HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/09/29 - Regular PacketBoard of Mason County Commissioners
Draft Meeting Agenda
Commission Chambers
411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA 98584
September 29, 2026
9:00 a.m.
DATE | Page 1 of 2
September 29.2
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
msmith@masoncountywa.gov; mail in to the Commissioners’ Office at 411 N 5th 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 – September 14 and 21, 2026 Briefing Minutes and September 15, 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 # 8123400-8123793 $2,114,984.99
8.2 Approval of the purchase of an Inspired Flight IF1200 Heavy-Lift Hexacopter system and associated
thermal/visual sensor, batteries, maintenance kit, ground control station, and field landing pad for the estimated
cost of $67,300.20 plus shipping expenses.
8.3 Approval of the Resolution cancelling outstanding warrants.
8.4 Approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 9:15 a.m. to consider the request to rezone
parcel no. 22206-31-00000 from Rural Residential 10 (RR10) to Rural Residential 5 (RR5).
8.5 Approval for Environmental Health to use $10,000 in Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) funds for paint and new
carpet for staff/office rearrangement.
8.6 Approval for Public Works to purchase a replacement booth for the Hoodsport Drop Box station off of the
Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (DES) contract for the estimated cost of $163,700 plus
tax.
8.7 Approval of the Resolution authorizing the sole-source purchase of AquaDisk replacement components, spare
parts, and control upgrades from Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. on a sole-source basis through December 31,
2027, for the total amount of $168,311.
8.8 Approval for the County Administrator to sign the three-year GovQA software contract for continued use of
the public records tracking system for a total amount of $97,314.27.
8.9 Approval to set a Public Hearing for Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 9:15 a.m. to review final project
performance for County Road Project (CRP) 2062 Evergreen Estates water main extension.
8.10 Approval of the Resolution amending Resolution no. 2025-068 for the County’s 2027 health insurance
contributions: effective January 1, 2027, for participants of the Public Employees Benefits Board (PEBB)
Medical program, which allocates through the pooling method, $1,179.04 per month County contribution for
employees with single enrollments on medical, $1,179.04 per month County contribution for employees with
single enrollments on medical, and $2,129.89 with dependent enrollments, for Teamsters Probation,
Community & Family Health, Non-Represented, Elected Officials, Sheriff’s Lieutenants Guild, Public
Defenders, Prosecutors Support Staff, Public Defense Support Staff, Deputy Prosecutors, and General
Services.
8.11 Approval for the Clerk to sign the Washington State Patrol (WSP) Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency
Agreement for National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) funding in the amount of
$97,878.32.
8.12 Approval to establish the agreed upon 2027 General Fund budget actions, including nine position reductions,
a three-month hiring delay, six annual furlough days, identified funding shifts, and conditional improvements,
as outlined in the 2027 General Fund Budget Summary.
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 regulating wake-enhanced motorboat operation on lakes within
Mason County. Staff: Travis Adams
11. Board’s Calendar and Reports
12. Adjournment
MASON COUNTY
TO: Board of Mason County Commissioners Reviewed
FROM: Kariann Hall Ext. 380
DEPARTMENT: Support Services Action Agenda
DATE: September 29,2026 No. 4.1
ITEM: Correspondence
4.1.1 Received Letter of Resignation from Sharon Trask, Commissioner District No.3
4.1.2 Received Letter of Support for the Mason County Clean Water District from Green
Diamond and Taylor Shellfish Farms.
4.1.3 Received Public Comment from Raini Fogel.
4.1.4 Received Board of Equalization Application from Cyal Christmas.
4.1.5 Received Letter from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding Cushman
No.2 Development, Thirteenth Part 12D Report. Periodic Inspection Plan(PI)
Submittal and Extension of Time Request to file Documentation of Public Access to
Dry Creek Trail and a Revised Recreation Plan.
4.1.6 Received Noxious Weed Control Board Application from Dane Gustafson.
Attachments: Originals on file with the Clerk of the Board.
September 15, 2026
Letter of Resignation
To the Mason County Board of County Commissioners and the Residents of Mason County:
I do not normally write letters like this, but as I leave, I feel it is important for Mason County
to hear my thoughts and concerns about current issues and the future.
After considerable thought and with great sadness, I have made the difficult decision to
resign my position as Mason County Commissioner, District 3, effective September 15,
2026.
I am resigning first and foremost because of my health.
I have always been a private person when it comes to my medical issues. I do not believe
an elected official gives up the right to medical privacy simply because she holds public
office. However, because there have been questions and criticism about my availability in
recent months, I believe the people of Mason County deserve some explanation.
My absences and periods of limited availability have not been due to my having stopped
caring about this County or stopped taking my responsibilities seriously. They have been for
legitimate medical reasons.
I have been dealing with significant health issues and recovering from medical treatment. I
have also been recovering from a fractured shoulder. I am still not able to fully dress myself
after months of these issues. These circumstances required time away, surgeries, medical
appointments, treatment, recovery, and limitations on what I am physically able to do.
Through it all, I continued working and fully intended to complete my term.
My health was one reason I decided not to seek another term. I knew it was time for me to
retire from elected office, focus on getting healthy, and spend more time with my husband,
children, and grandchildren.
But I intended to do that after finishing the job the voters elected me to do.
Unfortunately, circumstances have changed.
Recovery requires time. It requires rest.And it requires reducing unnecessary stress.
Instead, when I should have been concentrating on healing, my husband and I have dealt
with litigation initiated by Mason County Auditor Steve Duenkel. This frivolous lawsuit was
dismissed with prejudice, and the current challenge concerns my voter registration and
residency.
The continuing conflict, harassment, accusations, and stress surrounding these matters
have taken a very real toll on me mentally and physically.
I believe the stress I am experiencing has slowed my healing process and is now negatively
affecting my health and recovery.
I can no longer ignore that. No political witch hunt is worth prolonging my recovery. And no
individual is entitled to consume what energy I have left simply because I chose to serve
the public.
That brings me to Mason County Auditor Steve Duenkel, Randy Neatherlin, their
henchmen, and the events that have contributed significantlyto my decision.
I have developed a reasonablythick skin during myyears in public office. Criticism comes
with the job. Political disagreements come with the job. Being questioned comes with the
job.
But what I believe I am experiencing now has crossed a line.
What began as a challenge involving myvoter registration and my Primary Election ballot
has, in my view, expanded into something much broader. Rather than simply addressing
the allegations in the challenge and the timing of my ballot, Mr. Duenkel has expanded this
information gathering into a personal attack and an abuse of power.
