551;and
WHEREAS, the net total of adjustments to 2026 authorized expenditure appropriations in funds other than
the General Fund is an increase of$444,854;and
THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Mason County Commissioners:
That the 23,d day of June,2026 at the hour of 9:15 a.m., in the Mason County Commissioners Chambers in
Courthouse Building 1,411 North 5th Street,Shelton,Washington, is hereby fixed as the time and place for a public
hearing upon the matter of Budget Amendment Requests to the 2026 Budget as provided in Attachments A&B to
this Resolution.
Contact person:Jennifer Beierle, Budget Manager, (360)427-9670 ext.532, ib@masoncountvwa.aov
The Clerk of the Board is hereby authorized,empowered,and directed to cause notice of such hearing to be published
as provided by law.
DATED this 26th day of May,2026
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the
Board Pat Tarzwell,Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Randy Neatherlin,Vice Chair
Tim Whit
CC: Auditor—Financial Services Sharon Trask,Commissioner
Publish 2x 6/4&6/11 bill to
Commissioners,
411 North 5th Street,Shelton
ATTACHMENT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 2026 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1
DETAIL
2026 2026
FUND REVENUE EXPENDITURE
LINE NO. FUND NAME DEPARTMENT CHANGE CHANGE DESCRIPTION
CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
1 ALL ALL FUNDS AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
INCREASED COST OF MANDATORY MEDICAL
2 001 GENERAL FUND LEOFF 150,000 COSTS FOR LEOFF ELIGIBLE RETIREES
3 001 GENERAL FUND SUPERIOR COURT 14,551 LATCF FOR COURT REMODEL COSTS
NON- CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
4 001 GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTAL 25,402 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
REMOVE FROM THE 2026 BUDGET THE 2025
LAND SALE PROCEEDS DUE TO COMPLETION IN
5 105 COUNTY ROAD (500,000) 2025
CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
6 120 REET PROPERTY TAX (3,778) AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
NATIONAL FOREST CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
7 134 SAFETY 7,605 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
TRIAL COURT
8 135 IMPROVEMENT 77,496 UPGRADED JAVS SYSTEM FOR COURTHOUSE
AMERICAN RESCUE CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
9 155 PLAN ACT 25,402 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
10 180 TREASURER'S O&M 13,453 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
VETERANS CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
11 190 ASSISTANCE 54,351 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
MASON LAKE CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
12 194 MANAGEMENT 34,611 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
SPENCER LAKE CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
13 195 MANAGEMENT (10,172) AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
ISLAND LAKE CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
14 199 MANAGEMENT 1,059 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
15 351 REET 2 95,000 SKOKOMISH FLOOD ZONE PROJECT
PUMP REPLACEMENT ROLLED FROM 2025 TO
16 412 BEARDS COVE WATER 50,000 2026
CHANGE BUDGETED BFB TO ACTUAL CASH
17 502 UNEMPLOYMENT 99,827 AMOUNTS AT 1/1/2026
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 25,402 164,551
OTHER FUNDS TOTAL (500,000) 444,854
ALL FUNDS GRAND TOTAL (474,598) 609,405
Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 2026 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAILED BUDGET ENTRIES
LINE FUND PROPOSED
FROM BALANCE BUDGETED FB
A ACCOUNT TYPE I/D REVENUE EXPENDITURE CHANGE TOTAL DESCRIPTION
1 001.000000.000.000.308.41.309991.0000.00. 7 1 48,393 48,393 BEG FUND-COMMUNITY DEV
1 001.000000.320.000.508.41.509991.0000.00. 7 1 48,393 48,393 END FUND-COMMUNITY DEV
1 001.000000.000.000.308.41.309991.0000.00. 7 D 170,191 1,329,809 BEG FUND-COMMUNITY DEV
1 001.000000.320.000.508.41.509991.0000.00. 7 D 170,191 475,817 END FUND-COMMUNITY DEV
1 001.000000.000.000.308.41.309992.0000.00. 7 1 31,587 51,587 BEG FUND-PRISONER WELFARE
1 001.000000.320.000.508.41.509992.0000.00. 7 1 31,587 72,687 END FUND-PRISONER WELFARE
1 001.000000.000.000.308.41.309993.0000.00. 7 1 9,564 129,564 BEG FUND-SHERIFF DONATIONS
1 001.000000.320.000.508.41.509993.0000.00. 7 1 9,564 41,029 END FUND-SHERIFF DONATIONS
1 001.000000.000.000.308.41.309997.0000.00. 7 D 400,000 - BEG FUND-TECHNOLOGY
1 001.000000.320.000.508.41.509997.0000.00. 7 D 400,000 - END FUND-TECHNOLOGY
1 001.000000.000.000.308.41.309999.0000.00. 7 1 479,640 12,708,992 BEG FUND-OPERATING
1 001.000000.320.000.508.41.509999.0000.00. 7 1 479,640 6,460,909 END FUND-OPERATING
1 001.000000.000.000.308.91.300000.0000.00. 7 1 362,610 2,593,258 BEG FUND UNASSIGNED
1 001.000000.320.000.508.91.500000.0000.00. 7 1 362,610 362,610 END FUND UNASSIGNED
1 103.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 772,031 4,090,965 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 103.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 772,031 4,611,417 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 103.000000.000.000.308.31.309999.0000.00. 7 D 117,543 63,523 BEG FUND-OPERATING
1 103.000000.000.000.508.31.509999.0000.00. 7 D 117,543 63,523 END FUND-OPERATING
1 104.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 38,797 539,107 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 104.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 38,797 499,162 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 105.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 2,504,399 7,259,192 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 105.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 2,504,399 5,156,365 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 105.000000.000.000.308.31.309999.0000.00. 7 D 254,563 4,499,332 BEG FUND-OPERATING
1 105.000000.000.000.508.31.509999.0000.00. 7 D 254,563 4,461,548 END FUND-OPERATING
1 106.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 1,842 346,528 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 106.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 1,842 360,026 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 109.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 D 111,259 138,244 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 109.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 D 111,259 141,328 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 110.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 28,942 144,932 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 110.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 28,942 71,230 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 117.000000.000.101.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 D 66,635 460,000 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 117.000000.000.101.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 D 66,635 53,015 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 117.000000.000.103.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 566,242 1,431,033 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 117.000000.000.103.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 566,242 1,112,271 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 118.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 2,218 317,218 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 118.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 2,218 275,951 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 120.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 2 D 3,778 71,222 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
6 120.000000.000.000.514.22.549010.0000.00. 2 D 3,778 - MISCELLANEOUS
1 134.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 2 1 7,605 28,605 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
7 134.000000.000.000.525.20.541010.0000.00. 2 1 7,605 - SAR ON FEDERAL FOREST
1 135.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 D 56 77,496 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 135.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 D 56 77,496 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 141.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 D 2,090 58,449 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 141.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 D 2,090 48,490 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 142.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 855 90,855 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 142.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 855 83,192 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 145.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 5,923 156,613 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 145.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 5,923 154,304 ENDING FUND-RESTRICTED
1 150.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 537,070 5,277,411 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 150.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 537,070 4,792,368 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 155.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 2 1 25,402 625,402 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
9 155.000000.000.000.597.00.500001.0000.00. 2 1 25,402 TRANSFER OUT TO CURRENT EXPENS
4 001.000000.300.000.397.00.300155.0000.00. 2 1 25,402 TRANSFER IN FROM ARPA
4 001.000000.320.000.508.91.500000.0000.00. 2 1 25,402 362,610 END FUND UNASSIGNED
1 160.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 4,146 5,646 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 160.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 4,146 9,200 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 163.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 253,122 2,695,936 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 163.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 253,122 2,360,274 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 164.000000.150.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 133,794 2,395,556 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 164.000000.150.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 133,794 1,838,832 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 180.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 2 1 13,453 148,453 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
10 180.000000.000.000.514.22.541010.0000.00. 2 1 13,453 213,189 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES/TITLE SE
1 190.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 2 1 54,351 354,351 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
11 190.000000.000.000.565.20.549010.0000.00. 2 1 54,351 VETERANS LOANS/ASSISTANCE
1 194.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 2 1 34,611 134,611 BEG FUND COMMITTED
12 194.000000.000.000.553.60.541010.0000.00. 2 1 34,611 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1 195.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 2 D 10,172 2,828 BEG FUND COMMITTED
13 195.000000.000.000.553.60.541010.0000.00. 2 D 10,172 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
vageiofz
ATTACHMENT B TO RESOLUTION NO. 2026 BUDGET AMENDMENT#1 DETAILED BUDGET ENTRIES
LINE FUND PROPOSED
FROM BALANCE BUDGETED FB
A ACCOUNT TYPE I/D REVENUE EXPENDITURE CHANGE TOTAL DESCRIPTION
1 199.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 2 1 1,059 13,059 BEG FUND COMMITTED
14 199.000000.000.000.553.60.541010.0000.00. 2 1 1,059 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1 350.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 868,178 3,318,178 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 350.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 868,178 873,861 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 351.000000.000.000.308.31.300000.0000.00. 7 1 272,405 5,402,405 BEG FUND RESTRICTED
1 351.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 7 1 272,405 3,748,911 END FUND RESTRICTED
1 402.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 1 479,422 6,292,825 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 402.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 1 479,422 5,521,903 END FUND COMMITTED
1 403.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 1 374,714 3,999,940 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 403.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 1 374,714 3,141,380 END FUND COMMITTED
1 411.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 1 28,644 104,607 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 411.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 1 28,644 104,679 END FUND COMMITTED
1 412.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 1 195,203 1,267,953 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 412.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 1 195,203 952,534 END FUND COMMITTED
1 413.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 D 221,515 4,174,049 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 413.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 D 221,515 3,266,908 END FUND COMMITTED
1 428.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 1 25,319 452,793 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 428.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 1 25,319 232,936 END FUND COMMITTED
1 500.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 1 137,446 537,446 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 500.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 1 137,446 288,279 END FUND COMMITTED
1 501.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 7 1 368,140 5,774,364 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 501.000000.000.000.508.41.500000.0000.00. 7 1 368,140 4,749,141 END FUND COMMITTED
1 501.000000.000.000.308.41.309999.0000.00. 7 1 42,654 532,358 BEG FUND COMMITTED
1 501.000000.000.000.508.41.509999.0000.00. 7 1 42,654 756,384 END FUND COMMITTED
1 502.000000.000.000.308.41.300000.0000.00. 2 1 99,827 299,827 BEG FUND COMMITTED
17 502.000000.000.000.517.78.520060.0000.00. 2 1 99,827 UNEMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS TO DES
2 001.000000.058.000.517.20.520040.0000.00. 1 I 150,000 LEOFF I MEDICAL
2 001.000000.320.000.508.91.500000.0000.00. 1 D 150,000 212,610 END FUND-OPERATING
3 001.000000.250.000.512.21.535010.0000.00. 1 1 14,551 EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE
3 001.000000.320.000.508.91.500000.0000.00. 1 D 14,551 198,059 END FUND-OPERATING
5 105.000000.000.000.395.10.300000.0000.00. 2 D 500,000 STATE DNR TIMBER TRUST REVENUE
5 105.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 2 D 500,000 4,656,365 END FUND RESTRICTED
8 135.000000.000.000.594.12.564040.0000.00. 1 I 77,496 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
8 135.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 1 D 77,496 - END FUND RESTRICTED
15 351.000000.000.000.595.10.565000.0000.00. 1 1 95,000 CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL ASSETS
15 351.000000.000.000.508.31.500000.0000.00. 1 D 95,000 3,653,911 END FUND RESTRICTED
16 412.000000.000.000.534.82.541040.0000.00. 1 1 50,000 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
16 412.000000.000.000.508.41.500000..0000.00. 1 D 50,000 902,534 END FUND COMMITTED
General Fund Total: 25,402 164,551 222,454
Other Funds Total: (500,000) 444,854 6,145,349
All Funds Grand Total: (474,598) 609,405 6,367,803
Page 2 of 2
�hON C:OUL/'
.1 t•
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
res
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Travis Adams Ext: 530
Department: Support Services Briefing:
Action Agenda: ❑
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s):5/11/2026 Agenda Date(s):
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item: Port of Shelton .09 Fund Request
Background/Executive Summary:
This project is a Canadian Manufacturing Company with plans to relocate from Canada to Washington
State/specifically to the Port of Shelton Mason County. The private company plans to lease 2 acres of
property at the Port of Shelton Johns Prairie(JP)Industrial Site/adjacent to the short line rail spur. They
will mobilize their manufacturing equipment($1.5 Million Value) and relocate that equipment from
Canada to the JP site. The private company plans to invest$3 Million to build a 21000-26,000 SF
production facility which will include production assembly, storage/distribution and administrative
offices. They are looking to be fully moved and built out starting production by November 2027.
The current request for.09 funds is to make upgrades to the port which will support that move.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount,funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
$350,000.00 from.09 funds.
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Approval to award funding from the .09 Rural County Sales and Use Tax Fund No. 103 to the Port of
Shelton in the amount of$350,000.
Attachment(s):
Local Economic Development Program Application
LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
APPLICATION
Contact Name(s) Wendy Smith — Port of Shelton
Address 21 W Sanderson Way
City, State, Zip Shelton WA 98584
Fax & e-mail Fax (360) 427-0231 Email wendys@portofshelton.com
Signature and-posit' n of person authorizing submittal of application
Executive Director April 7, 2026
Signature Position Date
Project Title:
Total Project Cost $3,700,000.00 Amount raised to date $
Is your request intended to fill a gap in funding (gap financing)? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Is this a phased project [ ] Yes [ ] No, If yes number of phases number of years
Requested loan amount $ Requested grant amount $
1. Briefly describe the project, project start date, jurisdictions or private entities
involved and their phases and timing, and which phases(s) of the project would be
funded by loan or grant?
This project is a Canadian Manufacturing Company with plans to relocate from Canada to
Washington State, specifically to the Port of Shelton, Mason County. The private company
plans to lease 2 acres of property at the Port of Shelton Johns Prairie(JP)Industrial Site,
adjacent to the short line rail spur. They will mobilize their manufacturing equipment($1.5
Million Value)and relocate that equipment from Canada to the JP site. The private
company plans to invest$3 Million to build a 24,000-26,000 SF production facility which will
include production, assembly, storage, distribution and administrative offices. They are
looking to be fully moved and built out starting production by November 2027.
2. Explain how the project satisfies economic development and priorities.
The project will bring direct manufacturing to Mason County by way of 20 +jobs. The
company will look to expand over time increasing the job numbers. The company's clients
are made up of 70% US companies including Taylor Shellfish as one of their largest
customers. The company has also indicated there may be one or more additional
companies looking to locate in the area after this company makes their move.
3. Will this project be a public facility which is listed in economic development plan officially
adopted by the county? [ ] Yes [X ] No
The project site services will be public as these will be handled by the Port of Shelton to
service the site with a driveway access to the site, providing water service to the site,
working with PUD3 to provide power upgrades as needed, upgrade and rehabilitate at least
200 feet of existing rail siding and rehabilitation of existing rail crossings, and a fenced
paved yard on site.
4. List engineering reports, permits, feasibility studies and environmental studies which have
been completed and/or need to be completed.
The Port has several geotechnical reports associated with specific projects and multiple
environmental reports related to past cleanup actions. The County and the design team will
require a site-specific Geotech report. The Port will also need a building/grading/septic
permit, SEPA checklist and determination, ecology construction storm water permit and an
L&I electrical permit.
5. Has other funding been secured? [X] Yes [ ] No. If yes, list source(s) of funding.
The private investment is the other source of funding. They plan to bring $3,000,000 to
this project.
6. Please list other funding sources, which have been pursued or currently pursued.
CERB Committed Private Partner funding is a potential application we will submit. We have
been in discussion with Senator MacEwen and the Washington State Department of
Commerce for potential Strategic Reserve Funds (SRF).
7. Please indicate the number of full-time, permanent jobs this project will create.
Create in 1-3 20 Create in 4-5 years 20 Create in 6-10 years 20
Number of jobs retained n/a as this is a new company to Washington State coming from
Canada.
8. Please indicate number of businesses that will directly benefit from the public facility.
They are a direct supplier to one of the County's largest employers and private business.
The company is looking to also bring an additional business to the area once they are
established. Other customers include agriculture businesses which may mean even more
businesses would benefit.
9. Please list other significant factors about the project that should be considered.
Again, a company locating from out of the country and out of the state bringing 20 jobs
with the likelihood of 20 more in the short term. They are also planning to bring in another
company. They are planning to utilize the rail giving a boost to the JP industrial area and
the rail spur owned by the Port of Shelton.
10. List, in detail, how the money requested would be spent on the proposed project.
The money received would be used for infrastructure upgrades to the site, paving,
electrical, rail upgrades, fencing and/or grading.
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Ian Tracy Ext:544
Department: Public Health Briefing:
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): April 13,2026 Agenda Date(s): April 28 2026,Hearing May 26,
2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑X Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item: Mason County Code Chapter 6.64 Group B Water System Regulations
Background/Executive Summary: Mason County regulates the construction and maintenance of public
water systems with nine or fewer connections under the authority of WAC 246-291. We have drafted
proposed changes to Mason County Code 6.64-Group B Water System Regulations.
The changes address out-of-date code references, clarify confusing or conflicting language, and restore
consistency with state regulations.
The following are some of the most notable changes:
• Require regular water quality monitoring.
• Removal of the Water System Designer Certification program. This program has been defunct
for many years.
The WA State Dept. of Health, Office of Drinking Water,reviewed the proposed changes and found them
to be consistent with state code.
On March 24th,the Mason County Board of Health reviewed and approved the proposed changes.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.): N/A
Public Outreach: Notice of Hearing
Requested Action: Approval of the Ordinance amending Mason County Code Chapter 6.64 Group B
Water System Regulations.
Attachment(s): Draft Ordinance, Notice of Hearing
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND MASON COUNTY CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.64 GROUP
B WATER SYSTEM REGULATIONS
WHEREAS,Mason County Code Title 6, Chapter 6.64 Group B Water System Regulations were
last amended in 1996 via resolution number 68-96; and
WHEREAS,the existing language does not conform to current state code requirements; and
WHEREAS,RCW 70.05.060 directs the local board of health to enact rules and regulations as are
necessary to preserve,promote, and improve public health and provide for the enforcement
thereof; and
WHEREAS,the Washington State Department of Health, Office of Drinking Water, reviewed the
proposed amendments and found them to be compliant with WAC 246-291; and
WHEREAS,the Mason County Board of Health reviewed and approved the proposed
amendments on March 24,2026; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 26, 2026 in accordance with Mason County Code
6.04.060; and
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners took public testimony from interested parties,
considered all written and oral arguments,testimony,and comments presented; and
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED,the Mason County Board of Commissioners hereby
approves and adopts revisions to Mason County Code Title 6.64,which is to read:
Chapter 6.64 GROUP B WATER SYSTEM REGULATIONS
6.64.010 Authority.
Pursuant to the authority of Chapters 43.20,43 0,70.05,70A.1004-6, 70A.14259A and 70.142 RCW,this
chaptcr is cstablishcd as minimum rcquircmcnts of thc Mason County board of hcalth,and 70A.130 RCW,this
chapter is established as minimum requirements of the Mason County Board of Health,governing Group B public
water systems in Mason County.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996: § 1 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to assurc ensure the protection of public health by:
(a4) Minimizing the potential for public exposure to unsafe drinking water;
(b2) Establishing location, design, installation and management requirements for public water systems to
accommodate safe and reliable drinking water sources.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996: §2 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.030 Administration.
The Mason County health scrviccs Ddirector,through the authority delegated by the Mason County bBoard
of#Health,and the Mason County hHealth Oefficer shall administer this chapter. Fees may be charged for this
administration.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996:§3 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.040 Definitions.
The definitions of terms in Chapter 246- 291 WAC are adopted and incorporated by reference. In
addition,the following definitions shall also apply in this chapter:
"Board" means the Mason County Board of Health.
"Department" means the Mason County Ddepartment of Public Health and Human Sservices.
"Director" means the Mason County dDirector of Public#Health and Human sServices or an authorized staff
member_of the hcalth d partment staff
"Group B water system" means water system consisting of two to nine connections and/or serving less than
twenty five people for sixty days or.....,r.,/. ear.
"Purveyor"
means an agency,subdivision of the state, municipal corporation,firm, company, mutual, or
cooperative association, institution, partnership or person or other entity owning or operating a public water
system. Purveyor also means the authorized agents of such entities
"Water system owner" means the owner of the system or the designated manager of the system.
"2-Party water system" means a drinking water well with two service connections and may also be referred
to as a 2-Party well. This is a non-public water supply for the purposes of determining minimum land area
requirements.
(Res.68-96(part), 1996:§4 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.050 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to all Group B water systems except the following:
(a) Existing nonexpanding Group B water systems. However,this chapter shall be applied to the maximum
extent feasible for the water system and the appropriate permits shall be r red.This chapter applies to
new and expanding Group B water systems and 2-Party water systems.
(b) Where any of the requirements of this chapter conflict with one another or with any requirements of other
state or local drinking water regulations,the more stringent requirement shall apply.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996: §5 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.060 Minimum standards and adoption by reference.
(a) Chapter 246-29Q-291 WAC, Drinking Water RcgulationsGroup B Public Water Systems as presently
constituted and as hereafter amended, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this chapter as minimal
standards governing the location,design, operation and monitoring of Group B public water systems in
Mason County.Copies of said document shall be kept on file and made available for public inspection at the
department office.
(b) Standards for design and construction shall be established and maintained by the department.Said
standards shall be called "Mason County Department of Health Services Water System Design and
Construction Standards Systems," as presently adopted and any future revisions are
hereby adopted and incorporated by reference in these regulations. Copies of said document shall be
maintained and made available to the public at the Mason County Public Health office.and shall, upon
completion, apply to all Group B water systems.Copies of said document shall be kept on file and made
available for public inspection at the department office,
(c) Permits shall be required prior to a construction of any Group B or 2-Party water system-w11. Permits shall
be valid for two-five years from their inspection date. Permit fees shall be charged according to the"Mason
County Department ofEnvironmental Health Services Fee Schedule." Copies of said document shall be
maintained and made available to the public at the Mason County Public Health office.Cepies of said
document shall be kept on file and made available for public inspection at the department office.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996:§6 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.070 Certified water system designers.
(a) Design Reports shall be submitted in accordance with WAC 246-291-120.Water systems shall be
designed by a person who has specific expertise regarding design,operation,and maintenance of
public water systems.
(1) Design Reports shall be prepared,sealed,and signed in accordance with chapter 196-23 WAC by a
professional engineer unless the proposed design meets the following criteria:
(i) Does not use a variable speed pump;
(ii) Does not provide fire flow;
(iii) Does not have special hydraulic considerations;
(iv) Does not have atmospheric storage in which the bottom elevation of the storage reservoir is
below the ground surface;and
(v)Serves fewer than ten service connections
(a) Any work associated with the dcsign of a new Group B water system within Mason County shall be
performed by a designer certified by the department except when one of the following conditions is met:
(1) The system is designed by a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington under Chapter
18.43 43 RCW.
(2) The system is designed by a designer certified by Thurston County health department or Bremerton
Kitsap County health district.
(b) departmental + i designer follows:
T�(�.repart�c^r�r�alT^c��a"'"^�crrt"�c^�rc5-tC�=crc�g�}e'certification as�(�rvacs:
(1) Prior to issuance of certificate to person,the director shall require written examination of the
applicant's knowledge of sanitary principles and rules,regulations, laws and ordinances affecting public
health and safety with respect to public water systems.
(2) The initial certificate fee shall be in accordance with the adopted fee schedule.At the end of each
calendar year,all certificates shall expire. Certificates may be renewed for a fee established by the
adopted fee schedul„ n designer's certificate shall net be transferable
(c) A dcsigncr's certificate may be suspended by the director for a period not to exceed thirty days for
incompetency, negligence, misrepresentation, or for failure by the holder to comply with any other
requirement of this chapter, unless the health officer feels a decision on revocation is needed.
(d) A designer's certificate may be revoked by the director for a period not to exceed one year for serious or
repeated violations of any of the requirements of this chapter, using the following procedure:
(1) To revoke a designer's certificate,the director shall notify the designer in writing,stating the reason for
which the designer's certificate is subject to revocation and schedule a hearing with the health officer.
(2) The director may suspend the designer's certificate pending the hearing with the health officer.