I feel personally targeted and harassed by the manner in which this"challenge" has
proceeded. We all know the real reason he is working on the voter challenge. It is not to
show I was not able to vote in the election; it was to use the"power"of his office to force
me to resign. He is also going after Ted and texting my phone number, even though he
knows Ted's number.
That concern is magnified by the fact that Mr. Duenkel previously chose to sue my husband
and me over a cartoon. That lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, and he paid our legal
fees. Also, there was no apology for violating our First Amendment right to free speech. This
is coming from the Auditor and Chair of the Mason County Republican Party.
Because of that history, I formally asked Mr. Duenkel to recuse himself and allow an
independent and impartial designee to handle the voter challenge. My request was
reasonable and straightforward. I told Mr. Duenkel I would cooperate with a neutral
process. Mr. Duenkel has informed me in writing that he will not recuse himself. He has the
option of allowing a designee to handle this matter. At the minimum, this would give the
optics that he is not "out to get me". That decision speaks volumes to me.
Given Mr. Duenkel's recent litigation against my husband and me, I believe his personal
involvement creates, at minimum, an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest.
His refusal to step aside reinforces my belief that this matter has become personal.
I sought legal advice regarding my ability to complete my term, and I have acted based
upon my understanding of that advice and the law. I believe I have acted in good faith
throughout this process.
This brings me to Randy Neatherlin. At one point, Commissioner Neatherlin told me that
he was a "protector of women." Based on what I have personally witnessed, I do not believe
that statement reflects his conduct. I have seen him target, demean, and harass women for
simply having an opinion that was different than his.
Over the years, I have watched women leave their jobs in Mason County, and I believe
others will continue to look elsewhere because of how they have been and are being
treated. Buying someone tacos or a pizza, or telling them, "Has anyone told you you're
amazing lately?Well, I am,"does not erase the damage caused by his angry outbursts,
intimidation, or demeaning treatment.
I also believe Mason County should take a very serious look at Commissioner Neatherlin's
stated objective of eliminating 30, 40, or even 50 positions, and carefully examine who is
being targeted and why. Equally troubling is the amount of experience Mason County
stands to lose. A number of the employees whose positions are being considered represent
more than 100 years of institutional knowledge and service to Mason County. That kind of
experience cannot simply be replaced by hiring someone new. Once it walks out the door,
much of it is gone.
I know firsthand who continued showing up when Mason County faced one of its most
difficult periods. During approximately four months of the COVID shutdown, I was the only
Commissioner who came into the office every day. The other Commissioners were not
present, but our staff was. They continued to come into the office, do their jobs, keep
county government functioning, and serve the public during an uncertain and frightening
time. I was there with them, and I saw their dedication firsthand. I have never forgotten it.
These are some of the same dedicated employees whose experience and positions are
now being questioned. Mason County should think very carefully before allowing decades
of institutional knowledge, loyalty, and public service to simply walk out the door.
My commitment to these employees did not begin today. I was also the Commissioner who
requested that Mason County conduct a salary survey for our unrepresented employees
after learning that one had not been completed for approximately 35 years. I believed then,
as I do now, that we cannot expect to recruit and retain qualified, experienced people if we
are unwilling to determine whether we are compensating them fairly.That survey was not
about handing out raises or favors; it was about making informed decisions based on facts
and recognizing the value of the people who keep this county running.
I have also worked through eight Mason County budget cycles as a commissioner, owned
my own businesses, and, while working at the Legislature, watched and learned the state
budget, which is much larger than the Mason County budget. I know this budget, its history,
and the decisions behind it as well as anyone, and certainly as well as Commissioner
Neatherlin. Based on my knowledge and experience with this budget, I do not agree that
Mason County needs to fire or lay off the number of employees Commissioner Neatherlin
appears to believe should be eliminated.
For months, Commissioner Neatherlin and Auditor Steve Duenkel have repeatedly
sounded alarms about Mason County's financial condition, including claims that the
budget is in the red by as much as $10 million. Commissioner Tarzwell took the time to dig
into those numbers, question the assumptions behind them, and work through the actual
budget. In doing so, he demonstrated that both Commissioner Neatherlin and Auditor
Duenkel were wrong about the size of the projected deficit. That matters.When people's
jobs and the delivery of essential county services are at stake, decisions should be based
on accurate numbers and a complete financial picture, not the most alarming projection
someone can present.
Mason County has reserves for a reason.They exist, in part, to help government weather
difficult economic periods, absorb temporary revenue shortfalls, and provide time to make
thoughtful adjustments rather than reacting with immediate and potentially damaging cuts.
That does not mean we ignore a budget problem or spend reserves without discipline. It
means we use every tool available to us responsibly.
I believe Mason County's reserves provide us breathing room while we pursue other
solutions, identify responsible reductions, evaluate revenues and expenditures, and allow
economic conditions to improve.We have time to make careful decisions. We do not need
to panic, and we certainly do not need to dismantle our workforce before exhausting
reasonable alternatives.
Commissioner Tarzwell has shown that he is willing to ask difficult questions, challenge
assumptions, and do the work necessary to understand what the numbers actually mean. I
believe he will continue to be a strong advocate for both Mason County employees and
responsible fiscal management.Those two responsibilities are not mutually exclusive.
As I leave the office, I encourage the people of Mason County to listen to Commissioner
Tarzwell and give him your encouragement and support. He will need it. I have confidence
that he will continue fighting for a financially responsible county while remembering that
the people who come to work every day and serve this community are not simply numbers
on a spreadsheet.
A person's livelihood should never become a political game or a means of settling personal
grievances. These are real people, many of whom have devoted decades to serving Mason
County. They stood by this countywhen it needed them, and Mason County should stand
by them now. Fiscal responsibility and responsible treatment of employees are not
competing principles. We can, and should, do both.
Decisions affecting people's careers, families, and financial security, particularly decisions
that could cause Mason County to lose generations of experience, should be based on
documented financial necessity and sound public policy, not fear, personalities,
retaliation, or politics.
But I have reached the point where proving that is no longer worth what this fight is doing to
my health. That is why I am resigning.
I am resigning because I am trying to heal, and the stress and harassment surrounding this
continuing conflict are interfering with that healing.
There is something profoundly wrong when an elected official who is already dealing with
serious medical issues must spend the energy she should be using to recover, defending
herself from one personal and political battle after another.
I have served Mason County for years, and I am proud of that service.
I have made difficult decisions. I stood my ground when I believed it was necessary. I have
fought for transparency, accountability, responsible government, and the people I was
elected to represent. This is not a campaign slogan for me; it is honestly how I live my daily
life.
But disagreement is one thing. What I believe I have experienced is something very
different.
I have reached the point where continuing to fight no longer demonstrates strength. For
me, strength now means recognizing that my health and my family are more important than
proving that I can withstand one more attack.
I leave the office with my head held high. I know who I am. I know how hard I have worked. I
know why the voters entrusted me with this office. And I know why I am making this
decision today.
This is not the ending I wanted.
I fully intended to finish my term, and it breaks my heart that my service to Mason County is
ending this way.
To the residents who supported me, challenged me respectfully, worked beside me, prayed
for me, encouraged me, and trusted me to represent you: thank you.
Serving Mason County has been one of the greatest honors of my life.
But today, I have to take care of myself. I choose my health, my family, and I choose peace.
Respectfully,
Sharon Trask
Mason County Commissioner, District 3
GREEN DIAMOND A FOREST STEWARDSHIP COMPANY
greendiamond.com
Mason County Commission September 10, 2026
411 North 5" Street
Shelton, WA 98584
Re: Support for the Mason County Clean Water District
Dear Mason County Commissioners:
I'm the Vice President and General Manager responsible for the management of Green Diamond's
working forestlands in Mason County. As you are aware, Green Diamond was born right here in
Mason County 136 years ago and is still owned and managed by the direct descendants of the
company's founder. The company has grown over those 136 years. We now own or manage 2.2
million acres across nine states. However, our roots remain deep in Mason County. This is our
home. A home that has long nurtured not just a rich history of sustainable natural resource
industries, but also a bright future. It's with that future lens that we ask the Commission to support
the necessary investments in the Mason County Clean Water District to ensure the county
remains a vibrant and reliable home for modern natural resource industries.
1890 was a big year in Mason County. The City of Shelton was incorporated and the predecessor
companies of both Green Diamond and Taylor Shellfish Farms first appeared in the county. Timber
and shellfish have remained the foundation of the county's economy ever since; a legacy that
continues to this day. That said, a vibrant natural resources sector doesn't happen by accident. It
takes foresight, intention, and, on occasion, investments by local government. The proposal to
extend Clean Water District funding is one of those occasions.
The timber industry, including Green Diamond, has made massive investments in clean water
since the turn of the millennium. Millions of private dollars have been spent closing, relocating,
and upgrading forest roads in western Washington with the latest in fish passage and clean water
technology. This has been paired with thousands of acres of additional wetland buffers put in
place specifically for water quality. We are confident that the water leaving the working forestlands
in Mason County is cold, clean, and protective of public resources. It's frustrating that somewhere
after the water leaves our land, and before it reaches the county's famously productive shellfish
beds, it degrades to such a degree that the very viability of the shellfish industry in the county is in
jeopardy.
A modest, and temporary, increase in the parcel fee specifically targeted to maintain the county's
working tidelands is an equitable approach to protect county public resources and to show
continued support for our county's critical natural resource industries. It's an approach that
reflects the shared responsibility that all Mason County landowners have when it comes to clean
water. The degradation of the county's water quality happens after the water leaves the forested
headwaters and before it arrives at the marine shoreline. There is no one landowner or sector to
® GREEN DIAMOND A FOREST STEWARDSHIP COMPANY
greendiamond.com
blame. It's the collective degradation caused by human habitation between the forest and the
Sound. As such, it should not fall on any one landowner or sector to fund the consequences. A
small increase in parcel fees shared across all landowners is the right response to the shared goal
of keeping Mason County's famous shellfish beds producing food for the world and fueling local
economic development.
Everyone in Mason County has skin in this game. We are all, collectively, part of the water
degradation problem. A solution that asks everyone to help is fair and reasonable. It's easy to ask
someone else to pick up an expense, but we are not doing that here. Green Diamond owns at least
1,164 individual tax parcels in the county. That will be, under the proposal, an increase of over
$3,400 each year in payments Green Diamond will pay to the county, for a total of over$9,300
annually to support clean water. This makes Green Diamond, by far, the entity that will pay largest
share of any parcel fee increase, with payments over$2,000 more than the next largest private
landowner.
This is not a small investment from one landowner, but it's one that we are willing to make if it
means that Mason County can remain a state and national leader in how a sustainable, natural
resource-based industrial sector can continue to support rural economies today and for the next
136 years. And beyond.
Please support the proposed fee increase to maintain a health and functioning Clean Water
District in Mason County.
Thank you,
Brian Sayler
Vice-President and General Manager; Northwest Timberlands
Green Diamond Resource Company
215 North Third Street
Shelton,WA 98584
bsayter@greendiamond.com
130 SE LYNCH ROAD, P: 360.426.6178 I
TAY 0R SINCE SHELLFISH 90
?,zm
Mason County
411 N5i° St
Shelton,WA 98584
September 9, 2026
RE: Support for the Mason County Clean Water District
Dear Mason County Commissioners:
I am writing to you on behalf of Taylor Shellfish Farms to urge you to take action and fully farad
the ongoing work of the Mason County Clean Water District. Specifically, we understand that
the Clean Water District is expected to propose a fee of$8.01 with a sunset date of January 1,
2031 —we respectfully request that you adopt this proposal.
Taylor Shellfish Farms is a family-owned company that has deep and enduring roots in Mason
County. Our history here reflects on not only a long-standing family commitment,but also a
broader partnership with the County's natural resources,people, and community. Clean water is
essential to our ability to grow and harvest shellfish, and the Mason County Clean Water District
serves as a critical link in our community to facilitate faster responses to emerging pollution
issues and to coordinate and leverage local, state, and federal resources to restore, maintain, and
improve water quality in the County.
Mason County's waters have long supported a thriving shellfish industry and contains some of
the most productive tidelands in the country. Shellfish aquaculture remains a cornerstone of the
local economy,with the industry providing stable, family-wage employment to hundreds of
County residents. Taylor Shellfish, alone, employs nearly 300 Mason County residents in 2026
and contributes over $600,000 annually in local taxes, directly supporting public services and
infrastmcture.
However, the viability of Mason County's shellfish economy depends on its continued
investment in clean water. Bacterial pollution from land-based non-point pollution sources has
historically led to many commercial shellfish harvest downgrades and closures in the County,
requiring the creation of several Shellfish Protection Districts to improve water quality. In 2021,
the Board of County Commissioners unified these efforts into a single Clean Water District,
improving coordination and efficient and effective use of resources to protect commercial,
recreational, tribal, and private shellfish harvest.l An annual parcel fee of$5.06 was established
to support the District's implementation of a comprehensive, countywide water quality plan.