(e) Any designer whose certificate has been revoked will be required to take the written examination again
before issuance of a new designer's certificate
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996:§7 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.080 Monitoring.
(a) Group BThe water system owners shall assure that water`ample` are submittedtest the water quality
testing as outlined in Chapter 246-2910 WAC,according to the following schedule:established by the
department.
(1) Fecal Coliform shall be tested twice per year with a minimum of four months between sampling
events.
(2) Nitrate shall be tested a minimum of once every two years.
The Director may require more frequent testing or testing for additional contaminants based on specific
environmental conditions.
(b) If the water system owner fails to perform the necessary testing in a timely and satisfactory manner,the
department may collect for testing and bill in accordance with the current fee schedule. Failure to pay for the
collection and testing of the water will result in the status of noncompliance for the water system and
enforcement proceedings as set forth in Section 6.64.090 of this chapter.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996:§8 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.090 Enforcement.
(a) It is unlawful for a purveyor to provide water from, use or maintain an unapproved Group B water system.
(b) No purveyor shall use, maintain,or expand a Group B water system except in a manner that is appropriate to
the design of the system as approved by the department.
(c) Public Nuisance.All violations of this chapter are determined to be unlawful and declared to be detrimental
to the public health,safety and welfare,and are public nuisances.All conditions which render any building,
structure, premises, land use or portion thereof to be used or maintained in violation of this chapter shall be
abated if provisions for their continuance made pursuant to this chapter are not satisfied.
(d) Civil Penalties. In addition to or as an alternative to any other judicial or administrative remedy provided
herein,or by law,any water purveyor, person or establishment who violates this chapter or by each act of
commission or omission procures,aids or abets such violation, may be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed
fifty dollars for each day of continuous violation to be directly assessed by the health officer until such
violation is corrected.The per diem penalty shall double for the second separate violation and triple for the
third and subsequent separate violations of the same chapter within any five-year period.
(e) Criminal Penalties. In addition to or as an alternative to any other judicial or administrative remedy provided
herein,or by law,any water purveyor or person who violates this chapter or by each act of commission or
omission procures, aids or abets such violation,shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. For
purposes of this chapter,each section violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense,and each
day's violation shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. Penalty, upon conviction,shall be punishable
by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars,or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days,or both
such fine and imprisonment.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996:§9 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.100 Appeals.
Decisions of the Ddirector may be appealed to the Health Oefficer.Appeals must be made in writing to the
Ddirector within ten working days of the decision which is being disputed.A hearing date shall be scheduled with
the Health Oefficer within thirty days. Decisions of the Health Officer may be appealed to the Board of Health.
Appeals must be made in writing to the Director within ten working days of the decision which is being disputed. A
hearing date shall be scheduled before the Board on or before their next regularly scheduled meeting.Any
variation from this regulation resulting in requirements less stringent than those found in Chapter 246- 291
WAC shall have concurrence from the Washington State Department of Health.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996:§ 10 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
6.64.110 Waiver.
The board Director may waive portions of this chapter or portions thcrcoF provided the waiver is consistent
with the intent of this chapter, no public health hazard will result from said waiver,and the waiver will not violate
the requirements of other state or local drinking water regulations.Any waiver from the requirements of Chapter
246-299-291 WAC must shall have prior written concurrence from the Washington State Department of Health.
(Res. 68-96(part), 1996:§ 11 of Ord. dated 3/3/94).
DATED this day of , 2026.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board Pat Tarzwell,Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Randy Neatherlin,Vice-Chair
Tim Whlte3wad.rhiwfDeput57%jsecuting
Attorney Sharon Trask,Commissioner
Mason County Board of County Commissioners
Public Hearing
May 26, 2026
Good Morning,
My name is Robert A. Pastore and I reside at on Stretch
Island. I have lived in Grapeview for 54 years.
Each week, I review the County Commissioner briefing and regular meeting packets to
better understand how county decisions affect our community and where our tax dollars
are being spent. This particular topic raised significant concerns for me.
Until reading the proposal, I had no idea the well on my property was designated as a
Class B water system. The proposed ordinance referenced WAC 246-291, which I
reviewed in detail, and in doing so only heightened my concerns.
The Eagle's Nest Water System serves three contiguous residences on Stretch Island
and is classified as a Class B system. It is identified as a Department of Ecology well
number ACK472. The well is 319 feet deep , and under WAC 246 definitions, it qualifies
as a Class B system.
I then began looking further into the numbers.
Mason County, excluding the City of Shelton, contains approximately 51,053 Assessor
Parcel Numbers and 542 Class B water systems — roughly 1.06%.
Stretch Island contains approximately 190 APNs, seven of which are classified as Class
B systems.
Regarding Eagle's Nest water usage, we installed a kilowatt meter to measure electrical
consumption because the pump is powered through my Mason PUD account. Current
PUD cost is approximately $0.0895 per kilowatt hour — roughly equivalent to operating
a 10-watt LED light bulb for four days.
The monthly operating cost of the system has been extremely low:
January 2023: $0.44
• January 2024: $0.50
• January 2025: $0.81
• January 2026: $0.86
This well serves four residents, two of whom reside part-time in Oregon and California
for approximately half the year.
first, the proposed ordinance removes "Class B" from the Definitions section. This
caused me to revisit WAC 246-291, where the definition remains clearly established and
should be included.
Sec i, the proposed ordinance removes "Purveyor" from the Definitions section,
despite the term appearing six separate times throughout the proposed update. WAC
246-291-010 contains the proper definition, and it should remain included for clarity
and consistency.
Add Pik; { there appears to be little focus on Short -Term Rentals, whether associated
with Class B systems or not. In my opinion, all Short -Term Rentals should require
annual water testing perhaps even upgraded to a Class A System as it is a commercial
operation.
The existing On -Site Septic System ordinance is already compromised by linking
bedroom allowances to septic tank size while many STRs exceed their intended
occupancy levels.
for water testing during property title transfer for either
Class B or non -Class B systems. Since OSS inspections are already required during
transfer, water quality testing should occur concurrently.
should serve as the
t
ll,is chapter applies to new and expanding Group B water systems and 2-,
Pa ter'.systems,
Mr. Tracy: Eagle's Nest was designed, permitted and approved in 2001. Does this new
language absolve Eagle's Nest from the proposed Mason County Ordinance Chapter
6.64 GROUP B WATER SYSTEM REGULATIONS?
Anot
the development of this ordinance
q e ? ff 'Sloe sue-..
is the apparent lack of citizen participation in
matters
As stated by the Municipal Research and Services Center regarding citizen participation
in government:
Currently, Resolution 2021-052 establishes the Mason County Clean Water District
Advisory Committee, which is primarily focused on saltwater protection.
I believe a new resolution should be adopted to replace and expand that committee
into the:
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I have provided copies of this
presentation for the Commission Clerk for distribution and record retention.
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Randy Collins,Fire Marshal Ext:309
Department: Community Development Briefing: ❑X
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑X
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): April 20,2026 Agenda Date(s): April 28&May 26,2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ® Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item:
Burn Ordinance Revision(Mason County Code Chapter 9.48)
Background/Executive Summary:
In 1995 Mason County adopted a series of burn regulations that were codified into chapter 9.48 of the
Mason County Code. Given the numerous changes that have occurred to burn regulations over the past 31
years, it has become necessary to update this chapter to make it consistent with State laws. To that end,
the enclosed draft ordinance has been developed in concert with ORCAA. In addition to updating the
ordinance, a definitions section has been added to clarify questions often raised by the public and several
enforcement provisions have been added to provide greater flexibility for staff to use when dealing with
violators.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
None
Public Outreach:
Posting on the County's website, article in the Mason County Journal and NOH's published on May 7&
14.
Requested Action:
Approval of the Ordinance amending Mason County Code Chapter 9.48—Outdoor Burning Program.
Attachment(s):
Ordinance
Ordinance No.
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.48 of the Mason County Code,
Outdoor Burning Program
WHEREAS, outdoor burning constitutes a potential hazard to the public health and safety,and
WHEREAS, outdoor burning is allowed in Mason County by a written permit or a general rule
program.
WHEREAS,the Mason County outdoor burn program is managed by the Mason County Fire
Marshal under the authority of section 307 of the International Fire Code as adopted
by the State of Washington,and
WHEREAS,through an MOU with the Olympic Region Clean Air Authority(ORCAA), the
authority for issuing written permits has been delegated to the Fire Marshal and
Community Development Department, and
WHEREAS, it is acknowledged by all parties that a cooperative effort is necessary if the public is
to be properly served, and
WHEREAS, it is acknowledged that all parties affected by this ordinance must understand their
respective role, and
WHEREAS, in order to reflect the changes identified above,Chapter 9.48 of the Mason County
Code must be revised
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Board of County Commissioners of Mason
County hereby approves and adopts amendments to the Mason County Code Title 9, chapter 9.48 as
described in Attachment"A"
DATED this day of ,2026.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board Pat Tarzwell, Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Randy Neatherlin,Vice-Chair
( 1ijWhiteilctilttiiiy Prosecuting
Attorney Sharon Trask,Commissioner
ATTACHMENT"A"
Chapter 9.48-OUTDOOR BURNING PROGRAM
• 9.48.010-Established.
Pursuant to RCW 70.94, an outdoor burning program has been established in Mason County as set out
in this chapter.
(Res.4-95(part), 1995)
• 9.48.020-Definitions (from WAC 173-425-030)
(a) Agricultural burning: Outdoor burning including but not limited to any incidental agricultural
burning for pest or disease control.Agricultural burning is governed by WAC 173-430, not this
chapter.
(b) Construction/demolition debris:All material resulting from the construction, renovation or
demolition of buildings, roads or other man-made structures.
(c) Indian ceremonial fires: Fires necessary for Native American ceremonies (i.e. conducted by
and for Native Americans) if part of a religious ritual.
(d) Land clearing burning:The burning of trees, stumps, shrubbery or other natural vegetation
from land clearing projects conducted to use the land for a different purpose or leave unused.
(e) Natural vegetation: Unprocessed plant material from herbs, shrubbery and trees including
grass,weeds, leaves, clippings, pruning, brush, branches, roots, stumps and trunk wood.
(f) Nuisance:An emission of smoke or any other air contaminant that unreasonably interferes
with the use and enjoyment of the property upon which it is deposited.
(g) Outdoor burning:The combustion of material of any type in an open fire or outdoor container
without providing for the control of combustion or the control of emissions from the
combustion. For purposes of this chapter,"outdoor burning"means all types of outdoor
burning except agricultural and Silvicultural burning.
(h) Recreational fire:A fire no greater than three feet in diameter within an approved campfire pit,
ring or barbecue using charcoal or firewood that occurs in designated areas or on private
property for cooking, pleasure or ceremonial purposes.
(i) Residential burning:The outdoor burning of leaves, clippings, pruning and other yard and
other natural vegetation on lands adjacent to a human dwelling conducted by the property
owner.
(j) Silvicultural burning: Burning on any land the Department of Natural Resources(DNR)
protects per RCW 70.94.030(13). Silviculture burning is not governed by this chapter.
• 9.48.030 Basis for permitting outdoor burning.
All open fires are permitted under a general rule-program or by written permit. It is unlawful for any
person to cause or allow an outdoor fire containing prohibited materials which include but are not
limited to garbage, dead animals, asphalt, petroleum products, paints, rubber products, plastic,
paper, cardboard,treated wood, processed wood, construction/demolition debris, metal or any
substance which when burned, releases toxic emissions, dense smoke or obnoxious orders.When
starting fires, a limited amount of paper may be used. ORCAA may also allow the limited burning of
prohibitive materials for fire training.
(Res.4-95 s 1, 1995).
1
• 9.48.040-Written permits.
(a) Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) between the Olympic Region Clean Air
Agency(ORCAA) and Mason County,written permits for land clearing burning are required and
may only be issued by the Mason County Department of Community Development/Fire
Marshal's office.
(b) Written permits will only be issued for:
(1) Land clearing fires(larger than four feet in diameter) consisting of natural vegetation as
defined in 9.48.020(e)resulting from land clearing projects.
(2) Permits will not be issued for the burning of materials other than natural vegetation.
(3) The duration of a written permit shall not exceed one month unless an extension is
granted by the Fire Marshal.
(4) Permitted fires shall be inspected by the Community Development/Fire Marshal's
office and be subject to the conditions listed on the permit and this chapter.The
individual conducting the burning shall be at the site during the inspection to
acknowledge the burn requirements and sign the permit. If a representative is absent, it
will result in a failure and be subject to an additional inspection(s)and charge(s).
(5) Written permits will not be required for residential, recreational burning or Indian
ceremonial fires on tribal or trust lands. Indian ceremonial fires not on tribal or trust
lands require an ORCAA permit pursuant to WAC 173-425-060(h)
(Res.4-95 ss 2, 3, 1995)
• 9.48.050-Residential burning.
(a) Residential burning is allowed under the general rule program for a total of fourteen days each
calendar year.
(b) Property owners may pick the specific days they wish to burn, as long as the total, in any
calendar year, does not exceed the fourteen days.
(c) Pursuant to WAC 173-425-040, residential burning is prohibited within any established Urban
Growth Area.
(d) No fees will be charged for residential burning and a written permit is not required. However,
the person in charge of the fire shall adhere to the following requirements:
(1) Burn only natural vegetation as defined in 9.48.020(e).
(2) Not allow the fire to exceed 4 feet in diameter or 4 feet in height
(3) Maintain a 10-foot firebreak(down to bare earth) around the pile.
(4) Maintain 20 feet of vertical clearance from overhanging branches.
(5) Maintain a distance of at least 50 feet from any structure or combustible materials.
(6) Burning may only occur during daylight hours and be extinguished by nightfall.
(7) All materials must originate from the property the burning occurs (material may not be
brought from another site).
(8) The fire must not create a nuisance from the smoke or endanger life and/or property.
(9) A person with an approved water source capable of extinguishing the fire shall be in
constant attendance at the site while burning.
(Res.4-95 s 4, 1995)
• 9.48.060-Recreational fires
2
(a) Recreational fires are allowed under the general rule burn program, do not require a permit and
shall adhere to the following requirements:
(1) Occur in a campfire pit, ring or barbeque
(2) Not exceed 3 feet in diameter.
(3) Maintain a 10 foot firebreak around the pile.
(4) Maintain 20 feet of vertical clearance from overhanging branches.
(5) Maintain a distance of at least 25 feet from any structure or combustible materials.
(6) The fire must not create a nuisance from the smoke or endanger life and/or property.
(7) A person with an approved water source capable of extinguishing the fire shall be in
constant attendance at the site while burning.
(Res.4-95 s 5, 1995)
• 9.48.070-Agricultural burning
Agricultural burning as described in 9.48.020(a) is exempt from these regulations but pursuant to WAC
173-430-020, shall require a permit from ORCAA and prior notification to the local fire department.
• 9.48.080-Indian ceremonial fires
Indian ceremonial fires are allowed under the general rule program and shall adhere to all the
requirements for a recreational fire including setbacks, pile size, etc.
• 9.48.090—Penalties
(a) Failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter or any conditions of a written permit may
result in any or all of the following enforcement actions:
(1) Revocation of an issued permit
(2) Suspension of any burn privileges for up to two years from the date the burn violation
occurred.
(3) Recovery of any or all costs that are necessary to control or extinguish the fire(permitted or
unpermitted)from the permittee, person responsible or property owner caused in part or in
whole by negligent acts or omissions.
(4) Enforcement actions pursuant to Mason County Code, chapters 6.72, 15.13,the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC)or the Revised Code of Washington (RCW).
(b) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, if any burn activities occurring under this
chapter result in damage to any personal property, nothing shall preclude the injured party
from seeking civil damages from the responsible party.
3
�hON C:OUL/'
.1 t•
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
IB54
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Travis Adams Ext: 530
Department: Support Services Briefing:
Action Agenda: ❑X
Public Hearing:
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): 4/6/2026 Agenda Date(s): 4/28/2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ® Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item:Wake Boat Ordinance with Legal Review
Background/Executive Summary:
The Board of County Commissioners has received complaints regarding wake-enhanced motorboat
operation causing property damage to shoreline property. The Mason County Code does not currently
have any Ordinance surrounding the use of wake-enhanced motorboats. This Ordinance would ensure
proper wake-enhanced motorboat operation occurs in a safe environment where no threat to property or
life is present.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment,etc.):
N/A
Public Outreach:
Public hearing to be held on 5/26/26
Requested Action:
Approval of the Ordinance regulating wake-enhanced motorboat operation on lakes within Mason
County.
Attachment(s):
Notice of Hearing
Wake Boat Ordinance with Legal Review
Chapter 9.04 MCC—Motorboats
9.04.4XX Wake-Enhanced Motorboat Operation
A. Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to regulate wake-enhanced motorboat operation on lakes within
Mason County in order to protect shoreline property, aquatic habitat, water quality, and public
safety, while allowing such operation only where lake depth and configuration can reasonably
accommodate enhanced wake activity without causing undue harm.
B. Definitions.
Wake boat. A motorized watercraft that is designed or operated to intentionally create an
enhanced wake, including but not limited to vessels equipped with ballast tanks, ballast bags, or
wake-shaping devices such as surf gates, wake plates, trim tabs, or similar devices intended to
increase, shape, or redirect wake size.
Wake-enhanced operation. Operation of a wake boat while ballast tanks or ballast bags are filled
or partially filled, wake-shaping devices are deployed or engaged, or the vessel is operated in a
manner intended to maximize wake size or surfable wave characteristics.
Ordinary operation. Operation of a vessel without intentionally enhancing wake size, including
operation with ballast systems emptied and wake-shaping devices disengaged.
Shoreline. The ordinary high water mark of a lake, including adjacent docks,piers, bulkheads, or
shoreline stabilization structures.
C. General Prohibition.
Wake-enhanced operation of a wake boat is prohibited on all lakes within Mason County unless
the lake meets the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection D of this section.
D. Eligible Lakes for Wake-Enhanced Operation
Wake-enhanced operation may occur only on lakes that meet all of the following criteria:
• The lake contains sufficient open-water area located at least two hundred fifty (250) feet from
the shoreline, where the water depth is twenty (20) feet or greater;
• Wake-enhanced operation may occur only within areas that are both at least two hundred fifty
(250) feet from the shoreline and twenty(20) feet or greater in depth;
• The size, shape, and configuration of the lake must reasonably allow wake-enhanced operation
to occur within such areas without requiring repeated or continuous operation within areas that
do not meet these criteria.
Lakes that do not meet all of the above criteria shall not support wake-enhanced operation.
E. Relationship to Other Restrictions.
Nothing in this section authorizes wake-enhanced operation on any lake otherwise restricted by
ordinance, resolution, or state law.
F. Allowed Operation.
Nothing in this section prohibits:
Ordinary operation of wake boats with ballast systems emptied and wake-shaping devices
disengaged;
Operation of motorboats not engaged in wake-enhanced operation; or
Lawful boating activities otherwise permitted under Chapter 9.04 MCC.
G. Determination and Enforcement.
This section shall be enforced by the Mason County Sheriff or other authorized enforcement
personnel. Determination of whether a lake meets the eligibility criteria may be based on
published bathymetric data, government-issued depth maps or studies, or other reliable technical
information. Observation of deployed ballast systems, wake-shaping devices, or wake
characteristics consistent with wake-enhanced operation may constitute probable cause for
enforcement. A violation of this section constitutes a violation of Chapter 9.04 MCC and is
subject to the penalties provided therein.
H. Education and Signage.
The County may provide signage at public boat launches and educational materials describing
wake-enhanced operation restrictions and eligibility criteria.
From: Heather Weaver
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wake Boat Ban-Concerns of Mason Lake Impact
Date: Friday,April 17,2026 12:43:28 PM
Please share with the county commissioners and county administrator. I could not find
individual email addresses.
Dear Commissioners,
I recently learned about a proposal to ban wake boats on all county lakes except for Lake
Cushman and Mason Lake. I agree that these boats can cause a lot of damage to shoreline and
habitats, and I understand the intent behind it. I am writing because I have major concerns of
how the implementation of this ban will funnel additional wake boat traffic on to Mason Lake.
We already have a large number of wake boats on Mason Lake, and an influx of additional
boats that do not typically use the lake will be detrimental to the quality of life for those on the
lake. While Mason Lake is a large lake, it has never had much if any enforcement presence
and I don't expect the county has the resources to change that and continuously enforce a 250-
foot shoreline limit. While some wake boats are considerate and keep a distance from the
shoreline, many do not. Our family has owned property on Mason Lake since the 70s and we
have seen the changes in quantity and types of watercrafts over the decades. We already have
issues with huge crashing waves hitting the shore and the docks on Mason Lake and it
damages our lake too. I cannot speak to Lake Cushman.
This new ordinance will just move the problem from smaller lakes onto a bigger lake and
make the existing issue worse for Mason Lake residents. While I recognize the intent behind
the ordinance, you are not considering the impact that it will have to the two remaining lakes
where wake boats will be allowed. I guarantee our shorelines, bulk heads, docks and boats are
experiencing the same damage due to wake boats—I have seen it firsthand as have many
others. This ordinance will only move the problem from some lakes and make it exponentially
worse on the two remaining lakes.
While I agree this is a growing issue that is worth examining, it is not fair to shift the burden
of additional damage to Mason Lake and Lake Cushman.
Sincerely,
Heather Weaver
From: Travis Duty
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wakeboard Boat Ban
Date: Wednesday,April 22,2026 5:47:44 AM
Dear Mason Count Commissioners et al,
I am a resident on Mason Lake and am reaching out to express concern over the proposal to
ban wakeboard boats on all lakes EXCEPT Mason Lake and Lake Cushman. I whole
heartedly oppose this terrible idea.
It seems short sighted to funnel all wakeboard boats to one or two lakes which would gravely
impact the property of Mason Lake residents (docks, shorelines, etc)not to mention the safety
of the community who resides there. Pushing all the boat traffic here would all but eliminate
activities such as kayaking,paddle boarding, and swimming for my children.
What's more important to point out is that equality and equity of the burden to accommodate
the general public who wishes to use one of the many Great Lakes in our region should not be
forced upon one or two communities -that just on the surface does not seem right.
Per the article that was published you have been receiving complaints about the property
damage caused by these boats on smaller lakes, so I'd like to ask you why would it be fair to
punish the property owners of Mason Lake and force more boat traffic here so that we bear the
burden of the damage. That seems absolutely disingenuous and frankly un-American.
Singling out one or two communities to cover damages caused by the masses is an invisible
tax on our freedom and livelihood. But hey, welcome to the new Washington state right?!
Punish the people who pay the majority of taxes for the sake of all others.
Please take a moment and provide a thoughtful response as to why you believe it would be just
and right to move forward with this plan.
Thanks,
Travis
From: Josh Steele
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Wake Boat Ban on Lost Lake
Date: Monday,April 27,2026 6:54:54 AM
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
I am writing as a property owner on Lost Lake to express my opposition to
the proposed ban on wake boats.
My family recently invested in this community and obtained permits to
build a home on the lake. Access to responsible boating, including the use
of our wake boat, was an important part of that decision. We value the lake
not only as property owners, but as active and respectful users.
From my experience, many of the concerns associated with lake congestion
and unsafe boating practices are largely tied to non-resident use,
particularly during peak periods. As a resident, I make a point to avoid
operating my boat during the busiest times out of consideration for safety
and the enjoyment of others. I believe many other resident boaters take a
similarly responsible approach.
Rather than implementing a full ban, I would encourage the County to
consider alternatives that address the root of the problem. Increased law
enforcement presence and active patrolling on the lake would help ensure
that all users—residents and visitors alike—are following existing safety
and operational guidelines. Targeting unsafe behavior directly is, in my
view, a more balanced and effective solution than prohibiting a specific
type of boat.
A blanket restriction on wake boats would impact responsible property
owners without fully addressing the broader issues of congestion and
misuse. I respectfully urge the Commissioners to reconsider this proposal
and explore solutions that promote safe, shared use of Lost Lake.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Josh Steele
Sent from my iPhone
From: Brian Bare
To: Sharon Trask
Subject: Wake Boat Ordnance
Date: Friday,April 24,2026 9:53:05 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my support for implementing restrictions or an outright ban on wake-
enhancing boats on smaller lakes in Mason County.
Wake-enhancing boats, by design, generate significantly larger and more powerful waves than
traditional watercraft. While these vessels may be appropriate for larger bodies of water, their
use on smaller lakes presents serious concerns for both environmental health and shoreline
infrastructure.