The fee established in 2021 must now be adjusted to maintain the Clean Water District's ongoing
work. Although the District's broad scope of work has remained the same, inflation and costs
have risen substantially over the past five years without a corresponding adjustment to the
District's funding. The District is operating at a deficit under the current per parcel fee and an
adjustment is immediately necessary to ensure work continues without interruption and so that
1 Mason County Ord.No. 2021-023,Combining all Existing Shellfish Protection Districts and Amending Code Title
3 and 6(May 11,2021).
TAYLOR SHELLFISH CO. TAYLOR TIMBER INVESTMENT CO.
the District is made whole for the work it performs to protect local waters necessary for food
production, recreation,property values and our local economy.
Taylor Shellfish Farms and other shellfish producers are partners in water quality protection.
Leaders in our company serve on numerous boards, committees, and partnerships working on
behalf of the waters, tidelands, and environment. Together, these companies independently
invest significant resources in monitoring,restoration, and collaborative watershed efforts. These
partnerships often leverage additional state and federal funding, multiplying the impact of local
investments. County-supported special assessments provide a stable and predictable funding
source to expand these critical efforts, enabling more proactive monitoring, faster response to
pollution events, and long-term watershed improvements.
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that you approve the Clean Water District's
proposed fee of$8.01 with a sunset date of January 1, 2031. Thank you for your leadership and
consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
Bill Taylor
Taylor Shellfish Fauns
TAYLOR SHELLFISH CO. TAYLOR TIMBER INVESTMENT CO.
Public Comment
Good Morning, I am Raini Fogel, 7th-generation MC, 6th-generation West-End Property Owner,
and our family currently has five generations of women pitter-pattering around the Little Egypt
Valley. First and foremost, I am writing today to express my disdain for the BOCC policy of
diverting funds from public works and shifting them to the Sheriffs Office. Just because we can
doesn't mean we should.
Inevitably, the board will come pleading to the citizens for a new tax. I ask that, at that time, y'all
bill it as a criminal justice tax, and not a public safety tax, for the latter implies you'll use funds to
pave the roads. Just be honest in your endeavors and let the good people of the MC make their
informed decisions accordingly.
Secondly, Sheriff Spurlings' genius idea of furlough days should be enacted forthwith. To be fair
and balanced not only for his department but county-wide, on a voluntary, yet blanket policy
effective immediately. We gotta do whatever it takes to keep the band together on equal footing.
For next year's budget, I recommend eliminating the private security forces at the courthouse and
other county buildings. With the invention of Zoom, even if the staff felt in jeopardy, there are
options other than wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a luxury the MC tax base can't
afford. Furthermore, the Honorable George Steele and Deputy Prosecutor Michael Dorcy are
raking in three times the median household income. I propose that they each take a voluntary pay
decrease of$100,000. In addition, the sheriff and undersheriff could also donate a percentage of
their annual stipends.
While we are on the topic of donations, I feel Sharon Trask should also forgo her salary whilst she
resides outside of the MC. Maybe just participate out of the kindness of one's heart and not for the
meager severance package. After all, she has effectively abandoned the citizens of the MC.
Post Scripted
I am willing to put my time and dime where my mouth is. I am prepared to participate in a
thirty-day shadowing of the three highest-ranking/paid county employees (Ryan, George, and
Mike). In an effort to comprehend why they make so much more annually than most in the MC.
An additional recommendation would be to utilize your Citizen Advisory Panels to generate the
different components of the comprehensive plan. You have intelligent volunteers willing and eager
to give their two cents'worth. Why pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultant fees when
you have educated souls with real-life experience who live and love the MC? We also have a
county administrator who could efficiently edit said reports before they land on your desk for
approval. I propose that these groups do a biennium review and submit updated info as needed.
Received 09.21.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin
and Pat Tarzwell.Travis Adams,
Mckenzie Smith,Tenielle Masteller
Entry#: 109 Board of Equalization (BOE) Status: Submitted Submitted: 9/21/2026 2:00 PM
Advisory Board Name:
Board of Equalization (BOE)
Name: Today's Date:
Cyal Christmas 9/21/2026
Address
Voting Precinct: Phone Email
Community Service: Employment:
Evergreen Elementary PTSO Treasurer WA State since 2013... currently Compliance Operations
Manager with LNI since 2023
What do you perceive is the role or purpose of this advisory board?
Educate residents on their rights and help ensure all assessments are fair and accurate.
What interest or skills do you wish to offer this advisory board?
Taxes, accounting, appeals and protests, customer service, government operations, etc...
List any financial, professional, or voluntary affiliations that could create a potential conflict of interest:
Evergreen PTSO Treasurer, Own a small not for profit AG business from my home, my wife is a very active member
of the community, my wife has family members who live in the area.
Required Training: Yes or No:
Participation is dependent on attending certain trainings such as the Open Public Meetings Act Yes
(OPMA) and Public Records Act (PRA) trainings at no cost to you. Will you be able to attend
such trainings?
How much time can you corn- Are you a U.S. citizen and *For Civil Service applications ONLY,
mit to this advisory board: Mason County resident? what is your political party?
Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly Yes
*For Wake Board Advisory Committee applications ONLY: *For TRL Board applications ONLY,
what is your budget experience?
Received 09.21.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin
• ��RR and Pat Tarzwell.Travis Adams,
1 1 Mckenzie Smith,FERC
SEP 2 1 2026 , •
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections
888 First Street,NE Routing Code: PJ-13
Washington, DC 20426
(202) 502-6314 Office
September 15, 2026
In reply refer to: P-460
VIA Electronic Mail
Mr. Chris Mattson
Generation Manager
Tacoma Public Utilities
cmattson@tacoma. ov
Subject: Cushman No. 2 Development, Thirteenth Part 12D Report. Periodic
Inspection Plan (PI) Submittal
Dear Mr. Mattson:
Mr. Lennemann filed a letter dated August 28, 2026, transmitting the Part 12D
Inspection Plan and Independent Consultant Team (IC Team) proposal for the Periodic
Inspection (PI) of Cushman No. 2 Development, FERC No. 460.
We have reviewed the information provided and have identified items, listed below,
that require additional detail to fulfill the expectations as outlined in Chapter 16 of the
Commission's Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects
(Guidelines).