First, the amplified wakes contribute to accelerated shoreline erosion. The repeated impact of
large waves destabilizes banks, destroys natural vegetation, and degrades critical habitat for
fish, amphibians, and other wildlife. Many smaller lakes rely on delicate ecological balances,
and increased turbidity and sediment displacement can have lasting negative effects on water
quality and aquatic life.
Second, these wakes pose a direct threat to private and public property. Docks, bulkheads,
and moored boats are not typically designed to withstand continuous high-energy wave
action. Property owners are left to absorb the cost of repairs and maintenance caused by
conditions that did not previously exist on these lakes.
Additionally, smaller lakes often lack the size and depth necessary to safely dissipate these
waves. This results in waves reflecting back and forth across the lake, compounding their
impact and increasing safety risks for swimmers, paddlers, and other recreational users.
For these reasons, it is both reasonable and necessary to consider regulations that limit or
prohibit wake-enhancing boats on smaller lakes within Mason County. Protecting shoreline
integrity, preserving wildlife habitat, and preventing unnecessary property damage should be
a priority for our community.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
Captain Brian Bare
From: Kevin Rae
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Mason County Wake Enhanced Boating
Date: Sunday,April 26,2026 6:29:31 AM
Good morning McKenzie,
I hope this email finds you well and can be directed to the board of commissioners,
My name is Kevin Rae, and I'm a property owner on Lost Lake in Mason County. I want to be
very clear—I do not support this proposed wake-enhanced motorboat ordinance.
I understand the concern about shoreline damage, and I think that concern is valid. Everyone
who lives on these lakes has an interest in protecting them. But this proposal does not take a
balanced or practical approach to that goal.
As written, this functions as a ban on many lakes in Mason County. Requiring both 250 feet
from shore and 20 feet of depth at the same time leaves little to no usable water on a large
number of lakes. That means this isn't really regulating behavior—it's eliminating an activity
outright, even in places where it has been done responsibly for years.
It also oversimplifies the cause of shoreline impacts. Erosion is not driven by a single source.
Wind-driven waves, water level fluctuations, and shoreline conditions like vegetation removal
or hardened structures all play a major role. This ordinance singles out one type of boating
without addressing the broader factors that actually affect shoreline health.
In other states that have spent years studying this issue, like Minnesota and Wisconsin, the
approach has generally not been to impose blanket bans. Instead, they've focused on setbacks,
education, and in some cases lake-specific rules. Even where concerns are high, like in
Connecticut, regulators have been cautious about overreaching and have not moved straight to
broad prohibitions like this.
That's the key issue here—this proposal is more restrictive than what many other areas are
doing, even those that have studied this more extensively.
What actually makes a difference on the water is how boats are operated. Responsible
operators already adjust where they run, avoid shallow areas, and limit repeated passes near
shore. That kind of real-world behavior is what reduces impact—not rigid criteria that don't
reflect how lakes are actually used.
I'm also concerned about enforcement. Relying on things like "wake characteristics" or visible
ballast use introduces a level of subjectivity that could lead to inconsistent enforcement and
unnecessary conflict.
I'm not opposed to reasonable regulation. If there are specific problem areas, address those. If
better education or clearer guidance is needed, that makes sense. But this proposal is too
broad, too restrictive, and ultimately punishes responsible users without clearly solving the
problem it's trying to address.
I would strongly urge you to reconsider this ordinance and work toward a more balanced
approach that protects the lakes without effectively eliminating a lawful and widely enjoyed
activity.
Thank you.
Kevin
From: tstodd50(cbyahoo.conn
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wake boats ordinance
Date: Thursday,April 23,2026 8:38:08 PM
My name is Teresa Stoddard and I live at Lost Lake I purchased my
waterfront lot in 1994. I had a bulkhead built with large 18x12x10 inch cement blocks that are
held together with fiberglass pins. The bulkhead had been stable for over 20 years until
property close by sold(2 parcels) and the new owners built homes, docks and each have large
boats that hold water in the ballast that they surf behind. Within 2 summers of this boating
activity the wake undermined the bottom level of my bulkhead and half of it collapsed into the
lake.
My walkway to my dock is the type that rides on wheels as lake level changes,the wake from
these large boat causes my dock to bounce around so much it has destroyed 4 sets of wheels.
My dock took such a beating last year the 20 ft pipes that hold it in place came loose and had
to be replaced. The cost of all these repairs has been significant and as a retired senior citizen
on a fixed income I cannot afford any.more fixes. I appreciate that your looking into the
property damage these wake boats cause. Thank you
Teresa Stoddard
Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize, Conquer
Michael Jones, Owner: Island Lake Science
April 22, 2026
Mason County Board of Commissioners 411 N 5th Street Shelton, WA 98584
Subject: Community Conflict and Scientific Concerns Regarding Wake Boat Operation on Island
Lake
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing as a resident of Island Lake, a biologist, and a science educator who operates a
research and education laboratory on the lake. I am increasingly concerned about two issues that
now require your attention: (1)the scientific incompatibility of wake boat operation on a small,
shallow lake such as Island Lake, and(2)the rapid deterioration of community peace and civility
as this issue has escalated into verbal hostility among residents.
First, the scientific evidence is clear that wake-enhancing vessels are designed to generate large,
high-energy waves that require substantial depth and distance to dissipate safely. Island Lake's
limited surface area-103 acres, circular shape, and shallow depth make it fundamentally
unsuitable for wake-enhanced boating. In shallow basins,wake energy transfers directly into the
lakebed, resuspending sediments in the water column done by wake boats, thus mixing nutrients
(phosphates and nitrogen compounds from irrigation systems), with plankton causing massive
algae blooms. Additionally, damaged septic tank leeching fields add nutrients into the lake. In
years past major plankton blooms have turned the lake pea-soup green and caused swimmer's
itch. These impacts are well-documented in limnological studies and are observable on our lake.
Island Lake simply does not have the depth profile or spatial buffer required to absorb the forces
generated by wake boats without ecological harm.
Second, the social environment surrounding this issue has deteriorated sharply. A small minority
of wake boat owners has become increasingly aggressive in online discussions,particularly on
Facebook, where misinformation, misinterpretation of RCWs, and personal attacks have become
common. As a science educator, and past official for Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Department of Boating and Ocean Recreation, I am accustomed to addressing
misunderstandings, but the level of hostility now present goes far beyond healthy debate.
Residents who express concerns are frequently met with verbal abuse, insinuations, and name-
calling. Many long-time community members no longer feel comfortable participating in public
discussion. The tranquility that has defined Island Lake for decades is being eroded not only by
the physical impacts of wake boats, but by the social conflict surrounding them.
This situation is escalating, and without intervention, it risks further division and potential
confrontation among neighbors. I am deeply concerned that the community fabric is fraying in
ways that will be difficult to repair.
I respectfully ask the Commission to acknowledge the seriousness of both the environmental and
social impacts now unfolding on Island Lake. The wake boat issue is no longer a simple
disagreement among residents; it has become a destabilizing force affecting the health of the lake
and the well-being of the community. I urge the County to review the scientific evidence
regarding wake boat operation on small, shallow lakes and to consider appropriate measures to
protect both the ecosystem and the safety and harmony of Island Lake residents. I fully support a
ban on wake boat operation on Island Lake as well as other lakes in Mason County.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I would be glad to provide
scientific data, field observations, or further testimony if helpful.
Sincerely,
Mike Jones Biologist and Science Educator Island Lake, Shelton, WA.
Contact
From:
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: FW:Wake board boat ban
Date: Wednesday,April 22,2026 3:12:37 PM
Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------
From:
Date: 4/22/26 3:10 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: mssmith@masoncountygov.wa
Subject: Wake board boat ban
I live on Mason Lake and am totally against banning wakeboard boats on all but Mason and
Cushman. It will increase that traffic here enormously. Those boats cause enough damage to
our properties as it is. The year they closed Cushman, I believe it was 2021, due to so many
people up by Party Rock,well, they all came to Mason. It was horrible. Boaters ignoring
laws,peeing off their boats into the lake, throwing trash into the water....the boat launch was
overflowing onto the road.
I for one would love to see them banned altogether, as they do cause many problems here.
But banning on all but 2 lakes.....ridiculous.
Le Powers
Sent from my Galaxy
From: David Meinert
To: McKenzie Smith; Randy Neatherlin; Pat Tarzwell;Sharon Trask
Subject: Wake Boat Ordinance
Date: Monday,April 20,2026 5:24:11 PM
I'm writing in support of the Wake Boat Ordinance.
My family and I have owned property on Lost Lake for 6 decades. Since wake boats were
introduced and as they have grown in size and power,we have watched our docks destroyed,
the shorelines damaged, and aquatic wildlife like bass, catfish, crawdads and salamanders
disappear from the lake as invasive weeds come in.
This summer our kids were almost thrown off the dock by a massive wake from a wake boat
that came within 10 feet of our dock. It is out of control and the owners have proven then
cannot be trusted to follow rules. In Lost Lake there is no safe distance for a wake boat to be
due to the small size and shape of the lake.
The only issue with the ordinance is that it isn't clear enough that a wake boot should NEVER
operate on the lake as even with their add on wake enhancements not engaged, their primary
wake enhancement is their hull design which cannot be turned off. Please alter the ordinance
to clearly ban them from small lakes at all times.
Thank you for your excellent work!
David Meinert
Hold Fast Hospitality Group
www.holdfasthospitalitv.com
April 27, 2026
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Mason County Board of Commissioners,
Tomorrow morning you are considering a motion to approve a Public Hearing to consider
and take comment on adopting a proposed wake-enhanced motorboat operation
ordinance. I believe that while there has clearly been some research done and you've
clearly received complaints and concerns from shoreline property owners and possibly
others who feel they have been impacted by this, now is not the specific time to go into
great detail regarding the negative impacts of that proposed ordinance. Perhaps you didn't
even believe there would be any negative impact, though that would be naive. I will save the
detailed counter-arguments for the Public Hearing on May 26th. I will at least summarize a
few points though:
While it would likely take years to show on the County Assessor's values, this ordinance
would drastically affect the marketable property values for anyone looking to buy or sell
with the interest of owning or selling property on a "full water sports" lake. I do sincerely
hope the Commissioners consider their responsibility to ALL property owners as you weigh
these decisions, not only those who have been vocal about their complaints. I do
understand the financial concerns for those who need to make repairs to their shoreline,
bulkheads and docks. I myself will need to make those same repairs this year. I consider it
part of the cost of lakefront ownership that comes with the privilege of enjoying the fruits of
those labors in the various water sports activities we enjoy.
I do acknowledge that there are some operators who are careless and that property
damage has occurred. Plenty of watercraft operators who are NOT wake-enhanced boat
operators are equally as careless. Many of those scenarios force towboats (any towboats,
not just wake-enhanced) into difficult maneuvers often times closer to shorelines than
would be considered reasonable. ANY boat that is towing at lower speeds, regardless of
their"wake-enhanced"capability, creates a larger than average wake. I've seen very little
effort or responsibility taken by those operators to take the same amount of care and
consideration that MOST wake-surf boats take. They either do not care because the focus
is on us as the"bad guys"or they are naive to the results of their own actions. We ARE
aware of our wakes and DO take all precautions possible to limit any negative effect we
have on others enjoyment of the lake.
I see it is currently listed as"N/A" under the heading of"Associated Costs/ Budget Impact".
I assume that that is only referring to the cost of the next meeting?Surely Mr. Adams can't
imagine that this ordinance won't come at a cost to the county in the form legal
repercussions from current property owners who are also wake-surf boat owners.The
absolute certainty of reduced property value, the difficulty in selling that property and the
huge time and financial burden in finding comparable and suitable property on one of the
two lakes listed as acceptable wake-enhanced operation lakes, let alone the cost of
moving to and/or building on one of those lakes, the negative impact and cost of
commuting, especially for those who are full time residents, all carry significant financial
impact.
I also see that there are two other measures being considered for that May 26th meeting at
9:15. I don't know how heated or involved the Water System Regulations and the Outdoor
Burning Program discussions will be, but I am suggesting that the Motorboating ordinance
has it's own meeting and that plenty of time is allotted beyond the standard 15 minutes for
public discussion. There will no doubt be plenty of property owners with a stake in this from
both sides of the argument, all with much to say.
Thank you for your time in reading this, we'll see you tomorrow.
Doug Stankavich
From: Kevin Roscoe
To: McKenzie Smith
Cc: Melanie Roscoe
Subject: Wakeboat restrictions
Date: Tuesday,April 28,2026 12:45:45 PM
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
I am writing as a shoreline resident of Mason Lake to share my perspective on wakeboats and
any potential restrictions.
My wife, Melanie, has been slalom skiing on Mason Lake since the 1980s and was a top finisher,
placing first, second, or third, in the slalom competitions held at Simpson Park in 1982, 1983, and
1984. Her family has been part of the Mason Lake community since 1951.
Water sports, particularly wakesurfing, are now an important part of how many families and
visitors enjoy the lake. We purchased a small wakeboat in 2009, and some of our fondest
memories have come from sharing time on the water with family and friends. It continues to be a
highlight of our summers. For many of us, time on the lake is a primary way we connect with
family and community.
These activities also support local recreation and contribute to the area's economy through
tourism, vacation rentals, boat ownership, maintenance, fuel purchases, and local retail.
Restrictions or bans on wakeboats would likely have a negative impact on both the local economy
and tourism.
I understand there are concerns about shoreline impacts, safety, and the overall lake experience,
and those concerns deserve thoughtful consideration. At the same time, I believe broad
restrictions or bans on wakeboats would be a disproportionate response that limits access to a
widely enjoyed activity.
Rather than prohibitions, I encourage the County to consider balanced, evidence-based
approaches such as:
1. Clear guidance on operating distances from shore, docks, and other water users
2.Education and outreach on responsible wakeboat operation
3.Time-of-day recommendations to reduce congestion and conflict
4.Consistent enforcement of existing boating safety and no-wake regulations
These measures can help reduce impacts while preserving access for a wide range of lake users.
Mason Lake has long provided a diverse range of recreational activities, encompassing fishing,
swimming, kayaking, stand-up paddleboarding, floatplanes, windsurfing, sailing, water skiing, and
powerboating. Wake sports are a natural extension of this tradition. With reasonable guidelines
and shared responsibility, it is feasible to accommodate multiple uses without diminishing the
enjoyment of any particular group. This approach will contribute to the preservation of Mason
Lake as a cherished destination for tourism and recreation for future generations.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kevin Roscoe, MD
From: Andy Snodgrass
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Proposed Wake Boat Regulation
Date: Monday,April 27, 2026 7:30:47 PM
Dear Mason County Commissioners/To Whom it May concern,
I am writing to address the proposed modification to regulations to wake enhanced
boats.
My wife and I are owners of a boat equipped with the ability to wake surf. Our
family has also owned property on a Mason County lake for decades. I consider
ourselves very responsible boat owners and realize that the wake can potentially
damage bulk heads and or docks however that can be mitigated by, again,
responsible boating. Obviously mistakes happen but they should not be a reason to
completely ban the use of the boats from local from lakes.
Our children love the boating season and quite honestly the "surfing" is a very
minimal part of what we use our boat for when compared to tubing/cruising etc.
As a family looking at purchasing an additional residence on a local lake I'm
concerned that if this is passed this will drive down lake residence values and or
have successful families look outside the county for places to buy a family
residence to enjoy years on our local lakes.
Lastly, enforcement of this regulation would be, in my opinion, difficult at best to
enforce. Obviously if the Sheriff's office was on a lake they would be able to
enforce someone using the systems(s). However I could see neighbors calling to
report when they suspect someone is using their ballast system. Unless caught
using the system this would be very hard to enforce as operators obviously switch
and they would most likely not have loaded ballasts when docked leading to even
more difficultly enforcing the law. I could also see some people calling on
neighbors with the boat that ARE following the regulations. This would be difficult
for the owner of the boat to prove they weren't using the systems when contacted
by law enforcement.
I believe that banning the boats all together is a step Mason County should avoid. I
believe that the modification as written would be almost impossible to enforce. If
there is an issue with boat operators operating in a reckless or negligent manner
they should be dealt with instead of trying to over regulate yet another thing that is
difficult at best to regulate for responsible boat owners that have worked hard to
provide a family sport in our local area and quite honestly in some cases spent a
large sum of money to do so.
Thank you for taking my letter into consideration.
V/R,
J.A. Snodgrass
Attention Mason County Commissioners:
In strong opposition of enforcing and banning wake surf boats and the family friendly sport
of wake surfing.We have lived on Lost Lake for over 20+years and have raised our family
surfing and enjoying the activities on Lost lake. We use our boat not only for surfing but
fishing, taking grandchildren tubing and 4th of July parade, plus sightseeing/cruising
around the lake, it is a multipurpose boat. By banning wake boats completely,you are
preventing us from using our boat completely on the lake we pay to live on. We have a great
deal invested in the sport of surfing including boats, boards, and safety gear. I was in an
accident, and I am only able due to medical disability to surf because it is only done at
1 Omp hour and has a low impact. I was an avid skier and all other water sports. By banning
surfing, you are taking away the only sport left I can enjoy.
Will there be compensation for the property value reduction and the lower tax base. Lost
Lake is classified as an all sports lake with equal to saltwater property values limited sport
lakes reduce the value from 30 to 60%this is a major reduction. Will there be
compensation for homeowners?
Will this bill ban the sport of surfing or just the surf boat. We began surfing behind a water
ski boat at slow speeds and advanced to a very expensive surf boat. Would it be legal if we
went back to our original old ski boat with five teenagers standing in a rear corner to create
a surf there would be no surf enhancing devices or bags and would this be in use?
Have the failing bulkhead and docks been permitted, engineered and built to county
codes?
I have been on lost lake for 20 plus years on a very busy outcropping of the main lake and
have had no dock or shore damage due to the surfing I think the best solution would be to
limit the surfing and hours to 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM to allow the paddle boarders and
fishermen time to enjoy the calm lake this is a fair compromise.
We have included a nautical and shoreline depth chart of lost lake that proves we meet the
set standers of 250 feet from shore and min of 20 ft depth. It appears Lost Lake should be
exempt from the ban. If not, can we please get detailed explanation because here is proof it
meets set standers.
Curt Harmon
f
uI .
'r
us t'3
so . )
Z21 2322
y m S0� 59 54 �i 1:7
.+41R y'4 A 42 tq 3J 61
T' a, Ss wi Jm0 J2 , y
s', to ''
I
.0 an az a as 4.43Z
� sn
.. des y, son q f
3u
71 L:,NC VJJi:JNc;ltic
13 1�,
r .'-
L ,7 -is
f:i1 ', + ` p �� �M,Y•��' .�°i
15
• � 17 1} \ � • f
1
S ( , fl , I fl
} 4st
�?• � 'w: t 11
I $ r
. .{ter - ��S 21
2 1. f"�Q d$ 21
- 22 $i __ 20 22 24 23
21 •
r a
�X26
24 20
27 3029 ( s!
) 2i
20 x 20 28
" 30 21
2225 24
t 23
From: Rhonda Smith
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Re: Opposition to Proposed Wakeboard Ordinance-Lost Lake Mason County
Date: Wednesday,April 29,2026 12:19:25 PM
Clarification-my opposition is that we would like to wake surf on Lost Lake
Rhonda Smith
cell: 253-318-6604
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:44 AM Rhonda Smith<rhonda.l.smithl234(c'gmai1.com>wrote:
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed ordinance that would restrict or
prohibit the use of wakeboard boats on Lost Lake to wake surf.
My family owns a home on Lost Lake, and like many others in our community, we made a
significant financial investment—based in part on the lake's long-standing recreational
use, including wake surfing and other water sports. The proposed ordinance would
fundamentally change how we are able to use and enjoy our property with our
family and friends.
I understand that one of the County's primary concerns is shoreline erosion. We share the
goal of preserving the health and longevity of the lake and its shoreline. However, a
complete or overly broad restriction on wakeboard boats may not be the most balanced or
effective solution. Shoreline erosion is influenced by multiple factors, including weather,
natural wave action, shoreline development, and existing boat traffic of all kinds. Many lake
communities have addressed these concerns through reasonable, targeted measures—such as
designated distances from shore, no-wake zones near sensitive areas, and time-of-day
restrictions—rather than outright limitations on a specific type of boat.
Wake surfing is not simply a pastime for us; it is a central part of how we gather as a family,
host guests, and engage with our community. Eliminating or severely restricting this activity
would materially diminish our enjoyment of our Lost Lake family home and the intended
use of our property.
In addition, I am deeply concerned about the broader economic consequences. Policies that
limit recreational access on lakes like Lost Lake can significantly reduce property values.
Buyers are drawn to these properties specifically because of their recreational opportunities.
Restricting those uses risks devaluing not only individual homes but the overall tax base that
supports the County.
We fully support responsible lake use and would welcome the opportunity to be part of a
collaborative solution that addresses shoreline protection while preserving reasonable
recreational access. We respectfully ask the County to reconsider this ordinance and work
with lake residents to develop balanced guidelines that reflect both environmental
stewardship and property owner rights.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Rhonda Smith
Rhonda Smith
From: Kristen Smith
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Wake-Enhanced Motorboat Operation Ordinance—Mason County
Date: Thursday,April 30,2026 8:59:00 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to respectfully oppose the proposed ordinance restricting wake-enhanced
motorboat operations in Mason County, specifically Lost Lake.
Our family has a lake house here, and Lost Lake is not just a place we visit—it is where we
spend meaningful time together and where our children are growing up making lasting
memories. Our two boys, ages 7 and 10, have learned to wake-surf and tube behind our boat,
and these activities are a central part of our family time. These are not just recreational
moments; they are experiences that build confidence, strengthen family bonds, and create
lifelong memories.
The proposed ordinance would significantly limit our ability to continue these traditions.
Wake-surfing and tubing are activities that require specific conditions and equipment, and
restricting wake-enhanced boating would effectively take away a major part of what makes
our time at the lake so special. For our boys, this would mean losing opportunities to be active
outdoors, develop new skills, and enjoy the lake in a way they truly love.
We understand and respect the importance of protecting shoreline integrity,wildlife, and
ensuring safety for all lake users. However, we believe there are more balanced approaches
that can address these concerns without broadly restricting wake-enhanced boating. Education,
designated zones, and reasonable distance requirements could help mitigate impacts while still
allowing families like ours to responsibly enjoy the lake.
We respectfully ask that you reconsider the scope of this ordinance and explore alternatives
that preserve both the health of our lakes and the traditions of the families who cherish them.
I have also attached photos of our family enjoying time on the boat at Lost Lake, so you ca see
the joy it brings to our family.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Kristen Smith
From: Troy&Jordon Smith
To: jojoblackdoa�a gmail.com;Troy Smith Personal; McKenzie Smith
Subject: Lost Lake erosion control and wake surfing
Date: Thursday,April 30,2026 5:27:31 PM
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing as a resident of Lost Lake in Mason County to share our perspective regarding
concerns about wake surfing and its potential impact on shoreline erosion.
For our family, the lake is an important part of our daily lives and a place where we spend
meaningful time together across generations. From our youngest family members to
grandparents, wake surfing is an activity that allows us to connect, stay active, and enjoy the
natural environment we are fortunate to live in.
We understand that there are concerns about erosion related to wake surfing. However,based
on our direct, long-term experience, we have not observed any erosion issues along our
property. We own approximately 180 feet of shoreline on the north shore of the lake, an area
that is regularly exposed to the strongest weather, waves, and seasonal conditions.
Over the 22 years we have lived here, our shoreline has remained stable. While high winter
water levels occasionally bring in debris such as logs, this has not resulted in erosion damage.
Additionally, our dock, which has been in place since we built our home, has not experienced
any issues related to wave activity.
Given our location and the duration of our experience, we believe our property provides a
meaningful example that wake surfing has not caused erosion problems in this area. We
respectfully ask that this perspective be considered when evaluating any potential regulations
affecting lake use.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Troy smith
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing regarding the wake boats on Mason County lakes.
While I understand it is a concern with smaller lakes, it is also a concern for owners of Mason Lake,
and I imagine Lake Cushman as well.
I am concerned that it will funnel a lot more boat traffic; specifically wake boats to Mason Lk and
Lk Cushman and therefore a safety concern.
Boaters don't comply with the 250ft from shoreline as it is now on Mason Lake.
Our beach and dock are slammed by the wake boats coming too close. It has a big impact to the
slope of our beach and the structural integrity of our dock.
Our boat, even with mooring whips, gets hammered too. The boat at times, still hits our dock, and
he bilge has filled with water due to some waves. (the stern is toward the beach).
In addition, it is a safety concern for small watercrafts -paddle boards,kayaks, and swimmers.
If it does pass that wake boats are not allowed on the smaller lakes, I request consideration be made
for some system be put in place for property preservation and safety of owners on Mason Lake and
Lake Cushman.
Possibly like the system for watering lawns during drought season—Can there be odd/even days
that wake boats get access to the lake?
Or markers on the lake?
I think there should be more Sheriff patrols on the lake as well.
My family has owned the property/cabin since the early 60's and are very fortunate to have a place
o recreate and enjoy the outdoors.
Please take my feedback into consideration during your discussions. We appreciate you all.
Sue Brooks/Meg Angevin
From: VICTORIA BYINGTON
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: In Favor of Wakeboat Ban
Date: Saturday, May 2,2026 11:10:55 AM
Dear Ms. Smith,
My family is very personally interested in the issue if a wakeboat ban, of which we are in
favor.
If you are creating an email list of those who would like to attend the County
Commissioners' Hearing later this month, on this matter, please add me to it. Would
also appreciate if the contents of the email narrative below* be entered into the official
record for the Hearing as there will likely not be enough time for all concerned to speak
at the Hearing:
*My name is Victoria Byington and I am the current owner, and the granddaughter of
Walt and Katie Miller, who made our family's
little slice of paradise several decades ago. "The Lake" has been a part of our family for
as far back as I can remember, and I am 59 years old.We essentially grew up on Lake
Nahwatzel where we spent every summer in this small community of"Lake Family"
swimming, row boating, tubing and waterskiing.
Our family feels a deep responsibility to truly be "Friends of Lake Nahwatzel" (FoLN).
There are a few people who have shared on our FoLN Facebook page that they are
against the ban because wakeboats are how they have fun on it. But, the bottom line for
the majority of homeowners on this Lake, by far, is that the primary consideration should
not be about any ones' "fun"...
This is about Nature being Nurtured and our responsibility to be good stewards now, so
The Lake can be enjoyed for generations to come and also be a safe haven for The Lake's
flora and fauna (except for trout and bass )
As we FoLN know, Lake Nahwatzel's defining features include being shallow and spring-
fed with year-round warm water and year-round creeks (Outlet Creeks) one of which
flows into the East Fork of the Satsop River and is part of an ephemeral inlet (wetland) in
that one corner. Lake Nahwatzel, and similarly configured lakes, must be better
protected against the damage done by wakeboats! [BTW, Lake Nahwatzel has already
suffered the loss of our beloved bullheads and salamanders, which used to be so
plentiful when we were young, because of someone's ill-conceived notion to add bass to
the native trout population of our Lake].
Now, back to the matter at hand. The people who use wakeboats on our Lake argue
against a ban because it will deprive them of their fun as if there are no other water
sports to be enjoyed here???They argue that a wakeboat ban would be a "slippery
slope"to other water sports being banned. We believe the Mason County
Commissioners understand that this is about wakeboats and their waves only.There is
just no keeping wakeboat waves in the middle of our small Lake, as these wakeboat
owners propose they will now do, to avoid being banned. However, there is not enough
depth or circumference for these wakeboat waves to adequately disperse even if they
stay in the middle of The Lake.
Physics is Physics. Just like the earth is an oblate spheroid due to the interaction
between gravity and rotation.The physics of wakeboats on small, shallow lakes, like our
glorious Lake Nahwatzel, results in significant ecological impacts, because:
>>Wakeboat engineering depends on deep water to manage energy<<
When operating in shallow water, the high energy from ballast-weighted hulls and
powerful propeller wash directly disturbs the lakebed. This destructive force not only
causes significant shoreline erosion, but also degrades water quality on a sustained
basis, batters and damages our docks well beyond normal wear and tear. Plus, the large,
obnoxious wakeboat waves noticeably interfere with the enjoyment of other motorized
watercraft, swimmers, kayakers, canoers and paddleboarders.
It is crystal clear to folks who fully appreciate the crux of this situation;we who
understand the Physics of wakeboats and necessity for consideration of Our
Responsibility to Nurture our Natural Resources.
We believe wholeheartedly that wakeboats should no more be allowed on Lake
Nahwatzel than we should allow barrels of toxic chemicals to be dumped into it...
Sincerely,
Victoria L Byington
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: J ROBERT STEPHANIE REIME
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wakeboard boats on Lost lake
Date: Tuesday, May 12,2026 9:51:31 AM
Sent from my iPhone,
I am writing to express my concern about the presence of wakeboard boats on Lost Lake in Mason County.Lost
Lake has always been cherished for its natural beauty and tranquility,attracting people who enjoy boating,
kayaking,paddleboarding,swimming,and fishing in a safe and serene environment.However,the safety concerns
and the damage caused to properties,docks,retaining walls,and personal belongings due to the large waves
generated by these boats have become significant issues.
I respectfully request that the county consider implementing restrictions on wakeboard boats to preserve the lake's
natural beauty and ensure a safe and enjoyable environment for all visitors.
Sincerely,
J Robert Reime
(
Shelton
*Resident for over 45 years*
PORT OF GRAPEVIEW
P.O. Box 3
Grapeview, WA 98546
www.portofgrapeview.com
425-610-6552
May 11, 2026
Mason County Board of Commissioners
411 N 5th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
VIA EMAIL to Commission Clerk
Subject: Community Conflict and Scientific Concerns Regarding Wake Boat
Operations on Mason Lake and Lake Cushman
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing as a resident of Mason Lake, a Professional Engineer, and a Northwest estuarine
ecologist. I also currently serve on two Mason County advisory committees: the Onsite Sewage
Advisory Committee and the Mason County Clean Water District Advisory Committee.
Throughout my professional and volunteer service, I have remained committed to protecting
water quality, human health, and aquatic ecosystems within Mason County. As a Port of
Grapeview Commissioner, I am equally dedicated to protecting the interests and quality of life
of my constituents in Grapeview.
I understand the environmental impacts associated with wake boats and large artificial wakes.
I have also experienced firsthand the physical effects these waves have caused to my own
waterfront property, including damage to my dock, boats, and shoreline. Beyond property
impacts, the increasing intensity of boat traffic has created significant safety concerns. Before
implementing any policy that may further intensify shoreline wave impacts, I strongly
recommend that Mason County Board of County Commissioners formally consult with the
Washington State Department of Ecology to determine whether an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is warranted. See attachment.
I have researched how other states have approached this issue. One particularly relevant
study was conducted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources titled "Review of Wake
Boat Effects on Aquatic Habitat" (July 2023). The study concluded that the large waves
generated by wake boats may require between 400 and 1,023 feet to dissipate to wave
heights and energy levels comparable to those produced by conventional recreational boat
operating at normal cruising speeds.
Email: portofgrapeview@Jgmaii.com
Mason County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
May 11, 2026
This finding has important implications for Mason Lake. At minimum, a wake boat operating
safely away from shorelines and structures would require approximately 800 feet of open
water to allow wake energy to dissipate adequately on both sides. Many portions of Mason
Lake are less than one-quarter mile wide, or approximately 1,320 feet. When existing buoy
setbacks, no-wake zones, docks, and shoreline structures are considered, the remaining
operational space for wake-enhanced boating becomes extremely limited.
I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to boating or marine recreation. Wake boats are
remarkable engineering achievements, and I appreciate their design and recreational value.
However, if manufacturers wish to continue expanding this industry responsibly, they should
invest in technologies capable of significantly reducing wave energy beyond a short
operational distance. As a design engineer holding multiple patents, I believe such systems are
technically achievable.
The broader boating-management issues on Mason Lake also deserve attention. These
include:
• Excessive-speed boating near shoreline areas and buoy lines
• Operators unfamiliar with Washington boating regulations
• Excessive boat noise and amplified music
• Jet boats operating without properly functioning mufflers
• Use of buoy lines as slalom courses
• Wake boats with limited forward visibility striking buoys
• Jet skis interfering with amphibious firefighting aircraft during water-scooping
operations
These issues exist largely because a small percentage of boaters consistently ignore
established safety regulations. Unfortunately, the Mason County Sheriff's Department claims
he lacks sufficient staffing and resources to effectively monitor and enforce boating laws
across all county lakes and salt waters.
Currently, residents are encouraged to document violations and report vessel registration
numbers. In reality, most incidents occur too quickly or too far away for accurate reporting by
shoreline residents.
In conclusion, the wake boat issue in Mason County is not an isolated recreational debate. It is
part of a much larger challenge involving public safety, environmental protection, aquatic
habitat preservation, invasive species management, shoreline erosion, and law-enforcement
capability.
Email: portofgrapeview@gmail.com
Mason County Board of Commissioners
Page 3
May 11, 2026
I believe this presents Mason County with an opportunity to become a regional leader in
developing balanced, science-based boating policies that protect both recreational access and
aquatic ecosystems.
To help break the current impasse, I recommend the County establish a short-term advisory
committee with a clearly defined scope and timeline. The committee should include
stakeholders representing:
• Lakefront property owners
• Recreational boaters
• Scientists and technical experts
• Environmental specialists
• Law-enforcement representatives
• Local government officials
From the Municipal Research and Services Center:
"Volunteer citizen advisory boards are an integral part of American local government.
The creation of advisory boards is a way for local governments to engage citizens in the
democratic process. Their primary purpose is to provide judicious advice from a citizen
perspective. The activities of an advisory board may include the study of critical issues,
taking public testimony, performing independent research, and reviewing staff reports
and recommendations. These prepare the advisory body to discuss, analyze,"
I hope the information and recommendations provided above assist the County in
understanding the broader scope of boating-related issues facing Mason County lakes and
adjacent saltwater to encourage a thoughtful, science-based approach to future policy
decisions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Art Whitson, PE
Port of Grapeview Commissioner District 1
Attachment: (1)
Email: portofgrapeview@gmail.com
May 11, 2026
Art Whitson, PE to the Mason County Board of Commissioners
In Washington, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is generally required under the State
Environmental Policy Act when a government agency determines that a proposed action is likely
to cause"significant adverse environmental impacts."
The process works like this:
1. A project or government action is proposed.
2. The lead agency performs a SEPA"threshold determination."
3. The agency issues one of three findings:
o DNS = Determination of Non-Significance
o MDNS = Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance
o DS = Determination of Significance
If the agency issues a DS, then an EIS is required.
Typical projects that may trigger an EIS include:
• Large residential or commercial developments
• Major shoreline or waterfront projects
• Ports, marinas, and industrial facilities
• High-impact mining, logging, or energy projects
• Highway expansions
• Large zoning or comprehensive plan changes
• Projects affecting wetlands, fish habitat, water quality, traffic, noise, or endangered
species
Under SEPA, "significant" usually means impacts that are:
• more than moderate,
• widespread,
• long-lasting,
• difficult to mitigate,
• potentially severe even if unlikely.
Many smaller projects do not require an EIS because they:
• are categorically exempt,
• receive a DNS,
• or can be mitigated enough to receive an MDNS instead.
For shoreline and lake issues like wake boats, erosion, sediment transport, habitat impacts, or
cumulative environmental effects, an EIS can become relevant if:
• a county adopts or changes regulations,
May 11, 2026
Mason County Board of Commissioners
Page 2
• or evidence shows probable significant environmental harm requiring broader analysis.
The legal standard comes from:
• RCW 43.21C (SEPA)
• WAC 197-11-330
An EIS is required for"major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment."
Source: MRSC to Port of Grapeview during Fair Harbor Boat Complex planning.
From: Kiersten Kellogg
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wake Boats on Lost Lake
Date: Monday,May 11,2026 3:11:22 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a resident of Lost Lake and strongly support banning wake boats on our
lake. This issue is deeply personal to me because I grew up spending my
summers at Lost Lake. I am raising my own young children there.
Unfortunately, the lake is no longer the safe and peaceful place it once was.
The large waves created by wake boats have made the lake unsafe for families
and children. I am genuinely scared for my children when they paddleboard or
kayak because of the size and force of the wakes created by these boats. Even
in our designated swimming area, my children become fearful of the water due
to the constant, large waves, to the point where many times they no longer feel
comfortable swimming at all.
In addition to the safety concerns, the waves are damaging our property. Many
residents have invested significant time, money, and care into maintaining safe
waterfront areas, and those efforts are being undermined.
Lost Lake is simply too small to safely handle the size of the wakes and the
increased traffic these boats create. The impacts affect not only shoreline
erosion and property damage, but also the quality and safety for families who
use the lake for traditional recreation like swimming, kayaking, canoeing, and
paddleboarding.
As someone who has loved this lake since childhood and now experiences it as
a parent, I believe this is an urgent matter. I respectfully urge Mason County to
take action to protect Lost Lake and preserve it for future generations of
families.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kjersten Kellogg
From: Katriina Dunn
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wake Boat Ban
Date: Monday,May 11,2026 1:56:51 PM
I am writing this email to express my support for the ban on wake boats, specifically on Lost
Lake. As someone who has spent 36 summers on that lake, I have noticed major changes in
the atmosphere of the lake since those big boats have arrived.
It is no longer safe to pull kids behind tubes when boats are throwing up huge unsafe wakes. I
have two young children and they have been tossed around by the huge waves that these boats
create and it's simply dangerous to have children out on the water when they are out there,
even if you are the one going slow. It is also scary when small children are swimming in the
water and the hazardous waves come crashing in. Each year Camp Bishop hosts hundreds of
kids to this lake who swim, boat and spend time in kayaks. It is a family friendly lake and has
always been, I am asking you to please help us keep it that way.
The small channel in the middle of the lake is way too narrow for two boats to pass each other.
I have seen some close calls that could have ended way worse. This lake is just way too small
for these oversized boats that we have been seeing.
I believe a better place for these boats is on bigger lakes that can handle them. Large waves
generated from these boats are causing ongoing property damage to lakeside homes, docks &
waterfront areas.
Please take into consideration the safety of others as your main concern, along with
destruction of property when you are looking into this issue.
Sincerely,
Katriina Dunn
From: Stephanie Reime
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Fwd:Wake boats on Lost Lake
Date: Monday,May 11,2026 12:14:10 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stephanie Reime<
Date: May 11, 2026 at 12:10:58 PM PDT
To: J ROBERT STEPHANIE REIME <
Subject: Fwd: Wake boats on Lost Lake
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Stephanie Reime<
Date: May 11, 2026 at 12:10:05 PM PDT
To: Msmith@masoncounty.gov
Subject: Wake boats on Lost Lake
Sent from my iPhone
I am writing as a concerned, property owner, and longtime resident of
Lost Lake in Mason County.
This letter is in regards to the growing concern of wakeboard and surf
boats and the impact they are having on our Lake..
The excessive wakes are contributing to Shoreline erosion dock,
damage, and property damage to ourselves and many of our
neighbors.
I also believe they are creating unsafe, conditions for swimmers,
kayaks,paddle boards, and fisherman. I have seen firsthand people
fall off their paddle boards after those boats go by... many of these
people are small children. I have four grandchildren that swim,
practically every single day of the summer and are always cautious as
the waves after those boats go by.. in addition to safety concerns, the
Non stop traffic and noise has changed the peaceful character of our
small Lake. Please consider enforcing rules that will stop these boats
from changing our wonderful little lake.. We have owned our house
for more than 40 years and enjoy the peace and tranquility of Lost
Lake.
We 100%have always supported water recreation,but these boats are
just too big for our little Lost Lake.. thank you for taking the time to
read my concerns.
Stephanie Reime
Donald A. Robbins
May 8, 2026
Mason County Board of Commissioners
411 North 5th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
msmith@masoncountywa.gov
RE: Public Testimony in Support — Proposed Wake-Enhanced Motorboat Operation
Ordinance (Chapter 9.04 MCC § 9.04.4XX); Public Hearing May 26, 2026
Dear Commissioners Tarzwell, Trask, and Neatherlin:
I write in support of the proposed wake-enhanced motorboat operation ordinance set for public
hearing on May 26, 2026. I am a Tee Lake property owner and recreational boater with a
professional background in environmental remediation and applied earth sciences. My
comments are offered as constructive amendments to strengthen the ordinance's
enforceability and defensibility, not to oppose it.
I commend the Board and County staff for drafting an ordinance that regulates by equipment
and operating behavior rather than by propulsion type. The decision to omit the broad "jet boat"
classification language discussed at the April 6 briefing was the correct one. Defining "wake
boat" through the presence of ballast tanks, ballast bags, surf gates, wake plates, trim tabs,
and similar wake-shaping devices, and defining "wake-enhanced operation" through their
active deployment, targets the precise activity causing harm. The Section F carve-out
preserving ordinary operation of wake boats with ballast emptied and devices disengaged is
equally important. This is a well-crafted regulatory framework. The amendments I propose
below are intended to make it work in the field.
I. Tee Lake — A Case Study in Why This Ordinance Is Needed
I offer Tee Lake as a concrete illustration of the conditions the ordinance addresses. I have
personally witnessed significant wave action impacts (dock damage, shoreline erosion, and
shoreline plant destruction) caused by wake-enhanced boats operating on Tee Lake.
According to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife data, Tee Lake covers
approximately 47.5 acres, has a shoreline of 1.95 miles, a maximum depth of 15 feet, and a
mean depth of less than 10 feet. Approximately 60 waterfront residential properties line its
shores, each with associated docks and shoreline structures.
Applying the ordinance's Section D criteria to Tee Lake produces a categorical result on two
independent grounds. First, the depth criterion: the ordinance requires 20 feet of water depth
for wake-enhanced operation. Tee Lake's maximum depth is 15 feet at full pool, and lower
during the summer boating season. No point on the lake meets this criterion. That fact alone is
dispositive. Second, the geometry: as shown on the attached Mason County GIS map (Exhibit
A), Tee Lake is T-shaped, with a roughly east-west lobe at the north connected by a narrow
constriction to a long, narrow arm extending southward. The southern arm measures
approximately 550-700 feet across at its widest. A 250-foot setback from each shoreline
leaves a centerline corridor of 50-200 feet— an operating envelope incompatible with safe
wake-enhanced activity. The northern lobe's north-south dimension of approximately 528 feet
is itself less than the 500 feet consumed by setbacks from both shores. No qualifying zone
exists on Tee Lake under either the proposed 250-foot or the scientifically supported 500-foot
setback criterion.
Tee Lake has been a Restricted Lake under existing Mason County Code since 2001.
Following a petition from Tee Lake property owners requesting a total ban on internal
combustion engines, the Board held a public hearing and ultimately adopted Resolution 117-
01, amending MCC § 9.04.420 to restrict watercraft to no more than 6 mph before 11:00 a.m.
and after 7:00 p.m. That restriction already prohibits wake-enhanced operation during those
hours — wake-surf activity requires 8-13 mph, and no surfable wake can be produced at 6
mph. The proposed ordinance closes the remaining gap: it addresses the midday hours that
the 2001 compromise left unregulated, and it does so using modern equipment-based
definitions that were not available to the Board in 2001 when wake-surf vessels were not yet a
recognized recreational category. Adding Tee Lake to a published list of non-qualifying lakes
under the new ordinance is not a new imposition; it is the logical extension of a regulatory
determination this Board made 25 years ago.
II. Enforcement Is the Critical Weakness — Tee Lake Demonstrates the Problem
The existing 6-mph restriction on Tee Lake has been in place for 25 years, and signage
referencing Resolution 117-01 is posted at the public boat launch (Exhibit C). Violations during
restricted hours nonetheless occur several times monthly during the summer boating season.
This experience demonstrates that signage alone — even clear, prominently posted signage
citing specific legal authority — does not produce compliance without a credible enforcement
presence. The proposed wake-enhancement ordinance, which requires deputies to make
substantially more complex field determinations than a simple speed-limit violation, will face
the same compliance gap unless the enforcement model is restructured around the published
qualifying lakes list and mandatory signage approach recommended in this letter.
The ordinance as drafted relies on the Mason County Sheriff's Office to make real-time, lake-
by-lake eligibility determinations in the field — consulting bathymetric data, evaluating lake
geometry, and assessing whether an operator is within a qualifying zone. This is not a realistic
enforcement model for a rural county sheriff's office that is already stretched thin across a
large geographic area. Placing that technical burden on individual deputies on the water is a
practical path to no enforcement at all, and an ordinance that is not enforced in practice is an
ordinance that will be challenged and ignored.
Three structural changes would convert the ordinance from an aspirational prohibition into an
enforceable regulation:
• Published qualifying lakes list. The County should determine in advance, using
available bathymetric data and its existing GIS resources, which lakes meet the depth
and area criteria for wake-enhanced operation. Lakes not on the published list —
including Tee Lake — do not support wake-enhanced operation. This converts an
unenforceable technical standard into a binary field determination: is this lake on the list
or not? A deputy does not need to interpret bathymetric data on the water; the
administrative work has been done at the desk. This approach also harmonizes the new
ordinance with the existing Restricted Lakes provisions of MCC § 9.04.420, producing a
single County reference for all lake-specific motorboat restrictions.
• Mandatory signage. Section H's permissive language — the County "may" provide
signage — should be amended to "shall provide signage at all public boat launches"
identifying each lake's qualifying status and summarizing all applicable restrictions,
including any existing restrictions under MCC § 9.04.420. Signage alone is insufficient,
as Tee Lake's experience demonstrates, but it is a necessary predicate for
enforcement: it establishes constructive notice and eliminates the operator's claim that
they did not know the lake's status.
• Penalty calibration for deterrence. I urge the Board to confirm that the penalty
schedule under Chapter 9.04 is calibrated to deter wake-enhancement violations
specifically. A wake boat producing shoreline damage on a small lake with
approximately 60 waterfront properties represents a different scale of harm than most
other Chapter 9.04 violations. Escalating penalties for repeat offenders are appropriate
and necessary to create the deterrent effect that signage alone cannot provide.
III. The 250-Foot Setback Should Be Increased to 500 Feet
My most substantive technical concern is the 250-foot lateral distance criterion in Section D.
This threshold tracks the Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA) recommendation, which is
derived from industry-commissioned analysis. The independent peer-reviewed literature, using
comparable wave-measurement methods, consistently finds 250 feet insufficient:
• Marr et al. (2022), University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Laboratory: Wake
boat waves required more than 500 feet to attenuate to the reference conditions of a
conventional motorboat operating on plane at 200 feet. Wave height attenuation
required more than 500 feet; wave energy, more than 575 feet; wave power, more than
600 feet — the maximum distance studied.
• Michigan DNR, Fisheries Report 37 (2023): Wake-boat wave energy in wakesurfing
mode was 679% higher than wind-driven wave energy at 500 feet from shore.
Attenuation to the wave height typical of a conventional motorboat at 100 feet required
distances ranging from 225 feet (wakeboarding) to 950 feet (wakesurfing).
• Macfarlane (2025), River Research and Applications: Documents that the WSIA-
derived setback recommendation has been critiqued in at least 20 states as inadequate
relative to independent scientific measurement.
Adopting the industry-recommended 250-foot threshold creates a real risk that shoreline
property damage will continue on qualifying lakes, and that Mason County will need to revisit
this question in two to three years. I recommend Section D be amended to require a minimum
500-foot lateral setback consistent with the independent peer-reviewed evidence. If the Board
prefers to begin at 250 feet, I urge inclusion of an automatic two-year review provision
requiring the County to evaluate whether observed damage patterns warrant strengthening the
setback.
IV. Drafting Improvement — Objective Eligibility Language
Section D's third eligibility criterion requires that a lake "reasonably allow" wake-enhanced
operation without "repeated or continuous" excursions into non-compliant areas. These terms
have no objective definition. What is "reasonable"? How many excursions are "repeated"? This
subjectivity will compound the enforcement problems described in Section II — a deputy who
cannot determine whether a lake qualifies will not cite an operator for violating the ordinance
on it. I recommend replacing this language with an objective standard: a lake qualifies only if it
contains a contiguous open-water area, measurable in acres, in which all points are
simultaneously at least 500 feet from any shoreline and 20 feet or more in depth. The
qualifying acreage threshold can be calibrated to the realistic operating envelope of wake-surf
activity, but it must be objective and verifiable in advance.
V. Summary
The proposed ordinance is fundamentally sound and should be adopted. Its equipment- and
behavior-based definitions correctly target the activity causing harm without penalizing
conventional recreational boating. However, the ordinance will only achieve its purpose if it can
be enforced in the field. Tee Lake's 25-year experience under Resolution 117-01 demonstrates
that even a simple, clearly posted speed restriction produces frequent violations without a
credible enforcement framework. The proposed wake-enhancement ordinance is substantially
more complex, and will require substantially more from the enforcement structure, than a
speed limit.