1. We have the following comments regarding the proposed Independent Consultant
(IC) Team:
a. The resume provided for Mr. Cyrus Niamir demonstrates that he fulfills the
requirements of 18 CFR § 12.31(a) and has the appropriate experience and
expertise to serve in the proposed role as IC. He is thus approved for that
role.
b. The Inspection Plan demonstrates that the supporting IC Team members and
proposed Subject Matter Experts (SME) of Mr. Jeremy Appt and Mr. Iman
Ghorbani meet the requirements of 18 CFR §12.31(b) and have the
appropriate experience and expertise to serve as IC Team members for the
project features and type of inspection identified in the Inspection Plan. They
are thus approved for that role.
2. Your Inspection Plan, section 4.2, indicates that testing of the gates is not planned
2
during the PI field inspection. Our Engineering Guidelines(Guidelines) Section 16-
5.3.1 states "If circumstances do not permit the observation of full-height gate tests,
the IC Team still must observe test operations of a representative number of gates
such that they can evaluate the gate performance, licensee's standard operating
procedures, and provide informed conclusions." Please include a gate testing plan
to meet the intent of the Guidelines Gate Operations guidance in a revised Inspection
Plan.
3. Regarding Section 4.1 Identification of Technical Disciplines Required, we have
the following comment: The spillway and the spillway gates are combined as a
project feature. Please separate these two project features and include additional
supporting details as noted in the example provided on Guidelines Section 16-
3.3.5.1 Table 8, as applicable. Note that the issues and technical complexities for
the concrete spillway structure and the drum gates are very different.
Per 18 CFR § 12.34(a), you are required to obtain the approval of the IC Team and
the Inspection Plan from the Director, Division of Dam Safety and Inspections, prior to the
performance of this PI. Currently, we are unable to provide that approval for this plan
pending your response and resolution of comments 2 and 3 above.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, submit a revised Inspection Plan that
addresses Comments 2-3. File your submittal using the Commission's eFiling system at
https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview. When eFiling, select: Hydro; Dam Safety;
Washington, DC; and Independent Consultant Approval Request. The cover page of the
filing must indicate that the material was eFiled. For assistance with eFiling,contact FERC
Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport(a,ferc.gov, (866)208-3676(toll free), or(202) 502-
8659 (TTY).
Thank you for your continued cooperation and interest in dam safety. If you have
any questions,please contact me at (202) 502-8303 or iames.mchenrv( ferc.gov
Sincerely,
JAMES JAMESMH�YY
MCHENRY 112620.0400 5
James McHenry, P.E.,
Senior Civil Engineer
Division of Dam Safety and Inspections
CC:
PLennemann(atacoma.gov
jgile(a,tacoma.gov
i 1 y bT U Received 09.21.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin
and Pat Tarzwell.Travis Adams,
SEP2 1 2026 Mckenzie Smith,FERC
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Washington,D.C.20426
OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS
Project No. 460-097-Washington
Cushman Hydroelectric Project
City of Tacoma, Washington
September 15, 2026
VIA FERC Service
Chris Mattson
City of Tacoma,
Washington 3628
South 35th Street
Tacoma, WA 98409
Subject: Extension of Time Request to file Documentation of Public Access to
Dry Creek Trail and a Revised Recreation Plan
Dear Mr. Mattson:
On July 2, 2026,you filed a request for an extension of time to file documentation
of the resolution of a public access issue along Dry Creek Trail for the Cushman
Hydroelectric Project No. 460'.
As a result of implementing the approved Recreation Plane for the project,
you filed a revised Recreation Plan on December 26, 2019, to reflect changes
that were made at various recreation sites during the development of those sites.
In response to the revised Recreation Plan, Commission staff requested
additional information from you on January 15, 2020. One of the issues
identified regarding the revised Recreation Plan was the need to develop a plan
I Order on Remand and on Offer of Settlement, Amending License,
Authorizing New Powerhouse, and Lifting Stay(132 FERC¶61,037), issued July
15, 2010.
2 Order Modifying and Approving Recreation Plan Per Article 425 (139
FERC¶ 62,061) issued April 24, 2012.
Project No. 460-097 - 2 -
and schedule for resolving access issues along the Dry Creek Trail, among other
items requiring updates. You responded to the request for additional information
on February 13, 2020, stating that all items except the access rights to Dry Creek
Trail were resolved, and you would update the Recreation Plan when the Dry
Creek Trail access rights were resolved.
a
You have continuously demonstrated, through the documentation of
meetings and consultation with the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service), that you
are making progress toward the goal of resolving the access issue and filing the
appropriate documentation with the Commission.3 While easement language was
developed in cooperation with the Forest Service, in your July 2, 2026 filing, you
state that the Forest Service requested that you create new easement exhibit maps
for the Dry Creek Trail to match the style of the existing exhibit map for the
Mt. Rose Trail, and that you have created the new maps. You also state that you
have worked with the Forest Service to address legal description issues, that your
outside legal counsel has sent updated and revised easement package to the Forest
Service for review, and that the Forest Service legal counsel appears to be
satisfied with the proposed easement changes and is currently reviewing the legal
descriptions and conferring with a title company. As such, you are requesting a
one-year extension of time to file access rights documentation by July 15, 2027.
Given the complex nature of the issue and the progress being made towards
finding a permanent resolution for securing public access to the Dry Creek Trail,
your request for additional time is reasonable and in the public interest. The
deadline to file a revised recreation plan and documentation of public access rights
to the Dry Creek Trail for the term of the license is July 15, 2027. Because you
stated in your April 8, 2026 filing that resolution of the access issue and updating
of the recreation can be completed by July 15, 2027, the quarterly progress reports
required under the Commission's April 23, 2025 letter4 are suspended. However,
the Commission reserves the right to require future progress reports should the
July 15, 2027 deadline not be met.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file the requested
information using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filinglefiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of
Commission staff granted extensions of time for providing access rights
documentation to the Dry Creek Trail on July 9, 2020,November 4, 2022, July 3,
2023, and June 26, 2024, and April 3, 2025.
4 See FERC Letter: "Extension of Time Request to file Documentation of Public
Access to Dry Creek Trail and a Revised Recreation Plan, April 23, 2025".
Project No. 460-097 - 3 -
electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal
Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A.Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-460-097.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me at 202-502-6444 or at staffan.peterson@ferc.gov.