The amendments I propose — a published qualifying lakes list that converts complex field
determinations into a binary standard, mandatory launch signage, escalating penalties for
deterrence, a 500-foot setback grounded in independent peer-reviewed science, and objective
eligibility language — will make the ordinance more effective, more defensible, and more likely
to produce the compliance that Mason County lake property owners need.
I respectfully request that the Board adopt the ordinance with these amendments and that this
comment letter, together with the attached exhibits, be made part of the official record of the
May 26, 2026 hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Donald A Robbins
Tee Lake property owner, Mason County, Washington
Attachments:
Exhibit A — Mason County GIS Web Map of Tee Lake (April 29, 2026)
Exhibit B — Mason County Resolution 117-01 (October 23, 2001), amending MCC § 9.04.420
Exhibit C — Photograph of existing Tee Lake Restricted signage at public boat launch,
referencing Resolution 117-01
References
Macfarlane, G.J. (2025). Wakesurfing, Wakeboarding, and Waterskiing: A Comparison of
Wake Characteristics. River Research and Applications. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.4438
Marr, J., et al. (2022). University of Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Wake Boat Study.
University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division (2023). Wake Boat Study.
Fisheries Report 37.
Goudey, C. (2015). Wave Energy Data on the Characteristics of Boat Wakes. Water Sports
Industry Association (WSIA).
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Tee Lake — Mason County. Lake survey and
bathymetric data.
Mason County WA GIS Web Map. Tee Lake. Accessed April 29, 2026.
Mason County Resolution 117-01 (October 23, 2001). Amending Mason County Code Chapter
9.04.420 (Restricted Lakes).
Exhibit A
Mason County WA GIS Web Map
T— Li e
_J
0
1
4292026,8:59:17.AM 1:6,118
o o.os 0.1 02mi
County Boundary
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km
❑ No Filled
Tax Parcels (Zoom in to 1:30,000) Iii:ES It HEP.E.Gain II.Itle map.It ce me It POD p..G EB C0.0 GC.
FAO,NPS,NP.CA.N,Geollase,IGN,latlatteI NL,Ortllalce.^.I mey,BII
Jam,YET,ESIICIlia(Honig Foeg).lti)0pmISlPetMapcolmbubts,aId
the GC Use I Conmllty
Yasol col ly wA Gc we b Yap AppllcaB7I
Yasol CoIIVdtclaMs ammoraj,ueIBII .orthie Oe44 onrebsI!B1).lot Ebb Al bsses ibm alNIce 01 It 11ps O w.masomcol IyteaLJDv.tltclaIoaLplp
Exhibit B
RESOLUTION NO. 117-01
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND MASON COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 9.04.420
RESTRICTED LAKES
WHEREAS,Mason County Code 9.04.230 establishes a procedure for specific
restrictions on bodies of water in Mason County,and
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners received a petition requesting that
internal combustion engines be banned on Tee Lake,and
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the
petition on May 17,2001,and
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners publicly announced their decision on
June 5,2001 at a Commission meeting to deny the petition to ban internal combustion
engines on Tee Lake and established an agenda time on October 23,2001 at 6:30 p.m.to
review their decision,and
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners did review their decision on October
23,2001 at 6:30 p.m.;
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Mason County Commissioners
to restrict watercraft usage to no more than 6 mph before 11:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m.
on Tee Lake.
PASSED this 23rd day of October,2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
t
'ecca S.Rogers,Clerk of e BoardHerbirperson
AP (*EI S FORM:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Wesley n,Commissioner
Michael Clift
C: Clerk of the Board 47 --/
Sheriff Bob Holter,Commissioner
ftlL LO
Printed From Mason County DMS
Printed from Mason County DMS
•
tom: a i-- � '♦• y :.1 4�' '� r.. a 3. Y ..)`...
�• �i Kam: -. .- .. w �,.,
N•K° U it •,._ •c.. � • 1 � .�•. - \:`
1
4Q $*& I E1i I ft T '
- - _____.- I
Y.^1
GOVj� ti�
From: Dave&Betsy Livesay
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Advocacy for Limits on Wake Surfing on Lake Nahwatzel
Date: Tuesday,April 28,2026 11:59:24 AM
Attachments: Advocacy Packet Lake Nahwatzel.pdf
Mason County Commissioners,
My family are residents of the Lake Nahwatzel community, and we are deeply invested in the
health and well-being of the Lake. Starting with my mother and father, we have owned
property here since the early 40's, and my brother and I are now permanent residents.
Recently the Lake community has been discussing the issue of wake-surfing and the boats
used in that activity. I did a deep-dive in ChatGPT and learned a lot, and I thought the
Commission would find the attached information helpful. One thing that has become an
obvious concern for residents is the misunderstanding of the difference between wake
boarding behind "normal" speedboats and wake surfing behind boats built for maximum
wave action.
Lake Nahwatzel is a very special and unique asset to Mason County, its residents, and the wild
animals that share this wonderful space. We are having a wide-ranging and
thoughtful conversation on this topic among the lake residents who are on the Friends of Lake
Nahwatzel website. Please consider this issue wisely.
Elizabeth Livesay
❑® Virus-free.www.avast.com
Advocacy Packet: Wake Boat Impacts on Lake
Nahwatzel
Addressed to Mason County Commissioners
Dear Mason County Commissioners, I am writing to respectfully raise concerns regarding the
environmental impacts of wake boats on Lake Nahwatzel. Lake Nahwatzel is a relatively small
(~269 acres), shallow (maximum depth ~25 feet), spring-fed lake with developed shoreline. Based
on multiple university and state-level studies, lakes with these characteristics are particularly
vulnerable to high-energy wave activity produced by wake boats. Research indicates that wake
boat waves can travel hundreds of feet before dissipating, increasing the likelihood of shoreline
erosion, dock damage, and repeated wave stress on private property. Additionally, these waves
can disturb bottom sediments in shallow lakes, leading to reduced water clarity and increased
nutrient release, which may contribute to harmful algal blooms. Nearshore areas are especially
critical for fish habitat and aquatic vegetation. Repeated disturbance from wake activity may
negatively impact these ecosystems. Given these factors, many studies recommend operating
wake boats only in deeper water (20+ feet) and at distances of 500–1,000 feet from shore. Due to
the size and depth of Lake Nahwatzel, these conditions may be difficult to consistently achieve. I
respectfully encourage the County to consider appropriate measures such as setback
requirements, depth restrictions, or lake-specific guidelines to help protect shoreline integrity, water
quality, and aquatic habitat. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, [Your Name]
Key Supporting Points: • Wake boats generate significantly larger waves than traditional boats. •
Wave energy may not dissipate before reaching shorelines on smaller lakes. • Sediment
disturbance can release nutrients and degrade water quality. • Shoreline erosion risk is increased
with repeated wake exposure. • Lake Nahwatzel’s depth and size increase vulnerability.
From: Dave&Betsy Livesay
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: More detailed information re.Lake Nahwatzel and Wake Surf Boats
Date: Tuesday,April 28,2026 12:09:01 PM
Attachments: lake nahwatzel advocacy packet full.pdf
Mason Co. Commissioners
So sorry . . . I thought I had all the information. Here's the rest.
Elizabeth Livesay
❑® Virus-free.www.avast.com
Lake Nahwatzel Wake Boat Advocacy Packet
Prepared for Mason County Commissioners This packet summarizes scientific findings,
lake-specific vulnerabilities, and recommended setback distances relevant to wake boat impacts on
Lake Nahwatzel.
Lake Nahwatzel Overview
Surface Area ~269 acres
Max Depth ~25 feet
Lake Type Spring-fed
Shoreline Developed (homes & docks)
Small size and shallow depth make this lake particularly sensitive to high-energy wake waves.
Key Research Findings
• Wake boats generate significantly larger and more energetic waves. • Waves may travel
400–900+ feet before dissipating. • Sediment disturbance can occur in depths similar to
Nahwatzel’s maximum depth. • Increased turbidity and phosphorus release can contribute to algae
blooms. • Shoreline erosion risk is higher on smaller lakes.
Setback Distance Visualization
Lake Nahwatzel (~269 acres)
Boat 500 ft 1000 ft
Recommended setbacks occupy a large portion of the lake, limiting areas where wake boating can
occur without impact.
Lake Nahwatzel Wake Boat Impact Report
This report summarizes research-based concerns about wake boat impacts on Lake Nahwatzel in
Mason County, Washington. The lake’s size and depth make it particularly sensitive to high-energy
wave activity.
Conceptual Map: Wave Reach vs Lake Size
Lake Nahwatzel (~269 acres)
~500+ ft wave travel
Lake Characteristics
Feature Lake Nahwatzel
Surface Area ~269 acres
Max Depth ~25 feet
Lake Type Spring-fed
Shoreline Developed with homes/docks
Key Talking Points: • Wake boats generate larger, higher-energy waves than traditional boats. •
Research shows these waves can travel hundreds of feet before dissipating. • Lake Nahwatzel’s
small size means waves often reach shorelines with full force. • Shallow depth (~25 ft max) allows
wave energy to disturb bottom sediments. • Sediment disturbance can reduce water clarity and
increase algae growth. • Nearshore zones critical for fish habitat are especially vulnerable. •
Shoreline erosion risk is higher due to repeated wave exposure. • Many studies recommend
500–1,000 ft setbacks and deeper water than Nahwatzel consistently provides.
Boat Impact Comparison
Impact Area Wake Boats Traditional Boats
Wave Energy High Moderate
Sediment Disturbance Likely Less likely
Shoreline Erosion Higher risk Lower risk
Habitat Impact Greater Lower
Conclusion: Lake Nahwatzel’s size and depth make it particularly vulnerable to wake boat impacts.
Scientific studies suggest that in lakes of this type, wake energy may contribute to shoreline
erosion, sediment disturbance, and ecological degradation.
Lake Nahwatzel Wake Boat Impact Visual Summary
Conceptual Map: Wave Energy Travel Distance vs Lake Size
Approximate Lake Boundary
~500 ft wave reach
Comparison: Wake Boat vs Traditional Boat
Feature Wake Boat Traditional Ski Boat
Wave Height High (3–4 ft)Low–Moderate
Wave Energy Very High Lower
Distance Before Dissipation 400–900+ ft Shorter
Bottom Disturbance More likely Less likely
Shoreline Impact Higher erosion risk Lower risk
Because Lake Nahwatzel is relatively small and shallow, wake boat waves may not dissipate before
reaching shorelines. This increases the likelihood of erosion, sediment disturbance, and ecological
impact compared to larger, deeper lakes.
Wake Boat Impacts on Lakes: Research & Lake
Nahwatzel Context
Below are credible, shareable research links regarding wake boat impacts on lakes, followed by
context specific to Lake Nahwatzel in Mason County, Washington.
1 University of Minnesota Wake Study: https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/university-minnes
ota-researchers-study-waves-created-recreational-boats
2 University of Minnesota Sediment Study:
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/how-powerboats-impact-lakes-below-surface
3 Outdoor Life Summary:
https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/wake-surfing-controversy-second-study/
4 Wisconsin Public Radio Study Coverage:
https://www.wpr.org/news/wake-boats-wisconsin-controversy-lake-beulah
5 Compiled Research Overview:
https://lastwildernessalliance.org/wake-surfing-env-safety-studies
Lake Nahwatzel is a small (~269 acres), relatively shallow lake (maximum depth ~25 feet).
Research indicates wake boat waves can disturb sediments at similar depths and require hundreds
of feet to dissipate. This makes smaller lakes like Nahwatzel more vulnerable to shoreline erosion,
water quality degradation, and habitat disruption.
Talking Points for Officials
• Wake boat waves often reach shorelines before dissipating. • Lake Nahwatzel cannot consistently
meet recommended depth and distance guidelines. • Shoreline erosion and habitat disruption are
likely outcomes. • Water quality degradation is a concern due to sediment disturbance. •
Lake-specific guidelines should be considered.
Conclusion
Due to its size and depth, Lake Nahwatzel is highly vulnerable to wake boat impacts. Scientific
research supports consideration of setbacks, depth restrictions, or lake-specific regulations.
From: Karen Whorton
To: McKenzie Smith
Cc: Karen Whorton
Subject: comment related to wake-enhanced boat ordinance-please confirm receipt
Date: Wednesday,May 13,2026 12:32:10 PM
Importance: High
To the Mason County Commissioners,
I am writing as a resident and lake homeowner in Mason County (Lost Lake) regarding the
proposed wake boat regulations currently under consideration. From my review of the
petition submitted to the Commissioners, it appears the proposed regulation would ban all
boats with any wake enhancement capability from use on all lakes in Mason County.
I want to be clear that I support reasonable measures to protect our lakes, shorelines, wildlife,
and the quiet enjoyment of residents. Specifically, I support restrictions on boats when they
are intentionally operated to create artificially enlarged wakes for wake surfing. These vessels
can generate disproportionately large waves that may contribute to shoreline erosion, dock
damage, safety concerns, and conflicts with other lake users. However, most of these boats
can also be used without engaging their wake enlarging devices, or filling ballast tanks. Thus,
to entirely ban all boats with wake enhancement capabilities would result in overregulation
and a possible government taking of boats purchased in reliance on their ability to use the
boats on Mason County Lakes. A more fair and reasonable approach would be to ban the
use of the wake enhancements, but not ban every boat that has such wake enhancement
capabilities when those boats are being used for traditional uses such as skiing,tubing,
wakeboarding, or simply cruising the lakes.
Additionally, the proposed regulation banning all boats with wake enhancement systems is so
overbroad that it would effectively turn our lake into a blanket "no wake lake" by
outlawing any watercraft that creates a normal wake. Standard recreational boats, fishing
boats, ski boats, pontoons, and other traditional watercraft naturally produce some wake
during ordinary operation. Responsible boating has long been part of life on our lake, and the
proposed broad no-wake policy would unnecessarily punish residents who use their boats on
the lake safely and responsibly.
There is an important distinction between:
1. Normal recreational boating that creates ordinary wakes as a byproduct of lawful
operation, and
2. Boats using specifically modified or operated with ballast systems, surf tabs, or
wake-enhancing technology to create oversized wakes.
I urge the Commission to focus regulations narrowly on wake-enhanced boating rather than
adopt overly broad restrictions that limit any boat with a ballast sack or other wake
enhancement from using their boat for normal family recreation, fishing access, waterskiing,
wakeboarding without pulling kids on inner tubes, transportation across the lake, and long-
standing community use.
Please consider a balanced approach that:
• Prohibits wake surfing and wake-enhanced operation where appropriate;
• Preserves normal boating activities under existing safety rules;
• Targets actual impacts rather than banning all boats being operated for ordinary lake
use; and
• Respects the rights of residents who responsibly enjoy the water. I hate the idea of
residents policing each other and filming activities in order to submit "evidence" of
infraction, it is so divisive to our little community!
Thoughtful regulation can address legitimate concerns without eliminating traditional
recreational boating. I respectfully ask you to avoid converting our lake into a de facto no-
wake lake and instead adopt clear, targeted rules focused on persons using their boats
with artificially enlarged wakes.
Additionally, Monday- Friday for about 10 months of the year, this is really a non-issue; it is
just the handful of sunny summer weekends that this is even a problem, so the actual year-
over-year damage to the shorelines is actually pretty minimal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Karen Whorton
From: Jeff Jarmon
To: Pat Tarzwell;Sharon Trask; rneatherlinCa3masoncountvwa.aov; Pam
Subject: Wake/surf boat restrictions
Date: Wednesday, May 13,2026 7:35:42 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to you today to strongly support restricting the use of surf/wake boats on the
lakes of Mason County. My wife and I live here on Lost Lake and have seen and experienced
the environmental destruction on the lake and the reckless endangerment of the community by
these large vessels. The county and residents have gone to great lengths and expense to protect
the beautiful natural resource by restricting and managing regulations and building permits, it
seems hypocritical and short sighted to allow these vessels to destroy the shoreline and
damage property and the environment from the water. Please save our lake and prohibit these
surf boats as soon as possible.
I would also like to mention how disappointed I am at seeing a massive attempt by the pro
boat people at distributing misinformation online and through direct mail to confuse and scare
the general public into supporting their agenda, truly despicable.
Please do the right thing and restrict the use of these surf boats on the lake.
Sincerely,
Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize. Conquer
From:
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Draft Wake Boat Ordinance
Date: Tuesday, May 19,2026 10:24:15 PM
Mason County Board of Commissioners May 19, 2026
411 5th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
Subject: Draft Wake Boat Ordinance
Dear Commissioners:
We have been residents of Mason Lake for nearly 35 years. We read with great
interest and intense concern the Shelton-Mason County Journal article dated April 16,
2026, "Commissioners to consider wake boat ban." We have also read Art Whitson's
letter to the Commissioners, dated May 11, 2026, subject: Community Conflict and
Scientific Concerns Regarding Wake Boat Operations on Mason Lake and Lake
Cushman. We strongly concur in Art's summary of the boat management issues on
Mason Lake as we have experienced them personally.
Like Randy Lewis (in the Journal article) and Art Whitson, we have suffered damaged
to our property from the artificial waves created by wake boats, even when they are
about 250-300 feet from our shoreline. Even at this distance, Mason Lake does not
"reasonably accommodate enhanced wake activity without causing undue harm."
Regrettably, very few of these boats actually operate in the middle of the lake. In our
experience nearly all approach our buoy that is about 150 feet from the shore
resulting in greater damage to our beach. Moreover, the large waves are a serious
safety concern for our young grandchildren who can lose their balance in the
unexpectedly turbulent waters.
While Randy Lewis claims the exception for Mason Lake is understandable because
the boats can stay away from the shore, the reality is that the Mason County Sheriff
does not have the resources to continually police the lake. Moreover, when the
Sheriff's boat is on the lake, it can only observe, much less enforce, a fraction of the
activity that is ongoing. Residents are asked to document violations, but our
experience that it is very difficult to record the vessel registration number of a moving
boat from the shore. In short, given the limited law enforcement resources, there is
no feasible method to enforce the County's wake boat ordinance on Mason Lake.
The Sheriff's staff tells us that a significant percentage of the recreational traffic
during the summer is not from Mason County. The County Park and the Lake are
already over capability during the busiest days. Mason Lake has become a regional
attraction, and will be every more so if it is a primary location for wake boats. The
uncertain future of the Green Diamond property only adds to the very unpredictable
future for Mason Lake with wake boats.
We agree with Art Whitson that this issue requires more detailed assessment and
deliberation from all stakeholders to understand fully its second and third order effects
before any decision concerning wake boats on Mason Lake.
We appreciate your careful consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Mike and Lori Kendall
From: Mike Stoney
To: Ravyn Lund; McKenzie Smith
Subject: RE: Proposed Wake Boat Ordinance
Date: Monday,April 27,2026 7:21:40 AM
Attachments: image001.pno
imaae002.ona
image003.pno
imaae004.ona
Lost Lake Resident-Opposed to Proposed Wake Enhanced Ordinance.pdf
Good Morning McKenzie
I have been a land owner at Lost Lake for over 15 years now and also am a full time
resident. When my family decided to purchase lake front property one of the main items
that was important to us was finding a lake that supported the full range of boating
activities. We did our research and went to many lakes to see the activity that was
allowed and how busy they were. After this research we landed at Lost Lake and it has fit
our needs perfectly. We have since built a new home, purchased a boat and boat lift.
This proposed restriction will make many of my investments worthless along with
decrease the overall value of our home. It seems on our lake there a the few that
complain the loudest while the majority enjoy the boating activities and have no
complaints. I find all of the boaters to be very respective of the shores and stay in the
middle of the lake when doing these type of activities. It is not an overly busy lake as we
don't get much weekend traffic and we don't even notice the wakes.
I have attached a letter that I would appreciate if you would share with the
commissioners.
If you or they have any questions please don't hesitate to reach out to me. Have a great
week!
Thanks
Mike Stoney, CPA `
From: Ravyn Lund <RLund( masoncountywa.gov>
Date:April 24, 2026 at 4:27:24 PM PDT
To:
Cc: McKenzie Smith <MSmith(a)masoncountywa.gov>
Subject: Proposed Wake Boat Ordinance
Hi Josh,
Below is the link to the briefing packet from April 6, 2026. You will find the proposed wake
boat ordinance on page 73.
https://dms.masoncountywa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=648029&dbid=0&repo=mason
Below is the link to the regular packet for next Tuesday, April 28, 2026. On the agenda is
`approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 9:15 a.m. to consider and take
comment on adopting a wake-enhanced motorboat operation ordinance'. You can find
supporting documents on page 32.
https://dms.masoncountywa.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=648893&dbid=0&repo=mason
You are welcome to attend next Tuesday's regular meeting, where there will be opportunity to
address the Commissioners. Please note that during public comment, each person is allotted
three minutes, with a total public comment period of 15 minutes.
The meeting is held in the Commission Chambers, located at 411 N 5th Street, Shelton, WA
98584. You may also attend the meeting at the zoom link listed below.
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89876211818?pwd=kkR8x0nEN2iHHCmDsU5xJCnln2yzQ7.1
Meeting ID: 898 7621 1818
Passcode: 258740
If you prefer, you can submit a letter to the Clerk of the Board, McKenzie, at
msmithOmasoncountywa.gov, or by mail to the address listed above.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out. I hope you have a great weekend!
Best,
ADM! 15TAATIVE ASSISTANT
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE
(360)427-9670 x419
rlund(dmasoncountywa gov
411 N.5'"Street.Shelton,WA 98584
wwwlnasoncountywa_gov
••Oloa J• not.: AfJ[on Co.aty co-Rn.1 with In• IYOfic *.Gordo At? Chaotor 42 $0 *CW
As JYGA. JnJ ••mII! so.? to Jn /0/ I/0 IIJ COYafJ .'ay 00 JYOIJCf to poD?.? tJl[C10[Y •
Mike& Connie Stoney
April 27, 2026
Mason County Board of Commissioners
411 N 5th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
Subject: Strong Opposition to Proposed Wake Boat/Wake-Enhanced Operation
Ordinance (Chapter 9.04)—Do Not Restrict Lost Lake
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing as a homeowner and stakeholder at Lost Lake to strongly oppose the proposed
ordinance that would restrict or ban wake-enhanced boating and wake surfing on Lost Lake. This
broad restriction would cause significant financial harm to property owners,undermine the
expectations we relied upon when purchasing our homes, and unnecessarily limit a long-
established recreational use on our lake.
This proposal will cause a direct loss in property values.When my family and I(along with
many other owners)purchased our properties on Lost Lake, we specifically researched and
selected this lake because it allowed a full range of water sports, including wake surfing and
wake boating. We paid a premium for homes on a lake that supported these family-oriented
activities. A sudden ban would devalue our investments by removing a key amenity that attracted
us and supports resale value. Lakeside properties with active, diverse recreational use command
higher prices; restricting them will lead to measurable declines in assessed and market values for
the entire Lost Lake community.
Homeowners have made substantial investments based on these activities. Many owners,
including myself, have invested tens of thousands of dollars in docks, seawalls, boat lifts, and
shoreline improvements specifically designed and permitted to support wake boating, water
skiing, and related sports. These investments were made in good faith under the assumption that
county rules would continue to allow responsible use of the water. Changing the rules now
would render those investments partially worthless and unfairly penalize responsible owners who
followed all existing regulations.
Lost Lake is suitable, and buyers have choices. At 123 acres with significant depth, Lost Lake
can safely accommodate wake-enhanced activities with reasonable, targeted rules (such as
distance-from-shore and depth requirements)rather than an outright ban. If some residents or
visitors prefer lakes without these activities, Mason County has numerous other lakes to choose
from. Those seeking quieter, non-motorized, or low-wake experiences already have many
options. There is no need to impose a one-size-fits-all ban on lakes like Lost Lake that have
successfully supported these uses for decades.
Balanced alternatives exist. Instead of banning wake boats on most lakes while exempting only
the two largest, the County should adopt practical, enforceable standards such as:
• Time-of-day or weekend restrictions if needed.
• Operator education and ballast management requirements.
These solutions protect shorelines without destroying the recreational character and property
values that define Lost Lake.
I respectfully urge you to reject the current broad proposal, gather lake-specific data for Lost
Lake, and pursue measured regulations that respect the investments and expectations of existing
property owners. Please set the public hearing and allow full community input before any vote.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mike& Connie Stoney
From: Tomas Kunak
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wake Boat Ban Opposition
Date: Wednesday,May 20,2026 1:01:02 PM
Dear Mason Community commissioners
I am writing to share my opposition to the proposed wake boat ban at Lost Lake in Shelton.
I am an exchange student from Slovakia, spending my time here. Last year I spent summer at
Lost Lake and it holds a special place in my heart. One of my best memories is learning how
to wakeboard and wake surf there, it was truly unforgettable.
I hope the Commissioners will take the community's love for this lake and its recreational
activities into consideration before making a final decision.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Tomas Kunak
From:kenclan
To:McKenzie Smith
Date:Friday, May 22, 2026 5:08:31 PM
Sent from my Galaxy
To:Mason County Commissioners:
I am a Mason Lake resident & property owner since 1946.
During that time, many changes have occurred, the current SAFETY being top priority.
I started working with Deputy DUGAN when several dangerous situations on the lake arose
& he Wrote one of the first ordinances.
Since then, I continued to work with Mason County Sheriff’s, & together we created Vessel
Cards/Magnets pictured to enforce SAFETY.
As a result of my safety concern the Sheriff’s department Now has a Marine Officer
specifically working with water safety. Sargent Severance/Chief Ryan/ Mason County
Sheriff’s are key people I’ve worked with.
We have a huge influx of outside people who have no knowledge or respect for existing
ordinances. In addition, sheriff enforcement is difficult with manpower shortages.
I’m in agreement with COMMISSIONER ART WHITSON.
This situation needs to have All parties involved to discuss Win/win solution SAFETY FOR
ALL!
Thank you for your attention to this serious issue.
Cherylynn Murdy
From:Whorton, Noel
To:McKenzie Smith
Cc:karen whorton; Whorton, Noel
Subject:Mason County Wake Boat Ordinance
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 3:56:42 PM
Dear County Commissioners,
I have grown up at Lost Lake in Mason County, and I am a third generation resident. I learned to swim,
kneeboard, water ski and wakeboard there. I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to teach
countless kids (and adults) to water ski and wakeboard who otherwise might not have had that
opportunity. I am a big proponent of our environment and maintaining the health of our lake. Every year, I
spend hours and hours diving and picking up trash (mostly beer/pop cans and bottles) from the bottom of
the lake. Additionally, I dive and hand pull the native pond weed that threatens to choke our waters (per
the county the recommended, most environmentally friendly approach to weed cotrol). I want nothing
more than my kids and their kids to have the opportunity to enjoy the things that I have been able to enjoy
my entire life there.
I am concerned about the damage that ‘wake surf boats’ can have on a lake and shoreline. However, I
am also concerned about how this ordinance may be interpreted and implemented. One could argue a ski
boat or a boat taking inner tubers out is ‘wake enhancing’. I would hate to see all the lakes in Mason
County become essentially no-wake lakes.
Barring the addition of a resident full time sheriff boat (which I doubt we have funding for) it puts
neighbors in the position of having to police each other. I have witnessed our neighbors videotaping each
other for evidence, and it can really be divisive to a community. One of the things I love most about Lost
Lake is the community and friends that I have there.
This would not only have a big impact on these lakes, but also put a large burden on Mason Lake and
Lake Cushman by funneling a lot of boat traffic to these two lakes.
This could also have a negative impact on property values, which the taxes received are vital to the
county and schools.
Thank you for keeping our lakes enjoyable for generation to come.
The Whortons
From:David Meinert
To:McKenzie Smith; andyn@masoncountywa.gov; Pat Tarzwell; Sharon Trask
Subject:Wake Boat Ordinance - The Science
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 4:45:28 PM
Attachments:preview.png
preview.png
largepreview.png
preview.png
preview.png
preview.png
preview.png
preview.png
Commissioners -
Below are 12 scientific studies on the effects of wake boats on lakes. The science is not
one single study, it is a stack of wave-energy, sediment, habitat, shoreline, and policy
reviews all pointing in the same direction: wake surfing is a high-impact use that small
lakes often cannot absorb.
We thank you for your work on this issue. As summer is now upon us, let’s please not
have another year of unsafe conditions for kids, more environmental and property
damage on our small lakes. Please pass your ordinance tomorrow.
Key studies and findings
1. Michigan DNR Fisheries Report 37, 2023
Study: A Literature Review of Wake Boat Effects on Aquatic Habitat by Francis, Nohner,
Bauman, and Gunderman.
Fisheries-Report-37-Wake-Boat-
Study-Official-Version-Released-on-
7.28.2023
PDF Document · 765 KB
Main findings: Wake boats operated to create large waves can erode shorelines, resuspend
sediments, and threaten inland lake habitat. The review found wake boats can create waves
with 1.7 to 17 times the energy of comparable powerboats, and propeller turbulence can
resuspend sediment in water up to 33 feet deep. It also found wake waves may need 400 to
1,023 feet to dissipate to levels comparable to other boats.
Why it matters: This is one of the strongest government literature reviews for arguing that
100-foot or 200-foot buffers are not enough on small lakes.
2. University of Minnesota / St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, 2022
Study: Boat-generated wake wave study on Lake Independence, Minnesota.
University of Minnesota researchers study waves
created by recreational boats
twin-cities.umn.edu
Main findings: Wake surf boats produced waves that were higher and required greater
distances to dissipate than wakes from typical recreational boats. The study found wake surf
waves needed substantially more distance from shore to reduce wave height, energy, and
power.
Why it matters: It supports the argument that wake boats are not merely “normal boats.”
Their wakes behave differently and remain powerful farther from the boat.
3. Connecticut DEEP Draft Wake Boat & Wakesurf Study, 2026
Study: Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection draft statewide
study.
portal.ct.gov
Main findings: The report found wake boats can erode shorelines, damage docks and
seawalls, stir up sediment, cloud water, release nutrients that contribute to algae blooms,
disrupt fish habitat, and create safety hazards for kayaks, canoes, sailboats, and swimmers. It
cites findings that wake boats can create waves 2 to 3 times higher, with 3 to 9 times more
energy, and 6 to 12 times more power than non-wake boats at planing speeds.
Why it matters: This is recent, government-level confirmation that the issues are
environmental, property-related, and safety-related.
4. Mercier-Blais and Prairie, 2014, Quebec
Study: Assessment of waves created by wake boats on Lakes Memphremagog and Lovering.
Impact-of-Waves-Created-by-Wake-
Boats-Canada
PDF Document · 4.2 MB
Main findings: The study examined wake boat wave impacts on lakeshore erosion and
sediment resuspension. Later summaries report that sediment resuspension was significantly
above background levels up to 492 feet from wake boats in wakesurf mode and 656 feet in
wakeboarding mode.
Why it matters: This directly supports larger setback requirements and shows sediment
impacts can extend far beyond ordinary no-wake buffers.
5. Goudey & Girod, 2015
Study: Characterization of Wake-Sport Wakes and Their Potential Impact on Shorelines,
prepared for the Watersports Industry Association.
wsia.net
Main findings: Even this industry-supported study acknowledges that wake impacts depend
on boat size, speed, depth, and distance from shore, and that wake-sport boats generate
shoreline-impact concerns.
Why it matters: Opponents may cite this study to argue wake boats are safe at certain
distances, but it still supports the principle that distance, depth, and lake geometry matter. On
small lakes, those conditions often cannot be met.
6. Ruprecht et al., 2015
Study: Wakesurfing: Some Wakes Are More Equal Than Others, Australasian Coasts & Ports
Conference.
(PDF) Wakesurfing: Some Wakes
are More Equal than Others
researchgate.net
Main findings: The study found wake boats in wakesurfing mode generated the largest waves
compared with other operating modes. Later summaries note that wakesurfing produced wave
energy roughly four times higher than wakeboarding mode in some comparisons.
Why it matters: It reinforces the core distinction: wakesurfing is a different category of
impact than ordinary water skiing or cruising.
7. Wisconsin Green Fire Review, 2024
Study: The Effects of Wake Boats on Lake Ecosystem Health by Ortiz.
WakeBoatsLakeEcosystemHealth_
WGF-May2024_Final
PDF Document · 876 KB
Main findings: This review concluded that wake boats raise concerns related to aquatic
invasive species, shoreline erosion, aquatic plants, sediment resuspension, birds, and fish. It
states that wake boats create elevated risks of spreading invasive species and accelerating
shoreline erosion.
Why it matters: This is a clean, readable scientific review for public testimony because it
organizes impacts by lake-health category.
8. Brown, 2021
Study: Adverse Impacts Attributed to the Operation of Wake-Enhanced Boats on Inland Lake
Ecosystems.
adverse-impacts-attributed-to-the-
operation-of-wake-enhanced-boats-
on-inland-lake-ecosystems
PDF Document · 702 KB
Main findings: Brown reviewed wake-enhanced boat impacts, including sediment
resuspension, shoreline erosion, aquatic plant disturbance, and habitat impacts. The report
cites prior research showing wake boat turbulence can disturb bottom sediment at varying
depths depending on speed and mode.
Why it matters: Useful as a broad literature review tying together wave energy, prop wash,
and ecosystem impacts.
9. Daeger et al., 2022 / 2023
Study: Impacts on Nutrient and Sediment Resuspension by Various Watercraft.
Impacts-on-Nutrient-and-Sediment-
Resuspension-by-Various-
Watercraft-Proceedings-of-the-
Indiana-Academy-of-Science-2023
PDF Document · 1.7 MB
Main findings: Nutrient resuspension was observed after wake boat operation in 5 feet of
water. The study found water depth and operating mode were critical factors.
Why it matters: This supports restrictions on shallow lakes and shallow areas, especially
where sediment disturbance can release phosphorus and feed algae or weeds.
10. Bilkovic et al., 2019
Study: Defining Boat Wake Impacts on Shoreline Stability Toward Management and Policy
Solutions.
1-s2.0-S0964569118309633-main
PDF Document · 2.4 MB
Main findings: This review found boat wake energy may be linked to elevated turbidity and
shoreline erosion, especially in narrow or sheltered waterways where natural wave energy
would otherwise be limited.
Why it matters: It supports the argument that small, narrow, protected lakes are especially
vulnerable.
11. Chesapeake Bay STAC Review, 2017
Study: Review of Boat Wake Wave Impacts on Shoreline Erosion and Potential Solutions for
the Chesapeake Bay.
Chesapeake-Bay-STAC-Boat-Wake-
study
PDF Document · 2.5 MB
Main findings: This review examined known effects of boat-generated waves on shoreline
stability, sediment inputs, vegetative habitat, and shoreline policy options.
Why it matters: Although focused on Chesapeake Bay rather than inland lakes, it supports
the broader scientific principle that repeated vessel wakes can cause shoreline erosion and
sediment problems.
12. University of Waterloo / Houser, 2025
Study/news summary: University of Waterloo Water Institute discussion of boat wakes and
freshwater impacts.
Boat wakes aren’t just a nuisance, they harm
freshwater shorelines and wildlife | Water Institute
| University of Waterloo
uwaterloo.ca
Main findings: The Water Institute summarized increasing evidence that boat wakes erode
shorelines, disrupt aquatic ecosystems, degrade water quality, and create safety hazards.
Why it matters: Good plain-language support from an academic water-science institution.
Bottom-line summary for testimony
The research consistently supports these conclusions:
1. Wake boats create larger, more powerful waves than ordinary boats.
2. Those waves travel farther before losing energy.
3. Small lakes often lack enough depth and distance from shore for safe wake surfing.
4. Wake boats can resuspend sediment and nutrients, contributing to algae, weeds,
turbidity, and habitat decline.
5. Repeated artificial wakes increase risk to shorelines, bulkheads, docks, boats, and
nearshore habitat.
6. The burden falls mostly on non-wake-boat property owners who pay for damage
and lose safe lake use.
David Meinert
From:dladybug@centurytel.net
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Public Comment to Mason County Commissioners for 5/26 mtg
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:33:34 PM
Dear Honorary Commissioners,
My name is Debra Hill and I have been a Mason County resident since 1983, living with my
husband, John Hill and raising our children on Lost Lake. I have seen many changes through
the years at the lake and not all of them are positive.
My husband and I purchased a 1977 Bayliner Mosquito of which we used mostly for relaxing
cruises of the lake and enjoying the scenery. Since my husband's illness and death in 2020,
those cruises have become less frequent, but I do try to maintain my little boat for the
opportunity of enjoying the lake.
However, on Sunday, September 3, 2024 my boat was swamped and sunk when 2 wake boats
went by my dock in tandem. The operators of the boats did not stop to help, they did not
confess to their negligence, they just continued on raising havoc to the rest of the lake, such as
other people trying to enjoy the lake but fighting the large wakes or waves and the shoreline
being damaged by the strong, large waves or wakes.
I called the Mason County Sheriff's office and was pleased with their response. I filed a report
with them, , case #24-15538. I was able to hire a person to come haul my boat out of the
water and repair the engine in order to get it running again. However, is my boat safe in the
water at Lost Lake? And are my grandchildren safe, playing in the water at Lost Lake? Will
my bulkhead eventually crumble into the water?
I understand that there is an agenda item on your meeting on 5/26 to discuss the possibility of
a wake boat ordinance. I would greatly appreciate your vote to place some restrictions on this
type of boat on our small lake in order to decrease the chances of more incidents like mine and
create a safer lake, as well as the diminish the destruction of our waterfront and shoreline.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Debra Hill
From:Deidra Miller
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Skurfing on Lake Phillips
Date:Friday, May 22, 2026 7:09:44 AM
Mr. Smith,
I am out of the country or I would otherwise be attending the hearing.
I have owned on Phillips Lake for over 42 years. I am adamantly against skurfing on our
small lake because of the extensive damage it has done to the lake shoreline. More than
30% of our lake frontage has been damaged by the enormous waves those boats put out
when skurfing. The skurfing has undermined the frontage one lot and undermined my
bulkhead on the other lot. The enormous wake they create often makes it dangerous to
enter the water or to be on the water.
Thank you for your consideration,
Deidra
From:Doug Lindahl
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Wake Enhancing Boat Restrictions
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 5:13:53 AM
We are writing in strong opposition to the proposed ordinance on wake enhanced motorboats.
When we purchased our property on Spencer Lake, our decision was based on the ability to partake in water sports
activities including waterskiing wakeboarding. These activities are enjoyed by our neighbors and visitors to the lake
and are a staple to summer recreation at the lake. Placing extra restrictions on these activities would limit the use
and enjoyment of these public lakes. To severely limit this activity would impact not only people on our lake but
force more people onto already overcrowded Mason Lake.
We are concerned that the imposition of this ordinance would affect property values on our lake with many home
owners, like us, having purchased our property specifically because these activities were allowed.
We are concerned by what appears to be an overreach by the county government to legislate and limit beyond state
regulations. We are concerned that this may be an attempt by some groups to place their personal preferences
surrounding recreation above others.
Sincerely,
Doug and Carol Lindahl
Sent from my iPad
From:jeff donahue
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Ban on wake surf boats on Phillips Lake
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 1:46:16 PM
I support the ban on wake surf boats especially on Phillips Lake.
--
Jeffrey John Donahue, PLS and CFedS
From:Josh Steele
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Wake study
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 6:53:51 AM
Attachments:WSIA_draft_report_Rev_II.pdf
Hi McKenzie,
It is a little short notice but wanted to share the attached wake study so it is on record. I believe Lost Lake does have the ability for all water sports if shore line rules are followed and respected.
Thank you,
Josh> https://us-east-2.protection.sophos.com?
d=wsia.net&u=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3NpYS5uZXQvd3AtY29udGVudC91cGxvYWRzLzIwMjAvMDMvV1NJQV9kcmFmdF9yZXBvcnRfUmV2X0lJLnBkZg==&p=m&i=NjIxODA0NThlNjkzY2YwZjg0YTNiYzc0&t=cUdDMTR1WmJRY0lYR2pGenBtaHExZ1ZOdU1WSTBHVFQ5YkQxUE40NnRHbz0=&h=b5d0f4afe9db4ecfbb05dbe13ed192d0&s=AVNPUEhUT0NFTkNSWVBUSVbF7l5-k9KsrNXTa1Z__khjjtBjIGBwl1hjSV98z9TUBA> > >
> Sent from my iPhone
0
Characterization
of Wake-Sport
Wakes
and their Potential
Impact on
Shorelines
WATER SPORTS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
November 2015
1
Characterization of Wake-Sport Wakes and
their Potential Impact on Shorelines
by
Clifford A. Goudey and Lewis G. Girod
C.A. Goudey & Associates
21 Marlboro Street
Newburyport, MA 01950
24 November 2015
Prepared for the
Water Sports Industry Association
P.O. Box 568512, Orlando, FL 32856-8512
2
Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................ i
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... ii
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Background on wakes ....................................................................................................... 1
Study objectives ................................................................................................................ 2
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2
Results .............................................................................................................................. 9
Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 21
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 25
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 26
References ....................................................................................................................... 27
i
Foreword
With a goal to scientifically measure the wakes produced by wave-sport towboats, the first-ever
Towed Water Sports Wave Energy Study was conducted in the Spring of 2015 in Orlando,
Florida. The research was commissioned by the Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA) and
conducted by engineering consultants from C.A. Goudey & Associates of Newburyport,
Massachusetts. The study was lead by founder and principal Clifford A. Goudey who holds
master's degrees from MIT in naval architecture and marine engineering and in mechanical
engineering and is an expert in waves, vessel performance, and the conduct of instrumented field
tests. Assisting was Lewis D. Girod, a software and sensing engineer who holds a master's
degree from MIT in electrical engineering and computer science and a PhD in computer science
from UCLA.
The tests were conducted from March 20 to 27, 2015 on the Conway Chain of Lakes at two sites
chosen to represent shallow-water and deep-water conditions. Precise measurements of wave
height by an array of sensors have provided the first rigorous measure of wakes produced by this
type of boat. The results and the authors’ conclusions are offered here in hopes that they begin
to clarify issues related to the role of towed water sport wakes in the larger context of other
human and natural activities that occur on bodies of water.
John Archer, WSIA President Larry Meddock, WSIA Executive Director
ii
Executive Summary
The effect of boat wakes on a shoreline varies depending on boat size, speed, water depth, and
distance from shore. With the growing popularity of wake sports there has been a rise in concern
over the potential effect of the associated wakes on shorelines. A study has been completed and
reported here aimed at building an understanding of wake-sport wakes and how they fit into the
spectrum of boat wakes in general as well as how those wakes compare to wind-driven waves.
A shallow and a deep-water test venue were used within the Conway Lake chain in Orlando,
Florida. Both locations had sandy beaches and were surveyed for their depth profile to
determine locations for wave-height probes within an array running perpendicular to the shore.
At the four stations closest to shore, capacitance-wire wave probes were used. Due to the close
passage of the boat to the outer probe, a submerged pressure probe was used. Each sensor was
connected by underwater cable to a PC-based data acquisition system where the data was
displayed and logged for post processing.
The vessel used for the tests was a Nautique G-23 wake-sport boat with an overall length of
23’, a maximum beam of 102”, and a light displacement of 5,900 lbs. This is considered typical
of the fleet of wake-sport boats available from various manufacturers. The boat has factory-
installed ballast tanks that were filled to capacity with 2,850 pounds of water for the
wakeboarding tests. For the wakesurfing runs, an additional 1,400 pounds of water was added,
yielding a total displacement of 10,150 pounds.
Test runs were conducted at cruising speeds (20, 25, 30 mph), wakeboarding speeds (21.2, 22.2,
23.2 mph), and wakesurfing speeds (10, 11, 11.5, 12 mph). These runs were done at three
distances from the outer wave probe (10’, 110’, 210’) with the closest track resulting in a wave
measurement being taken very close to the boat. A total of 94 tests runs were made at the
shallow and deep sites. Logged data from each run were then processed to yield plots of wave
profiles vs. time and to determine wave heights and wave counts at each sensor station. Wave
profiles from all five
probes were plotted for
each run to enable quality
control as shown below.
Note that the wave
heights are given in terms
of the total height of the
wave from its trough to
its crest. It is worth
noting that very close to
the boat the trough is
deeper than the height of
the crest. Specifically, at
sensor #1 a trough 11.8”
deep precedes a 10” crest
for a total wave height of
21.8”.
Wakeboarding at 22.2 mph and
10’ standoff in shallow water
iii
Wakes dissipate in three ways. First, and as can be seen in the above figure, the small number of
waves seen at sensor #1 grows to more numerous waves as the wake progresses away from the
boat’s track. The three initial waves become 14 distinct but much smaller waves by the time the
wake has reached sensor #5, which is 270 feet away. A second cause of wake dissipation is the
friction of the wave’s motion on the lake bottom and is much more significant in shallow water.
A third cause of wake dissipation is through breaking. This form of energy loss happens quickly
behind a wake-sport boat that is generating a large wave.
Comparisons among runs are shown in the figure below and are based on the speed of each
operational mode that produced the highest waves. For those “optimal” speeds the maximum
wave height at each station is shown.
The higher waves associated with wakeboarding and wakesurfing dissipate more rapidly than
those generated under the cruising condition, more typical of a conventional craft on a full plane.
We can also see in this figure that the maximum wave heights associated with wakeboarding and
wakesurfing dropped precipitously in the first 100 to 150’ of their travel from the boat’s track.
By contrast, the waves heights associated with cruising speeds dissipate more slowly and lack
the initial drop seen with the other two modes of operation. This difference is because these
smaller waves tend not to break and therefore propagate with less energy loss.
These results demonstrate the importance of standoff distance from the shoreline and from the
data wave height can be predicted for various standoff distances. As shown in the table below,
with the exception of wake surfing in deep water, the wakesport waves from a track 200’ from
shore fall below heights that could be viewed as exceptional.
iv
Wake surfing in deep water is the exception and it takes 300 feet for the wave height to drop by
half of its original 26” height.
In understanding the significance of boat-wake effects on shorelines, it is necessary to compare
them to naturally occurring processes. Wind waves are particularly important due to their
persistent nature. Waves resulting from wind over a stretch of water are well studies and
predictable based on wind speed and fetch. Predictions were made of the significant wave height
and dominant wave period of typical combinations of wind speed and fetch distance. These
values were turned into energy levels to allow comparison with boat-wake energy levels derived
from our tests. Through this comparison we were able to determine how often a boat wake
would need to occur in order to equal the energy associated with wind waves.
Our analysis shows that a cruising boat would need to pass 110 feet from a shoreline every 101
seconds in order to equal the energy coming from waves associated with 10 mph winds and one
mile of fetch. A wakesurfing boat would only need to pass every 270 seconds to equal the same
wind-wave effects. At higher wind speeds and longer fetch distances, wind waves become more
energetic. For example, a 20 mph wind blowing over 4 miles of fetch yields wave conditions
equivalent to a cruising boat passing 110 feet offshore every 9 seconds. Those same wind waves
are equivalent to a wakesurfing passing every 23 seconds 110 feet from a shoreline. These sorts
of repetition rates are not representative of the sport.
A 10 mph wind blowing over a mile of open water is a common occurrence and our results
suggest boat wakes are not likely to be the most significant source of energy along the shores of
all but the smallest bodies of water. The persistence of wind waves can belie their importance.
While a boat wake coming ashore can seem like a significant event, in the larger scheme of
things it can be of little consequence if that shore also experiences wind-driven waves. In all but
the most protected of shorelines, it would be difficult for boating to match the role of wind waves
and natural currents on shaping shorelines.
1
Introduction
The effect of boat wakes on shorelines varies greatly depending on boat size, its speed, and
where and how it is operated. Factors such as speed, length, and displacement determine the
characteristics of a wake as it propagates outward from the boat’s track line. Meanwhile, factors
such as distance to shore and water depth determines how that wake changes as it moves.
Finally, the nature of the shoreline and the other environmental stressors it experiences
determines the significance of the wake’s arrival.
With the increase in popularity of wakeboarding and wakesurfing, there has been a rise in
concern over the potential effect of the associated wakes. In some cases, targeted regulations
have been suggested as a way to keep those activities away from certain areas or to exclude them
from entire bodies of water. Unfortunately, such advocacy is seldom based on a complete
knowledge of the situation, reflecting instead a knee-jerk reaction to either an isolated incident or
the irresponsible behavior of one or a few operators.