Sincerely,
STA F F A N Digitally signed by
STAFFAN PETERSON
PETERSON 08:32:0804'00'5
Staffan Peterson
Land Resources Branch
Division of Hydropower
Administration and Compliance
Received 09.22.2026
Commissioners Randy Neatherlin
and Pat Tarzwell.Travis Adams,
Mckenzie Smith,Heidi Steinbach
Entry#: 110 Noxious Weed Control Board Status: Submitted Submitted: 9/22/2026 11:32 AM
Advisory Board Name:
Noxious Weed Control Board
Name: Today's Date:
Dane Gustafson 9/22/2026
Address
Voting Precinct: Phone Email
(
Community Service: Employment:
Kitsap Homeschool Sports Currently work as a Mechanical Engineer at the Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard.
What do you perceive is the role or purpose of this advisory board?
It is my understanding that this advisory board provides information to the board of commisioners on topics
relating to noxious weed control within the county.
What interest or skills do you wish to offer this advisory board?
I have a passion for research helping people to make informed decisions based on all of the facts.
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 Yes
(OPMA) and Public Records Act (PRA) trainings at no cost to you. Will you be able to attend
such trainings?
How much time can you corn- Are you a U.S. citizen and *For Civil Service applications ONLY,
mit to this advisory board: Mason County resident? what is your political party?
Weekly Yes
*For Wake Board Advisory Committee applications ONLY: *For TRL Board applications ONLY,
what is your budget experience?
Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes
Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5'Street,Shelton,WA 98584
Week of September 14,2026
Monday, September 14,2026
9:00 A.M. Closed Session—RCW 42.30.110(1)(g)Performance Review of a Public Employee
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell met in closed session for performance review of a public
employee from 9:00 a.m.to 10:00 a.m.Attendees:Travis Adams,Kim Monroe,Kayla Brinckmeyer,
Christopher Pinkston.
10:00 A.M. Closed Session—RCW 42.30.140(4)Labor Discussion
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell met in closed session for labor negotiation from
10:00 a.m.to 11:00 a.m.Attendees:Travis Adams,Kim Monroe,Kayla Brinckmeyer,
Christopher Pinkston.
11:00 A.M. Clean Water District
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
• Ian Tracy,Art Whitson,Jason Ragan,Erica Marbet,and Nick Schneider,members of the Clean Water
District(CWD),recommended the Ordinance to increase the parcel fee to$8.01 per parcel and extend
the sunset date for another five years,expiring at the end of 2031.Cmmr.Tarzwell shared his support.
Cmmr.Neatherlin supports two years at the current rate.Tabled.
11:15 A.M. Sheriff's Office—Sheriff Spurling
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
• Lieutenant Schoeneberg requested to renew the Summit Food Services contract for jail food services.
This renewal will have a 3.4%increase and will take place on February 1,2027.Tabled.
• Lieutenant Birklid and Lieutenant Severance discussed the one-time purchase of an Inspired Flight
IF 1200 Heavy-Lift Hexacopter system and associated thermal/visual sensor,batteries,maintenance kit,
ground control station,and field landing pad for the estimated cost of$67,300.20.Approved to move
forward.
• Lieutenant Schoeneberg shared the 2026 National Criminal History Improvement Program(NCHIP)
Grant and he additional request of Livescan Plus fingerprint/palm print machine which includes
hardware,software,installation and training,and a 20-hour per week employee for 6 months to work
with the courts and Prosecutors'Office to assist with the backlog of missing dispositions that are
required to be reported to the State for the estimated cost of$66,071.83.Tabled.
• Lieutenant Birklid and Lieutenant Severance discussed dedicating 100%of eligible proceeds generated
from Sheriffs Office evidence and unclaimed-property sales to evidence operations,storage
improvements,and expansion of secure evidence-storage capacity. Cmmr.Neatherlin would like this to
go to a designated fund.
• Lieutenant Schoeneberg shared he was notified last week that the healthcare provider for the Jail will
not be extending their services at the end of the year.Commissioners requested to do a Request for
Proposals(RFP)for inmate healthcare services.
11:30 A.M. Treasurer—Brittany Pearson
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
• Brittany shared the Resolution cancelling outstanding warrants in the total amount of$7,053.70.
Approved to move forward.
11:35 A.M. Community Development—Kell Rowen
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
• Marissa Watson shared the Tahuya Ranch LLC's request to rezone parcel 22206-31-00000,which is
approximately 40 acres from Rural Residential 10(RR10)to Rural Residential 5(RR5)within the
rural lands.Approved to move forward.
11:40 A.M. Public Health—David Windom
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
September 14,2026 1 Page 1 of 3
Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes
Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5'Street,Shelton,WA 98584
• Melissa Casey shared the Local Plan Committee citizen applications received from Adam Maldonado,
Megan McKenzie,and Jamie Ellertsen.Interviews will be scheduled.
• Ian Tracy and Kelly Frazier discussed the rearrangement of Environmental Health desk locations to
relieve overcrowded workspaces,reduce distractions and noise,and replace 20+year old carpet and
repaint with standard county colors.Approved to move forward.
• David shared increase of birth and death certificates from$25 to$35.
11:50 A.M. Public Works—Loretta Swanson
Utility&Waste Management
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
• Richard Dickinson requested to replace the booth at the Hoodsport Drop Box facility for the estimated
cost of$177,778.The new booth will provide heating and cooling,running water,a staff restroom,
electrical outlets,interior lighting,and locking,roll-down window guards.Approved to move forward.
• Richard shared the sole-source request for Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.AquaDisk®Disk Filter
Rehabilitation and replacement components for the estimated cost of$182,785.75.Approved to move
forward.
• Loretta discussed the Stretch Island Bridge and the authorization to submit a grant application to the
Public Works Board emergency fund for the estimated repair of$50k.Approved to move forward.
• Loretta discussed County comment on the new State Route 3 (SR 3)Freight Corridor Access Report
and Plan.
• Loretta discussed Theler trailhead parking lot upgrades and the Belfair sewer connection requirement.
Commissioners requested additional options.
12:00 P.M. Support Services—Travis Adams
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
• McKenzie Smith provided an update on the 2026 Public Records Requests(PRR)year-to-date.
• McKenzie shared the GovQA Public Records tracking system cost increase.
• Kim Monroe discussed the application received from Malissa Jordan and asked how Commissioners
would like to proceed regarding the applicant's eligibility.
• Kelly discussed the Historic Preservation Grant received for the Mason County courthouse in the
amount of$616,662.
• Tanessa Noll provided an update on grants.
• Jennifer Beierle discussed scheduling budget workshops.A budget overview is scheduled for October
5,2026.
• Jennifer shared the August 2026 financial report. Current Expense revenue$32,077,589 at 67%.
Treasurer department receipts$21,319,921 at 67%. Current Expense expenditure$35,910,831 at 62%.
Six-year specific revenue streams: Community Development revenue$1,415,022;Detention and
Correction services$124,589;Current Expense property tax$6,390,188;Road Diversion property tax
$1,263,428;County Road property tax$5,830,553;Current Expense sales tax$6,883,680;Criminal
Justice tax$1,510,728;Rural Sales and Use tax$823,543;Homelessness Prevention filings$477,662;
Lodging tax$647,246;and Real Estate Excise Tax(REET) 1 and 2$1,002,658 each.Total collected
revenue$6,883,679;revenue budgeted$9.6 million;and projected end of year revenue$10,547,646.
Current Expense cash$20,528,359. Special Fund cash$72,218,204.Motor Pool expenditure
$1,133,432 at 58.3%. Special and Other Funds revenue$33,948,662 at 56%. Special and Other Funds
expenditure$33,459,060 at 46%.Total County debt$13,427,044;remaining capacity$203,161,663.
• Travis discussed Cmmr.Trask's resignation.
12:25 P.M. Break
12:40 P.M. Budget Workshop
Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell were in attendance.
• Commissioners agreed on the elimination of eight positions,a three-month hiring delay,six annual
furlough days at 90%participation,road diversion shift,and a levy shift from Public Works. Other
items discussed were outsourcing Juvenile Detention,paying the Grant Writer position and two
September 14,2026 1 Page 2 of 3
Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes
Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5'Street,Shelton,WA 98584
Security Deputies from.09 funds,paying a Corrections Deputy position from Treatment Sales Tax
(1ST)funds,and two Code Enforcement positions from Real Estate Excise Tax(REET).
12:40 P.M. 35'District Legislative Meeting
• Discussion included state and local funding challenges,transportation,housing,public safety,
infrastructure,and rural community needs.Rep.Travis Couture and Drew MacEwan discussed the
state budget deficit,affordability,public defense,transportation funding,and the Belfair bypass/freight
corridor.They encouraged Mason County to be an active participant in discussions with Washington
State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)and to pursue public-private and regional partnerships.
Also discussed were opportunities and challenges related to lodging/infrastructure funding,affordable
and workforce housing,land-use regulations,illegal dumping and nuisance properties,and potential
changes to county ordinances.Public defense staffing and funding were identified as significant
concerns,particularly for rural counties.A portion of the discussion focused on the County jail and
public safety facilities,including current facility limitations,staffing shortages,potential renovation or
expansion,behavioral health services,regional partnerships,and possible revenue-generating
opportunities.The need for a long-term plan and updated assessment of County jail needs was
discussed.Infrastructure needs were also reviewed,including sewer capacity and spray-field
improvements,potential partnerships with Bremerton,transportation concurrency,and intersections
along state routes.Participants discussed opportunities to leverage state,federal,and local funding to
advance projects.Representatives from public health,emergency management,and other County
services discussed reductions in state funding,rural/urban funding disparities,staffing and capacity
challenges,and the need for more equitable distribution of state resources.The need of an in-county
autopsy facility was also discussed.
Respectfully submitted,
McKenzie Smith,
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Sharon Trask,
Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner
September 14,2026 1 Page 3 of 3
Board of Mason County Commissioners' Briefing Minutes
Mason County Commission Chambers,411 N 5'Street,Shelton,WA 98584
Week of September 21,2026
Monday, September 21,2026
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 9:30 a.m.Attendees:Travis Adams,Kim Monroe,Kayla Brinckmeyer,Christopher Pinkston.
9:30 A.M. State Auditor's Office
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• Christine MacIntyre,Assistant Audit Manager,and Colleen Williams,Audit Lead,discussed the
financial statement and federal grant compliance audits for January 1,2025 through December 31,
2025.
9:45 A.M. Public Works—Loretta Swanson
Utilities&Waste Management
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• Kobree Glaser shared the County Road Project(CRP)2062 Evergreen Estates Water Main Extension
Project Closeout.Approved to move forward.
9:50 A.M. Support Services—Travis Adams
Commissioners Neatherlin,Tarzwell,and Trask were in attendance.
• McKenzie Smith discussed the Commissioner Board,Council,and Committee assignments.
• Kim Monroe shared the 2027 non-represented medical contribution rates at$1,674 per month per
employee.Approved to move forward.
• Travis discussed the outstanding Public Facilities.09 Fund requests for 2027.Four requests were
received in total from Public Utility District(PUD)No.2,PUD No. 1,City of Shelton,and the Mason
County Economic Development Council(EDC).Cmmr.Neatherlin asked to wait until the new year.
• Travis discussed the renaming of the Purdy Creek Bridge and compiling the information for the
Washington State Department of Transportation(WSD0T).
• Cmmr.Neatherlin and Cmmr.Tarzwell discussed the budget and potential budget cuts further.A
budget discussion will be scheduled for Monday, September 28.
Respectfully submitted,
McKenzie Smith,
Clerk of the Board
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Pat Tarzwell, Randy Neatherlin, Sharon Trask,
Chair Vice-Chair Commissioner
DATE IPage 1of!
Board of Mason County Commissioners
Proceedings
Commission Chambers
411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA 98584
September 15, 2026
1. Call to Order—The Chairperson called the regular meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance—Ian Tracy led the flag salute.
3. Roll Call—Present: Commissioner District 1 —Randy Neatherlin; Commissioner District 2—
Pat Tarzwell; Absent: Commissioner District 3—Sharon Trask
4. Correspondence and Organizational Business
4.1 Correspondence
4.1.1 Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board sent in notice and updated notice of liquor
license application for Faceplant Events,LLC.
4.1.2 Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board sent in authority renewal notice.
4.1.3 Shaena Garberich submitted an advisory board application for the Timberland Regional
Library(TRL)Board of Trustees.
4.1.4 Malissa Jordan submitted an advisory board application for the Board of Equalization
(BOE).
4.1.5 Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board sent in notice of cannabis license
application from Golden Prosper Group,LLC.
4.1.6 Edgar Hubar submitted an advisory board application for the Historic Preservation
Commission(HPC).
4.1.7 Adam Maldonado,Megan McKenzie,and Jamie Ellertsen submitted applications for the
Local Plan Committee.
4.2 McKenzie Smith read the Veterans'Advisory Board At-Large Position Opening news release.
5. Open Forum for Citizen Input
Bill Hyatt thanked the Commission for its support of the Sheriffs Office UAV purchase, stating
that UAVs are an important community safety tool with a proven record of saving lives.