The fact remains, when engaging in wake sports these boats are intentionally operated to produce
a large wake that is an important component of wakeboarding and essential to the sport of
wakesurfing. Understandably, as the sport grows, conflicts among the users of a body of water
can grow. The purpose of this report is to add to the understanding of wake-sport wakes and
how they fit into the spectrum of boat wakes in general as well as how they compare to naturally
occurring waves and other coastline disturbances.
Background on wakes
Wave and wakes are well-studied phenomena, as they relate directly to the survivability of
coastal structures and the processes affecting coastal environments (USACE 2002). Specific
research on the effect of boat wakes has occurred for many years (Dorava 1997, Asplund 2000,
NRC 2007). While boat wakes are but one source of impact on our coastal environments (Klein
2007), in some situations they become a significant concern (Macfarlane 2008, Watterson 2012).
The methods for studying wakes generally involve the measurement associated wave heights as a
wake approaches a shore (Fonseca 2012, Macfarlane 2012). Results from such investigations
can be used to compare the characteristics of wakes generated by various size vessels operating
in various modes (Gourlay 2010). The methods can also be used to compare the role of boat
wakes on shoreline with that of wind waves (Zabawa 1980).
It has been found by some that boat wakes complaints are often used to mask other community
concerns such as the noise generated by high-speed craft and the loss of amenity (Macfarlane
2008). It has also been found that wave height alone can be poor indicator of erosion potential
and energy is considered a better indicator of potential shoreline impact (Ibid).
Absent in the literature are data specific to the wake effects of wake-sport boats and the purpose
of this study is to fill that gap and use rigorous field-collected data to assess potential wave
impacts of wake-boat operation at various speeds, operating conditions, and distances from
shore. These findings can then be compared with naturally occurring wind waves associated
with different wind speeds and fetch distances.
2
Study objectives
The objectives of this study were to:
1. Develop methods and instrumentation to accurately measure waves generated by the
passage of a wake boat.
2. Measure the wakes produced by a wake-sport boat at cruising, wakeboarding, and
wavesurfing speeds and loading conditions at deep and shallow test sites.
3. Determine the wave energy from these wakes and how it varies with mode of operation
and distance from the boat track.
4. Compare the experimental findings with the wave energy associated with wind waves.
5. Use the finding to assist WSIA is developing guidelines for wake boat operation to
minimize any negative impacts of wake sports.
Methodology
Two test venues were identified in the Conway Lake chain in Orlando, Florida, as indicated in
Figure 1. One typified a shallow-water site where the depths were gradual and reached 10 feet at
500 feet from shore while our deep-water site saw a sudden slope increase at approximately 60
feet from shore, reaching 22 feet at 150 feet from shore. At the deep-water site, all boat runs
were in depths greater than 22 feet.
Figure 1. Big Lake Conway and South Lake Conway, Orlando, FL with test sites indicated.
Deep-water site
Shallow-water site
3
Both locations offered plenty of room for our experimental runs and had sandy beaches. The test
sites were surveyed for their depth profile and sensor mounts were built to provide an array of
wave measurement stations installed perpendicular to the shore. These survey results and sensor
locations are shown in Figure 2 and are overlaid on aerials views in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 2. Depths, sensor locations, and boat tracks for the two test venues.
Wave-height sensors at each measurement station were mounted on rigid steel supports that were
driven into the lakebed. At the four stations closest to shore, a capacitance-wire wave gauge was
used with a 24” measurement range. These devices measure the water level along a pair of
capacitance wires and are extremely accurate and responsive. Figure 5 shows a photo of one of
the measurement stations and Table 1 gives the specifications.
4
Figure 3. The shallow-water test venue with depths, sensor, and boat tracks indicated.
5
Figure 4. The deep-water test venue with depths, sensor, and boat tracks indicated.
6
Figure 5. Station #2 with an Akamina AWP-24-2 capacitance wave probe.
Table 1. Akamina AWP-24-2 specifications.
Due to the outer station’s proximity to the inner track line, the capacitance wire sensor was
avoided due to its delicate nature. Instead a pressure sensor was used that was positioned on a
steel tripod that was fully submerged with the sensor diaphragm positioned 30” below the
surface. The Levelgage sensor is pictured in Figure 6 and its specifications are presented in
Table 2.
7
Figure 6. A Keller America submersible Levelgage.
Table 2. Levelgage 81355OF/5ftWC/mA specifications.
Because pressure-sensing wave measurements are attenuated based on their depth, identical
Levelgage sensors were also mounted at stations #2 and #3 and at the same depth. Comparison
of pressure and capacitance-wire readings at these two stations allowed the precise correction of
the pressure sensor readings at the outer station allowing for consistent measurements from all
five stations. The resulting installation is pictured in Figure 7.
Figure 7. The sensor array at the shallow-water test site.
8
Each sensor was connected by underwater cable to a PC-based data acquisition system using a
National Instruments 9207 16-channel voltage/current module sampling each sensor at 30
samples per second. The sensor wave height data was converted to engineering units (inches)
and displayed on a LabView user interface as shown in Figure 8. The data was also logged for
post processing.
Figure 8. The PC-based data acquisition system.
The system was configured to begin logging data upon a manual trigger activated when the test
boat passed a line perpendicular to the shore and along the line of sensor stations. Data was then
recorded for 90 seconds, allowing enough time for the wake-associated waves to pass the near-
shore sensor.
The test vessel is pictured in Figure 9, a Nautique G-23 wake-sport boat with the following
specifications:
Length overall: 23’ / 7.01 m
Max beam: 102” / 2.59 m
Light displacement: 5,900 lbs / 2,676 kg
Figure 9. The Nautique G23 test boat in wakesurf condition.
9
This boat was selected as being typical of the growing fleet of wake-sport boats available from
various manufacturers. The boat was operated in three different conditions: cruising,
wakeboarding, and wakesurfing. For the cruising condition the boat was operated “light,”
meaning only one person aboard but with a full fuel tank (65 gal.). For the wakeboarding
condition the standard factory-installed ballast tanks were filled to capacity, adding 2,850
pounds. For the wakesurfing runs, the weight was supplemented with four “fat sacks” positioned
aft and in the bow, adding another 1,400 pounds for a total displacement of 10,150 pounds.
To determine the role of distance in wake dissipation, three test tracks were established at a
distance 10’, 110’, and 210’ from the outer probe. The track lines were marked by taut-moored
inflatable buoy pairs that were positioned at an angle such that the resulting waves would
approach parallel to the shore and perpendicular to the array of sensors. Table 3 shows the test
matrix of 42 test conditions that were used for both the shallow-water and the deep-water test
sites. Due to repetitions of some runs, a total of 94 runs were conducted.
Table 3. The test matrix for both the shallow and deep-water test sites.
Results
The logged data from each run in the form of .csv files were processed using MatLab scripts for
plotting and further analysis. The data was first re-calibrated based on careful sensor-calibration
data collected at the end of the tests. Then, pressure data from the first three stations were
corrected to make the values comparable to capacitive data collected at the redundant stations
This correction step is necessary because the wave heights measurements using a pressure probe
are attenuated when the probe is placed below the surface. The attenuation factor is a frequency
dependent value that we determined empirically based on a comparison of the data from co-
located pressure and capacitive sensors at stations 2 and 3. This type of frequency-dependent
function, known as a "transfer function", can be used to determine the actual wave surface height
given the pressure sensor response as an input.
This correlation was used to correct the station #1 pressure sensor readings, making its processed
values comparable to those from the other four stations. This data was then plotted in graphical
form to verify the integrity of the collected data and examined to qualitatively understand how
the wake characteristics change as they progress towards shore. An example of one of the
10
cruising runs is presented in Figure 10 where the horizontal axis is time in seconds and the
vertical axis is the elevation of the water surface. In this graphic the signals from subsequent
sensor stations are displaced upward to show the change in waveform, the number of waves, and
their generally diminishing height.
Figure 10. Shallow-water Run #6 - Cruising, 25 mph, 10’ standoff.
Because this run was at a distance standoff of only 10 feet, the wake arrives at sensor #1 almost
immediately and measuring from the lowest trough to the highest peak we can see a maximum
wave height of 14 inches. As the wake progresses along the array the maximum wave height
diminishes and the group disperses into more waves. By the time the wake reaches sensor #5 the
maximum height is 3 inches but 13 or more distinct waves are detected. At this shallow-water
site, the distance between outer station #1 and inner station #5 is 275 feet.
Because of the difference between the group velocity and the phase velocity of such wave
formations, the actual number of waves at a given time, such as would be seen or photographed,
is only half as many as are measured by a fixed wave probe. This is because within a group of
waves, the waves are constantly forming at the rear of the group and disappearing at the front.
That said, the graphical portrayal of these wakes, and the number of waves recorded at each
station correctly represents the number of waves that would reach a shoreline at that particular
location. An illuminating animation of this phenomenon can be seen at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_%28water_waves%29.
To serve as a comparison, an example of one of the wakeboarding runs is presented in Figure 11.
Again, the wake is seen immediately at sensor #1 and due largely to the increased displacement
in the wakeboarding condition, the initial wave height is 21.8 inches and by the time it has
reached sensor #5 the height is 6.4 inches. Again, while the height has decreased, the number of
waves has grown from approximately 3 to 14.
11
Figure 11. Shallow-water Run #15 - Wakeboarding, 22.2 mph, 10’ standoff.
Progressing to larger wakes, a wakesurfing example is presented in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Shallow-water Run #24 - Wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, 10’ standoff.
12
Here, due to a further displacement increase and a lower operating speed, the maximum wave
height at sensor #1 measures 27.8 inches. At shoreward sensor #5 the height is 7.5 inches and
twelve waves were detected.
The results from the runs made at a more distant standoff from the outer probe showed similar
results. Figure 13 portrays the cruising speed results for 25 mph run at a distance of 110 feet
from the outer probe. There is approximately an eight-second delay before the longer-period
components of the wake reached station #1. Compared to the run shown in Figure 10, there are
now nine significant waves followed by six distinct albeit smaller waves. The maximum
measured wave height at station #1 is 8.1 inches. Twenty seconds later this wake reaches inner
station #5 where the maximum height is only 2.8” and the wave count is approximately 20.
Figure 13. Shallow-water Run #7 - Cruising, 25 mph, 110’ standoff.
For the comparable run at 210 feet of standoff the cruising results were consistent with this trend
of more waves of decreasing size. As shown in Figure 14, at 25 mph and a distance of 210 feet
from the outer probe, there was a 13-second delay before the wake reaches station #1 with a
maximum height of 6.4 inches. At station #5 the maximum height is only 1.7”.
13
Figure 14. Shallow-water Run #8 - Cruising, 25 mph, 210’ standoff.
Results such as these can be compared graphically by plotting the maximum wave height vs. the
distance along the probe array for each standoff distance. This is done in Figures 15 - 17 where
maximum heights are shown for each mode of operation in shallow water. The 110’ and 210’
runs have been offset horizontally to properly represent the distance from the boat’s track line.
Figure 15. Maximum wave heights cruising at 25 mph at various standoffs.
14
Figure 16. Maximum wave heights wakeboarding at 22.2 mph at various standoffs.
Figure 17. Maximum wave heights wakesurfing to port at 11 mph at various standoffs.
The reduction in maximum wave height with distance from the boat’s track line is consistent,
with the most rapid reduction happening within the first 100 feet and then another slight drop as
the waves encounter the shallow water associated with station #5.
Similar trends are seen at the deep-water site as shown in Figures 18 - 20. Keeping in mind that
the distance axis is shorter for due to the spacing of the deep-water stations, we see similar initial
wave heights but less wave-height reduction over distance from less bottom friction.
15
Figure 18. Maximum wave heights cruising at 25 mph in deep water at various standoffs.
Figure 19. Maximum wave heights wakeboarding at 25 mph in deep water at various standoffs.
16
Figure 20. Maximum wave heights wakesurfing at 11 mph in deep water at various standoffs.
As seen in Figure 19, the wave-height reduction over the first 100’ is greater for the
wakeboarding condition than for the cruising condition, dropping from 21.8 inches close to the
boat to 12 inches in height at station #2, 112 feet away from the track line. Even more dramatic
is the initial drop in wave height for the wakesurfing condition where it drops from 27.8 inches
beside the boat to 16.3 inches at station #2.
The most significant difference between shallow and deep water is at the wakesurfing condition
where, as shown in Figure 21, the shallow-water wake starts out 6% higher but diminishes
roughly 40% more than the deep-water wake at 200 feet from the track line.
Figure 21. Maximum wave heights wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, in shallow and deep waters.
17
As is apparent in Figures 10 thru 14, while the heights of the waves associated with a passing
boat wake do diminish over time and distance, the number of waves increases. The question
remains: What is the impact of that wake on the shoreline? Other research on these matters
indicates that a wave’s energy is a more important indicator as opposed to its height (Glamore
2008). In addition, the cumulative energy of all the waves associated with a wake is the best
measure (Macfarlane 2008).
The power of a wave is proportional to its period and to the square of its height according to the
formula:
P = ρg2 Hm0
2Te /64π
where P is the wave power or the wave energy flux, ρ is the density of water, g is the
acceleration of gravity, Hm0 is the significant wave height, and Te is the wave energy period.
Power in Watts per meter times the duration of the wake yields the wake’s energy in units of
Joules per meter of wave-crest length. The calculation would be simple if a wake was composed
of identical waves of uniform height and period. Instead, we must calculate the energy for each
individual wave and those energies can then be summed.
For example, in Figure 22 the power of the waves of a wakesurfing wake is plotted
corresponding to each of the shallow-water-array stations.
Figure 22. Shallow-water Run #24 - Wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, 10’ standoff.
The energy of the wake at each station is the sum of the power of each individual wave times its
duration, essentially the area under each of the plotted lines, and the calculated values for run#24
are as follows.
18
Table 4. Wake energy Shallow-water
wakesurfing to port 11 mph, 10’ distance.
Like the height of wake waves, wave energy diminishes over time and distance due largely to
breaking and from bottom friction in shallow water. In Figure 23 the total wake energy is plotted
vs. distance from the boat track in both shallow and deep water. Compared to the maximum
wave heights plotted in Figure 21, the drop in energy is even more precipitous.
Figure 23. Total wake energy wakesurfing to port in shallow and deep waters.
Of particular interest is the fact that the energy level in shallow water is 35% higher than what is
found in the deep-water wake. The likely reason for this that in order for the boat to maintain 11
mph in shallow water, a higher engine RPM was required and therefore more energy was put
into the wake. However, because of the combined losses associated with breaking and bottom
friction, the shallow-water energy levels drop to a third of the original value by 200 feet from the
track line. By comparison, the deep-water energy levels drop by half at 112 feet from the track
line, but because of the absence of bottom friction, they are greater than the shallow-water
energy levels beyond 250 feet from the track line.
For smaller waves that do not break and that travel over deep water, there is often very little
energy loss until the wave reached the shore. As an example of this phenomenon, the deep-water
19
cruising results are portrayed in Figure 24. Here, there is seen no drop in wake energy with
distance indeed, because of our methods of calculating the power are proportional to wave height
squared, the slight height increase that is to be expected over shoaling water results in an
increase in indicated energy. Whether this increase can be linked to an equivalent shoreline
impact is unclear, but it is a reminder that the effect is probably to over estimate the near shore
energies portrayed earlier and is evident in up-ticks seen in Figures 18 through 21. It must also
be pointed out that in shallow water, wakes produced at cruising speeds do behave more
predictably and diminish steadily in energy with time and distance.
Of significance is the fact that total wake energies in excess of 300 Joules/meter occur at cruising
speeds in deep water regardless of the distance from the track line. While the wakesurfing wake
starts out at very high energy, it drops significantly over time and distance. In shallow water
wakesurfing wakes diminish to a greater degree in height and in energy and do so earlier.
Figure 24. Total wake energy cruising at 25 mph in deep waters.
While energy is a more rigorous measure of the potential of a wave to affect shorelines, it is a
difficult notion to understand compared to, say, the height of a wave. Most people are good at
approximating wave heights when observed directly, especially when viewed together with
objects of known dimension. For this reason, a further examination of the findings portrayed in
Figures 15 through 21 is called for.
The wave height measurements at each operating condition (cruising, wakeboarding, and
wakesurfing), at each offset distance (10’, 110’, and 210’), and in both deep and shallow water
can be presented in a single plot. In these the following two figures these combined results are
20
portrayed, first in Figures 25 and 26 as wave height vs. the distance from the shore and second in
Figure 27 as wave height vs. the distance from the boats track line. Figure 25 includes the data
points while in Figures 26 and 27 only the trend lines are shown.
Figure 25. Wave height vs. distance from shore in shallow and deep water.
Figure 26. Wave height vs. distance from shore, trend lines only.
21
In these figures we see more clearly the role of distance in wave height dissipation and how the
larger waves of wake sports tend to dissipate more rapidly than the smaller waves at cruising
speeds. While the wave heights start out very different due to the boat’s speed and ballasting,
the difference at the shoreline is less, especially in shallow water where more damping occurs.
A different perspective can be seen when the same results are plotted vs. distance from the boat’s
track line as has been done in Figure 27.
Figure 27. Wave height vs. distance from boat track trend lines.
Here we can see the importance of water depth in wave height dissipation. In shallow water
wave height drops faster and continue to drop over distance.
Discussion
The significance of total wake energy on shoreline impacts will vary depending on the type of
shore. Sand beaches, and gravel or rocky shorelines are obviously less sensitive to wave effects
compared to unstable banks or sensitive vegetation. Absent boating, the nature of a shoreline is
dictated by geology and its exposure to various coastal processes, wind-driven waves being a
major factor.
In order to understand the significance of total wake energy on a shoreline, it is useful to quantify
the energy associated with wind waves. Fortunately wind waves are a well-studied topic and
reliable predictions of wave conditions can be made with the knowledge of wind velocities and
the distance over which they are able to blow, a measure known as “fetch.” Depending on the
conditions at a specific body of water, the likely wave characteristics can be predicted as shown
in Figure 28. Six example conditions are shown in in Table 5 below where significant wave
height (Hmo) and dominant wave period (Te) are given for various wind speed and fetch
parameters.
22
Figure 28. A nomograph for wind-driven waves (VDOT Drainage Manual).
Table 5. Wave conditions vs. wind and fetch.
From these wave environment specifications, pseudo waves can be generated using simulation
tools such as WAFO (Brodtkorb 2000). WAFO-generated time series corresponding to the six
sea states specified in Table 5 are shown in Figure 29.
23
Figure 29. WAFO sea spectra time series for six wave specifications.
Using the same methods we used to analyze our wake-generated time series, we can determine
the energy levels associated with each of these wave conditions. Table 6 shows the energy along
one meter of wave front over a one minute of time associated with each of the above wave
conditions. These values now provide a means of comparing naturally occurring wind waves
with wake energies.
Table 6. Energy of the Table 5 sea states in Joules/minute/meter.
Table 7 is a listing of total wake energy for various operating conditions and standoff distances
for both deep and shallow water. In the table the recurrence equivalent of these wakes is
presented compared to two wind-wave conditions. Here, “recurrence equivalent” is defined as
the wake repeat interval in seconds needed to equal the amount of energy associated with the
specified wind speed and fetch distance.
24
Table 7. Total wake energy and wind-wave recurrence equivalent.
Except for narrow bodies of water, a 10 mph wind blowing over a mile of open water is a
common occurrence and it results in energy levels of 208 joules/min impacting the shore. This
energy level can be compared to those associated with boat wakes to understand the relative
importance of each on potential shoreline erosion. The point being that while a boat wake
coming ashore on calm day can seem like a significant event, in the larger scheme of things it
can be of little consequence if that shore also experiences wind-driven waves.
From Table 7 it can be seen that a boat 110 feet from shore in deep water would need to cruise
by every 101 seconds to generate the incident energy level of naturally occurring wind waves
from a 10 mph breeze over a 1 mile fetch. By comparison, that same boat operating in a
wakesurfing mode would need to pass by every 270 seconds to generate the same energy as
those modest, naturally occurring wind waves.
Table 7 also shows that with more energetic wind condition such as 20 mph blowing over 4
miles of fetch, the equivalent recurrence interval for a boat wake is much shorter. For example
the cruising boat 110 feet from shore in deep water would need to cruise by every 9 seconds to
equal these larger wind waves. In the wakesurfing mode the equivalent interval would be longer
at 23 seconds. In other words the wakesurfer would need to pass nearly three times per minute
to introduce the same amount of energy to the shoreline as those wind waves.
Boat wakes coming ashore are discrete events and while they do convey energy and can have
impacts on some shorelines, they typically are a minor perturbation compared to the persistent
arrival of wind waves. In all but the most protected of shorelines, it would be difficult for
boating to match the role of wind waves and natural currents on shaping shorelines.
25
Conclusions
Based on both maximum wave height and total wake energy measurements it is clear that the
same boat under different operating conditions can produce very different wakes. As with all
boats, factors such as speed and total displacement have large and explainable influences on the
initial size and the propagation characteristics of its wake.
Our findings show that as a wake progress away from the boat’s track line it undergoes important
transformations both in height and the number of associated waves. The increase in the number
of waves in a wake is a result of the initial large wave decomposing into a series of waves of
different frequency. The longer-period wave components travel faster while the shorter-period
waves travel slower. This results in a wake composed of an increasing number of waves and,
from a simple conservation of energy perspective, these multiple waves must be smaller in
height than the original wake as it leaves the boat.
In our tests, waves were shown to lose height and energy rapidly if they are large such as those
formed during wakesurfing. This is due to a sudden energy loss, as it first breaks close behind
the boat. In deep water subsequent reductions in wave height are due to continued decomposing
into more waves. Once the wake reached shallow water, energy becomes dissipated due to
bottom friction. As depths become shallower closer to shore, wave velocities decrease and, as a
result, waves become steeper and slightly higher and can break even prior to reaching the
shoreline.
Through this combination of factors (the initial wake breaking behind the boat, bottom friction,
and shoal-water breaking) the energy of a wake is dissipated over time and distance. In shallow
water, dissipation due to bottom friction becomes a more significant factor.
Shallow water has other effects in that it adds to the resistance of the boat requiring additional
propulsive power to achieve a specified speed compared to deep water. As a result, for the same
speeds, the shallow-water runs generated higher initial wakes but they dissipated more rapidly.
At the shoreline, the energy remaining was significantly less in shallow water compared to those
from the same operating conditions in deep water where waves progress with fewer losses.
Total wake energy from cruising conditions in shallow water at 110’ of offset had only
dissipated 2% compared to runs 10’ from the array. By contrast, the total wake energy from
wakesurfing dropped by 65% with the same standoff distance. An additional 100’ standoff
yielded a further 20% reduction. Deep-water operations yielded less dramatic results with the
total wake energy of wakesurfing dropping by 49% for the first 100 feet of standoff and a 12%
reduction for the next 100 feet.
Distance from shore has an important effect on the amount of wake energy that reaches the
shoreline. The significance of waves coming ashore depends on the nature of the shoreline.
Those shorelines that routinely experience wind-driven waves are clearly more tolerant of wakes
from all types of boating activity. By comparing boat-wave energy with the energy of wind
waves associated with various combinations of wind speed and fetch distance, equivalent
recurrence intervals can be determined, i.e. the frequency of wake events that would equal a
specified wind condition. Because wind waves are persistent, in many settings they represent a
more significant source of shoreline impact than boat wakes.
26
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Water Sports Industry Association (WSIA). The findings
and opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of WSIA.
Nautique Boats provided the G-23 test boat and a driver for all the testing. The shallow-water
test venue in South Lake Conway was provided by Robert Harrel. The deep-water test venue in
Big Lake Conway was provided by David DeArmas.
The authors wish to thank Larry Meddock, the Executive Director of WSIA and Kevin Michael,
Assistant Director of WSIA, whose logistic support and field-test assistance was essential to the
success of this study.
27
References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual. Engineer Manual 1110-2-
1100, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. (in 6 volumes).
http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/cem
Dorava, J.M. & G.W. Moore. 1997. Effects of Boatwakes on Streambank Erosion Kenai River,
Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey Water-resources Investigations Report 97-4105.
http://ak.water.usgs.gov/Publications/Abstracts/1997.Abstracts/boatwake_abs.htm
Asplund, T.R. 2000. The Effects of Motorized Watercraft on Aquatic Ecosystems, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, Publication SS-948-00.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ShorelandZoning/documents/201301041052.pdf
NRC. 2007. Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11764/mitigating-shore-erosion-along-sheltered-coasts
Klein, R. 2007. The Effects Of Marinas & Boating Activity Upon Tidal Waterways,
http://www.ceds.org/pdfdocs/Marinas.pdf
Macfarlane, G.J., G. Cox, J. Bradbury, 2008. Bank erosion from small craft wave wake in
sheltered waterways, International Journal of Small Craft Technology, The Royal Institution of
Naval Architects, Vol. 150, Part B2, pp. 33-48.
http://www.swanrivertrust.wa.gov.au/docs/technical-reports/stage-1-report-investigation-into-
the-effect-of-wash-of-boats-and-wind-waves-on-the-swan-river.pdf
Watterson, E. 2012. Impact of Wake on Tweed River Bank Erosion Study, SMEC Australia
project #3001906 for Tweed Shire Council.
http://www.riverfoundation.org.au/admin/multipart_forms/mpf__resource_44_1___Ref-
21_Tweed_Wake_Investigation.pdf
Fonseca, M.S. & Malhotra, A. 2012. Boat wakes and their influence on erosion in the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, North Carolina. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS # 143.
24p. http://aquaticcommons.org/14939/
Macfarlane, G.J. 2012. Marine Vessel Wave Wake: Focus on Vessel Operations within Sheltered
Waterways. 2012. PhD thesis, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania.
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/14774/
WC Glamore, W.C. 2008. A Decision Support Tool for Assessing the Impact of Boat Wake
Waves on Inland Waterways, Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering.
www.pianc.org/downloads/dwa/Wglamore_DPWApaper.pdf
Gourlay, T. 2010. Full-scale Boat Wake and Wind Wave Trials on the Swan River. Final Report
prepared for Swan River Trust. http://www.swanrivertrust.wa.gov.au/docs/technical-
reports/stage-2-report-full-scale-boat-wake-and-wind-wave-trials.pdf
Zabawa, C. & C. Ostrom. 1980. Final Report on the Role of Boat Wakes in Shore Erosion in
Anne Arundel County, MD, Coastal Resources Division, Tidewater Administration, MD Dept.
of Natural Resources, Annapolis. http://boatwakes.homestead.com/files/zabawa7-8.pdf
28
VDOT. 2002. Drainage Manual, Chap. 13 Shore Protection, App. 13B-1,Virginia Dept. of Trans.
http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/LocDes/DrainageManual/drain-manual-chapter-
13.pdf
Brodtkorb, P.A., et al. 2000. "WAFO - a Matlab toolbox for analysis of random waves and
loads", Proc. 10th Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf., Seattle, USA, Vol. III, pp. 343-350.
http://www.maths.lth.se/matstat/wafo.
From:Kathleen Donahue
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Wakeboard Ban on Phillips Lake
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:26:58 PM
To M. Smith
My name is Kathleen Donahue. I am a Phillips Lake Property owner. I compose this email to address my vote to ban
wakeboards on Phillips Lake.
Please make it happen. Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Keely Meyers
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:: Written Comment for the 5/26/26 Public Hearing – Proposed Wake Boat Ordinance
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 7:56:39 AM
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
I am a Phillips Lake property owner and a wake boat user, and I’m asking the board to vote no on the proposed
ordinance.
Shoreline erosion is a real issue - but wake boats are not the only cause, and this ordinance treats them as if they are.
Unmaintained bulkheads, aging retaining walls that reflect wave energy back into the water, cleared vegetation,
poorly maintained docks, and seasonal water level changes all contribute to the health of our lakes. This is a
complex, multi-factor problem. If this board is serious about protecting these lakes, all of these contributing factors
deserve the same scrutiny - not just the most visible one.
An ordinance that ignores these realities while banning one type of recreational boat is not a comprehensive solution
- it’s an incomplete one that shifts blame without addressing all of the issues or contributing factors. What is being
proposed here identifies a convenient target, draws a line, and calls it done - while some underlying causes of
shoreline degradation remain completely unaddressed.
Lakefront property owners have made significant investments with the reasonable expectation that they can enjoy
their property freely and lawfully. We deserve a process that takes that seriously, not a blanket restriction that treats
one group of residents as the sole source of a problem that belongs to all of us. I ask the board to pursue a solution
that takes the full picture into account - one that protects our lakes without stripping the rights of any one group of
residents. What brought us to Phillips Lake in Mason County was an opportunity to own lakefront property to
recreate safely on, as well as a sense of community. A ban like this doesn’t protect that - it fractures it, setting
neighbors against neighbors and turning a shared resource into a source of conflict.
Respectfully,
Keely Meyers
Sent from my iPad
From:gsteinman@wavecable.com
To:McKenzie Smith
Cc:Merrisue/Gary Steinman
Subject:Wakeboard Boats
Date:Sunday, May 24, 2026 12:31:58 PM
Thank you for all of your comments and view points. I will share my thoughts and
experiences with waves, lake levels, watercraft and shoreline development. Some of this is
anecdotal.
Bought my waterfront property on Mason Lake in 1977 in Little Hoquiam Cove. Property is
low bank facing SSW. I have mostly a gravel shore with some curved block protection for
my native Cedar trees (necessitated by human caused blockage of the 5 finger outlet 20
years ago). I have natural vegetation. I have a 20 ‘ wakeboard boat that can convert to
water ski, wakeboard or wake surf via computer controls. My boat is tied up parallel to my
dock using bumper guards. It is safe and waves do not endanger it. My children use the
wakeboard out in the center of the lake and are very mindful of lake rules and interactions
with the lake shore and other water activity. Most wake surfers prefer to have the deep
surfing wave on the left side so the bigger wave is going towards the large portion of the
lake as lake rules dictate driving counterclockwise. The very small minority surf on the right
“Goofy” side where the deeper wave moves towards the immediate shore. These are the
wave dynamics of wake surfing. Most deeper waves go to the deeper section of the lake
where they are intersected by other waves and boats reducing their power.
I also grew up on the East side of Lake Washington and my parents lived there for 60 years
so I was witness to the expanded use of larger boats, increased wave action, loss of natural
shores as every piece of waterfront was built upon and concrete bulkheads were placed.
My parents had concrete bulkheads across their 110’. Eventually there was damage to their
bulkhead due to the increased usage and different largervessels. My parents’ decision to
erect concrete bulkheads actually added to the problem and to worse erosion undermining
the concrete. Couldn’t blame the damage strictly on the larger boats. The design of a solid
barrier and the resulting underwater turbulence contributed to the bulkhead’s breakdown. If
it had been left natural slope, they would not have added to the wave problems.
There are more variables causing “damage” to our lakeshores than wakeboats. I saw this
when Spring had arrived and I saw erosion at the junction of my dock and the shoreline.
When all the boats left the lake last Fall, this personal area was fine. During the Fall and
Winter when NO boats were on the lake, damage was done due to natural wave action
from storms, wind, high water. This was on a natural shoreline. No wake boats caused this.
Wind wave action caused it coupled with higher lake levels.
Mason Lake has most of the waterfront lots developed now and so many have concrete
bulkheads rather than natural shoreline so that wave energy could gradually dissipate on
the sloping shore. When waves hit a hard barrier with no gradual release like on natural
sloping shores the power in the waves are stopped and forced downward and backward
causing more agitation on the lake bottom and erosion. My sources are Wikipedia and their
sources as I am not a a physics major. Just an observer. These waves are rebuffed at the
cement barrier and their energy is redirected backwards and downwards. I know the reason
for bulkheads is to counteract the natural wave action and resulting erosion on natural
shores which has always been a problem ever since people bought lakefront.
Don’t blame just wake boats. Blame also should be placed on all the solid bulkheads for
adding to the continuing wave activity. Blame the increase in usage. Blame boat drivers
who don’t follow lake rules.Blame regular boat and party barge drivers who cruise just off
docks with their resultant waves coming immediately full force at lakeshores. There’s plenty
of blame to assign. Blame variables like weather, lake levels, or whether shoreline is
natural or solid barrier.
There are lots of activities on the lake that I don’t care for but I know that different people
enjoy different activities. I can’t stand the rooster tail boats that collect in front of my house
and blast their noise but I know some people think they are beautiful and love the rooster
tails. So be it. Some people like to anchor just off my dock and then stand and urinate off
their boat. Nature calls. What do you do? They pollute my view. Call the Sheriff? The
deputies are overworked and don’t enforce noise ordinances anyway. Remove all hard
barriers on the shore? Not feasible.
Just had to get this off my chest that wake boats are not the main reason for damage to
shorelines and properties. We all need to live together and remember to look at ones-self
and try to not impinge on or legislate your neighbors who are trying to enjoy the lake also.
Always be careful what you wish for. Sorry this is so long.
Merrisue Steinman
Been here since 1977
Sent from my iPad
From:Merritt Steele
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:boating on Lost Lake
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 10:03:49 PM
Good day commissioners,
My name is Merritt Steele, I am 15 year old, and I would like to share with you my opinion
regarding the banning of wake boats in Mason county.
First off, I would like to thank you not only for your time, but the work you do for the
community, Without you the county would not function properly, I really do appreciate the
work you do and so do the rest of Mason county.
I have been visiting lost lake since before I can remember, some of my best memories growing
up were partaking in watersports behind my friend's boat with my family, that was 8 years
ago. My family recently bought property on the lake and have started construction on our
house, and last year we bought a wake boat so we too partake in watersports. And now there is
talk about banning them.
I understand that some people are mad at wake boats, but banning them altogether is a bad
idea, instead of banning them, we should enforce the law and record and report the registration
number of boats that are not following the law. I also believe that a great solution is only
letting wake boats on the water from 12pm-7:30pm, that way fishermen and skiers can have
their uninterrupted time on the lake. One final thing I would like to adress is the damage to
property caused by wake boats, such as bulkhead damage, dock damage and damage done to
other watercraft. If things are built and maintained properly as they should be, no damage will
be done, but if you have a 50 year old dock that is not maintained, of course it's going to get
damaged, it is your responsibility as an owner to take proper care of your property.
Thank you for your time, I hope you have a great rest of your day.
Sincerely, Merritt Steele
From:Mychael Raya
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Public comment on proposed wake boat ordinance
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 6:23:34 PM
Please present this to the Commissioners with respect to the proposed wake boat ordinance on
for discussion on 5/26.
My family owns property on Spencer Lake in Mason County. We are opposed to the proposed
wake boat ordinance. From what I can gather, the Commission has not been provided with any
scientific studies, evidence, or any other proof that wake boats are causing damage to property
at any location or locations within Mason County. It appears that the Commission is relying
solely on "complaints" from property owners, very few of which have been published
anywhere in order to evaluate the validity of the claim. The Agenda Request Form within the
Briefing Packet simply states that the Board "has received complaints regarding wake-
enhanced motorboat operation causing property damage to shoreline property." At this time
there is nothing in the record to support the claim that this damage is being caused by wake
boats. Rather, the Commission would be relying on the word of a few unsubstantiated
complaints when considering implementation of a drastic ordinance that impacts many. If the
Commission is going to implement rules impacting wake boats, it should be rooted in fact and
science rather than mere speculation that harm is being caused.
Finally, if any of the Commissioners has any interest in property that would be impacted by
this ordinance (e.g. ownership, partial ownership, or family member ownership of a parcel on
impacted lakes) this should be disclosed publicly and said member(s) should consider recusing
themselves from this matter due to this conflict of interest.
Thank you,
Mychael Raya
From:Paul Donahue
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:[SUSPECTED SPAM] Ban on wake/surf at Phillips Lake
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 4:21:42 PM
I support banning wake/surf on Phillips Lake. I can't allow my grandkids to wade in shallow water because of the
enormous wakes. Our little lake is just too small.
Sent from my iPhone
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
Get Adobe Reader Now!
From:Rodger Scott
To:McKenzie Smith; Randy Neatherlin; Pat Tarzwell; Sharon Trask
Subject:Strong Support for the Proposed Wake Boat Ban on Mason County Lakes
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 8:25:22 PM
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
My name is Rodger Scott and I have owned a home on lake Wooten, in Mason County, Washington
for over 40 years.
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed ordinance banning wake-enhanced boats
(wake boats) on smaller lakes in our county, allowing them only on larger lakes like Lake Cushman
and Mason Lake that can better accommodate their impacts.
As a lakeside property owner, I have personally experienced the destructive effects of these boats.
The large, powerful waves generated by wake boats have repeatedly damaged our dock, bulkhead,
and shoreline frontage.
What used to be a peaceful, stable waterfront has become a constant source of erosion, structural
stress on our docks and bulkheads and costly repairs due to the amplified wakes these vessels
produce.
On smaller lakes like ours, there simply isn’t enough space or depth for the wakes to dissipate safely
before they reach the shore.
This issue goes beyond individual properties. Wake boats create waves significantly larger than
traditional boats—often 3-12 times greater—leading to shoreline erosion, damage to docks and
bulkheads, disruption of aquatic habitats, and safety risks for swimmers, kayakers, paddleboarders,
and other boaters. Our lake used to be a place where children, grandchildren, and now our great
grandchildren could safely learn to swim and play. I fear this will no longer be the case. Our
property was always admired by fellow residents and visitors on the lake for the beautiful lily pads.
We had the only patch on the lake. Over the last 4 plus years they have been getting less and less
and I believe they are being destroyed by the strong waves.
I appreciate that the proposed ordinance recognizes these differences by restricting wake-enhanced
operations to lakes with sufficient size and depth. This balanced approach protects smaller lakes
while allowing the activity where it can be conducted responsibly.
I urge you to approve this ban at the public hearing. It is essential for preserving the integrity of our
shorelines, protecting property values, and maintaining the enjoyment of our lakes for all residents
now and in the future.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this important local issue.
Rodger Scott
Sent from my iPhone
From:Ron Rosi
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Wakeboard Ban
Date:Friday, May 22, 2026 10:04:19 PM
Hello McKenzie:
We are currently out of the country and just heard that the Mason County
Commissioners are considering a wakeboard ban on small lakes in Mason County.
We are residents at Phillips Lake, and we strongly support this ban. Over the past 10
years wakeboarding and now wake surfing has created problems with our shoreline.
We have 100 feet of shoreline and half of the property has a rock bulkhead, and the
other half is natural. The natural part is undermined about 3 feet and has caused
concerns about the stability of natural growth, especially trees. The backfill of the
bulkhead is leaching out and causing concerns for the stability of our bulkhead. Both
of these conditions are a direct cause of wakeboarding and wake surfing.
We strongly support a ban on this activity for Phillips Lake.
Sincerely,
Ron & Connie Rosi
560 E Phillips Lake Loop Road
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From:Stella Scott
To:McKenzie Smith; Randy Neatherlin; ptarzwell@masoncounntywa.gov; Sharon Trask
Subject:Strong Support for the Proposed Wake Boat Ban on Mason County Lakes
Date:Monday, May 25, 2026 8:42:27 PM
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
My name is Stella Scott and I have owned a home on lake Wooten, in Mason County,
Washington for over 40 years.
I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed ordinance banning wake-
enhanced boats (wake boats) on smaller lakes like ours in Mason County.
I have witnessed the large, destructive waves cause damage to our bulkhead, dock, beach
front and the lily pads that we have always admired being nearby our shoreline.
Our lake used to be a place where our children, grandchildren, and now our great
grandchildren could safely swim and play. The waves come crashing in with so much force
and so often now, that it has caused many of our younger family members to be fearful and
not enjoy being in the lake that we have always loved to share with so many of our family
and friends over the years.
Our lake is not big enough or deep enough to accommodate that type of boat recreation.
I urge you to approve this ban at the public hearing. I appreciate my concerns being heard
and knowing that you support preserving the integrity of our shorelines, protecting our
property values, and maintaining the enjoyment of our lakes for all residents now and in the
future.
Thank you for your listening ear and attention to my concerns.
Stella Scott
Sent from my iPhone
From:trevor manley
To:McKenzie Smith
Subject:Wake Surfing - Phillips Lake
Date:Thursday, May 21, 2026 1:18:43 PM
To: Mason County Commissioners
I have a family cabin at 400 E Phillips Lake Loop road and I’m writing in support of the proposed wake surfing boat
ban. Our lake is entirely too small for those type of boats. There are many problems that they cause, including
damage to docks, shoreline, water quality and overall health of the lake, but the one that I hope you consider is the
danger to small children who are swimming or playing in the water. Small children get picked up by the large
crashing waves and slammed on the ground or worse against a bulkhead or dock. My kids have been slammed into
the ground and pinned against the bulkhead on multiple occasions. This was pretty traumatic for them and it kept
them from enjoying the water. The lake is no longer a safe place for kids to learn to swim and splash around. I fear
someone’s child will be seriously injured or drowned if we do nothing to stop this.
I’ve been made aware of a petition being passed around the lake to keep wake surfing on our lake and I want to let
you know that they represent the loud minority who have an investment they wish to protect, and do not represent
those of us who have been on this lake for generations.
Please for so many reasons but primarily for the health and safety of our children ban these nuisance boats from our
lake.
Thank you,
Trevor Manley
Sent from my iPhone
From:McKenzie Smith
To:Pat Tarzwell; Randy Neatherlin; Sharon Trask
Cc:Travis Adams; McKenzie Smith
Subject:FW: Fwd:
Date:Tuesday, May 26, 2026 8:03:00 AM
Attachments:cc1b6b66-a76a-4f38-b300-97a4501542e4.mp4
image001.png
Good morning,
Please find a public comment submitted for the May 26, 2026 public hearing.
*Please do not reply all to this email.
Sincerely,
Cami Olson
Public Records Coordinator
Mason County Support Services
(360) 427-9670 ext. 529 | colson@masoncountywa.gov
http://www.masoncountywa.gov
**Please note: Mason County complies with the Public Records Act Chapter 42.56 RCW. As such, any e-
mail sent to and/or from the County may be subject to public disclosure.
From: greg maneman <
Sent: Monday, May 25, 2026 12:55 PM
To: McKenzie Smith <MSmith@masoncountywa.gov>; Pat Tarzwell
<PTarzwell@masoncountywa.gov>; Sharon Trask <STrask@masoncountywa.gov>; Randy Neatherlin
<RandyN@masoncountywa.gov>
Subject: Fwd:
Dear Commissioners, I was asked by my 75 year old neighbor to share this video
taken of her property on Lost Lake. This was from just 1 Wake Boat that created this
wave. As you can see the wall of water slamming against her bulk head wall, and the
trashing of her dock. Her wall collapsed 3 years ago due to the waves from people
surfing behind a wake boat full of water and people She has had to spend money to
get her dock fixed. She can not go and sit on her dock when these wake boats are on
the water.She has signed a petition in support of the proposed Ordinance.
Greg Maneman
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: greg maneman <
Date: Mon, May 25, 2026, 12:18 PM
Subject:"Wake Boat Ordinance"
To: <
NO
MEETING
Regular
NAME
il
2 C 6,1,(11()1,
3
DATE
TIME
May 26, 2026 9:00 a.m.
PHONE
OPTIONAL
1 ..1(e6 - ,
V70- ()IAA( t6O-A
,j5 -4,_7-do66
I
CL r ev‘ n (90 1-8 S ke to,/,
EMAIL
OPTIONAL
)-5) 07-161 DX141 1 (:2 ei 1 I)
5)4t-e 25$ .17 z-3,3
6
° L.290
N cot
/rife/
1/Pki S, N
10
I
12
13
i‘i\k„ LiAA,C,L177) I-14;
\e.
61,61L . uivi
LOCATION
Commission Chambers
CITY, STATE
(JA
51/\9-iivr\-
SNQj
1-01*) [of
,e,arY\
<A0/51./
7
GAA
DO YOU
WISH TO
TESTIFY
Cs or No
or No
• No
No
Yes or
or No
Yes or No
e or No
Tor No
Yes orlh.®'
Yes or No
Yes or o
*Attendance rosters are subject to the Public Records Act; RCW 42.56
NO
2
t ‘11
MEETING
Regular
NAME
3
4 cc'
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
efftcc--
PHONE
OPTIONAL
(
DATE
TIME
May 26, 2026 9:00 a.m.
EMAIL
OPTIONAL
4,2 1/' 444-,c1,
C
kkiiii-,k4
/271 //, t) 7fr)
114
i 441
1 Li
„,! rcc /2„42(
/4477
2,C5„3
-kv/ id A
kcc (.? (C)
24
44 2(4 4 /4}4-41/// 4
74) ff, 44' (4,4
444 t„lf.,;(1,41404t, 44".44
\-\cArrn.
I-Y-Nk I
LOCATION
Commission Chambers
CITY, STATE
I .1
t
DO YOU
WISH TO
TESTIFY
Yeg- or No
Yes or ‘C
g or No
Yes:or No
Yes orp
or No
Yes or(N_Q)
Yes or4:1:9/
t\yeg)or No
Ye - or No
Ye)or No
eg'br No
cTh
(Yes l!or No
*Attendance rosters are subject to the Public Records Act; RCW 42.56
MEETING
Regular
NO NAME
2 A ft
3 i....4„„evici £fV('2.
1--1/
5 rei
6 7r"'
7
8
16
,... _ , ,t442,,t,(4 /4-t,i,',0- . — ,' ..!-::, -•!.. I) 1.)7 V (1 41. j 1•' er;..3
12 '
" eo!'-j1-- /6.k.J/Wr(,- 1-..,'''-- :,2,-*!', ,?, /-2-4). 6'1,1)0 (../.;1:`-y Oil-
.-i
53-7,11--79‘L -1.--oaaA meleAr i@fy‘61,; 1 •,c614/1 Gravv\ive,u( WA
:\,,,,_
,,,_*A 7, ,,,-,.,--,,, - , ) \ („3
*Attendance rosters are subject to the Public Records Act; RCW 42.56
PHONE
OPTIONAL
DATE
TIME
May 26, 2026 9:00 a.m.
(-.13619
cie
52 12-7 42
EMAIL
OPTIONAL
;1
v•-c- 4 (
91-71,h „
g
-,:gANg2
LOCATION
Commission Chambers
CITY, STATE
1-Y
e\i/ 7:744
,17
VL(A-11-9( 1..L) P.,.
/
cfJ.
DO YOU
WISH TO
TESTIFY
(Yea, or No
or No
Yes or'No
Yes o •
0 Yes o 3
Ye's or No
Yes or No
Q_ey or No
Ye $ or No
Yes or No
r No
NO
1
2
3
4
5
MEETING
Regular
NAME
9 (to1s tfbR"
10 /4fao i
111354-) it
12
13
PHONE
OPTIONAL
DATE
TIME
May 26, 2026 9:00 a.m.
EMAIL
OPTIONAL
c95-5 43l.S9,79 )/10 lin dd l0 k . corn
s3 1 ' 'i 1 ltrl j I�(-�'ri n& war 1. Cvm
36C) ('Wq )1 . 'Ai des yci.‘c\oe, co
LOCATION
Commission Chambers
CITY, STATE
She L 1orn , 1,v J1
g11Dn , kJ &
5hel \A-JA
DO YOU
WISH TO
TESTIFY
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes, or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
or No
or No
ke' or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
*Attendance rosters are subject to the Public Records Act; RCW 42.56
MEETING
Regular
NO NAME
1
a', •
2
,I9S1.(6.e(./ gat/YES
3
- or (6
4 4
4\ (a) ta"Nt t (la
aaal )761) a v L,
‘-)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
V‘,/ V )
111 /MA '
V-4?
DATE
TIME
May 26, 2026 9:00 a.m.
PHONE
OPTIONAL
eV„
2 Ob "ff- 26
2e l<5
IC/
EMAIL
OPTIONAL
CV/ teCCaaaa
(a4taaat 62)
6 6;
5- L„, /7 7 (() Ci it( tv‘
aa
4; l'alaYtda tal Ca:latat ea'a ;4 i Lat-66t "a)
20,(
s.
4.
L
ia)
, j.
(2:me''?
LOCATION
Commission Chambers
CITY, STATE
(J.. eee,eee ee et}
„=",„)
t
DO YOU
WISH TO
TESTIFY
Yes o • No)
Yes o
YeS or No
Yes or
Yes or No/
(Yes/or No
Yes or No
Yes)or No
Yes or Ng)
Yes o(No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
*Attendance rosters are subject to the Public Records Act; RCW 42.56
NO
1
2
3
5
10
11
12
13
MEETING
Regular
NAME
PHONE
OPTIONAL
DATE
TIME
May 26, 2026 9:00 a.m.
EMAIL
OPTIONAL
LOCATION
Commission Chambers
CITY, STATE
DO YOU
WISH TO
TESTIFY
Yes o• No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
Yes or No
*Attendance rosters are subject to the Public Records Act; RCW 42.56