Gary Wharton requested an update on the Stretch Island Bridge,including repair plans and
impacts to emergency services. Loretta Swanson,Public Works Director,reported that the County
is working with WSDOT's Bridge Specialty Crew to expedite repairs and address emergency
response and other service concerns.
Ken Van Buskirk commented on the Theler Wetlands parking lot and restroom issues,stating that
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(WDFW),as the property owner,should be
responsible for maintenance and restroom access.Expressed concerns about the proposed use of
.09 funds and potential easement issues at Sweetwater Creek.
Herb Gerhardt thanked Commissioner Trask for her years of dedicated service and expressed best
wishes regarding her reported resignation.
Phil Wolff,Chairman of Transportation Improvement Program Citizens Advisory Panel(TIP-
CAP), spoke in support of the County's transportation plan.
6. Adoption of Agenda
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Tarzwell moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published.Motion
carried.Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye;Trask-absent.
7. Approval of Minutes
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Tarzwell moved and seconded to adopt the August 31,2026,Briefing
Minutes and September 1,2026,Regular Minutes as presented.Motion carried.Neatherlin-aye;
Tarzwell-aye; Trask-absent.
8. Approval of Action Agenda
8.1 Approval of Warrants and Treasurer Electronic Remittances
Claims Clearing Fund Warrant#8123325-8123399 $ 612,829.30
Direct Deposit Fund Warrant# 129147-129554 $ 965,794.17
Salary Clearing Fund Warrant#7009944-7009984 $1,272,087.23
Treasurer Electronic Remittance $2,233,019.23
8.2 Approval for the County Engineer to execute Amendment No. 1 to Interagency Agreement No.
IA 527-363 with the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission increasing the not-to-
exceed amount from$67,000 to$69,000 and adding additional road preparation work,as well
as any future amendments for additional work requested by Washington State Parks, subject to
reimbursement by the State.
8.3 Approval to reappoint Dan Dittmer to the Veterans Advisory Board for the at-large member
position for a two-year term which will expire September 15,2028.
8.4 Approval of the Request for Proposals(RFP)for Mason County Real Estate Professional
Services.
8.5 Approval to declare an emergency for the Stretch Island Bridge repair; authorize the Chair to
sign the Public Works Board(PWB)Emergency Funding Applicant Certification Form;and
approval for Public Works to submit a$50,000 PWB Emergency Funding application for the
repair.
8.6 Approval to acknowledge the written resignation of Commissioner Sharon Trask effective
September 15, 2026, and to declare a vacancy for County Commissioner District 3, effective as
of today's date.
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Tarzwell moved and seconded to approve action items 8.1 through 8.5 with
the removal of item 8.6 for separate discussion and vote.Motion carried.Neatherlin-aye;
Tarzwell-aye; Trask-absent.
Item 8.6
Cmmr. Tarzwell acknowledged Cmmr. Trask for all the work she has done for Mason County.
Cmmr.Neatherlin recognized the contributions of women serving as County Commissioners.
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Tarzwell moved and seconded to approve to acknowledge the written
resignation of Commissioner Sharon Trask effective September 15,2026,and to declare a
vacancy for County Commissioner District 3,effective as of today's date.Motion carried.
Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-absent.
9. Other Business(Department Heads and Elected Officials)
Loretta thanked Cmmr. Trask for her service and recognized her support of Public Works and the
Timber Caucus,as well as her contributions during COVID-19 and other challenging times.
September 15,2026 1 Page 2 of 3
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 review the 2027 Annual Construction Program and the Six-Year
Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)for 2027-2032. Staff: Mike Collins
Loretta Swanson briefly discussed the relationship between the budget available,and amount
leveraged by road fund dollars. For 2027,expenditures will be$7.2 million,only$1 million
from Road Fund.
David Smith shared that RCW 36.81.121 and 36.81.130 requires the preparation and annual
updating of a six-year comprehensive transportation program and reiterated how the County
leveraged$997,467 from the Road Fund to gain$6.25 million. This shows the County using
resources to best advantage.Included in annual is equipment purchase of$752,000.
Phil Wolff,Chairman of TIP-CAP, stated that TIP-CAP always looking for members and
echoed the comments about funding.
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Tarzwell moved and seconded to approve the Resolution adopting the
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program(TIP)for 2027-2032.Motion carried.
Neatherlin-aye; Tarzwell-aye; Trask-absent.
Cmmr.Neatherlin/Tarzwell moved and seconded to approve the Resolution adopting the
2027 Annual Construction Program for 2027-2032.Motion carried.Neatherlin-aye;
Tarzwell-aye; Trask-absent.
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 9:43 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board Pat Tarzwell, Chair
Randy Neatherlin,Vice-Chair
Vacant, Commissioner District 3
September 15,2026 1 Page 3 of 3
A
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
s
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Kariann Hall 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): September 29,2026
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#8123400-8123793 $ 2,114,984.99
Direct Deposit Fund Warrant#N/a $ 0.00
Salary Clearing Fund Warrant#N/a $ 0.00
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 $ 39,721,020.67
Direct Deposit YTD total $ 16,857,641.21
Salary Clearing YTD total $ 16,853,737.95
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
1554
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Nathan Birklid,Trevor Severance Ext: 313
Department: Sheriffs Office Briefing:
Action Agenda: ❑
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): Sept 14,2026 Agenda Date(s): Click or tap here to enter text
Internal Review: ❑X 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: Mason County Sheriff's Office requests Board authorization for a one-time purchase of an
Inspired Flight IF1200 Heavy-Lift Hexacopter system and associated thermal/visual sensor,
batteries,maintenance kit,ground control station, and field landing pad.The current documented
equipment subtotal is$61,800.At 8.9% sales tax,the estimated tax is$5,500.20,for a total one-time
purchase request of$67,300.20,before any shipping charges or vendor discounts.The aircraft and
associated equipment will be owned, assigned,maintained, and managed as a Mason County
Sheriff's Office asset supporting law-enforcement response, Search and Rescue,public-safety,and
emergency-management missions.
Background/Executive Summary: See Attached
Attachment(s): UAV Purchase request
MASON COUNTY I ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
Mason County Sheriff's Office AR-Hazards UAS Capability
To Mason County Board of County Commissioners
From Mason County Sheriff's Office
Date August18,2026
One-time acquisition of a Sheriff's Office all-hazards
Request UAS capability
Purchase Request $67,300.20(includes 8.9%sales tax)
Sheriff's Office law-enforcement response, critical-
incident,Search and Rescue, public-safety, and all-
Primary Purpose hazards operations; support to Emergency
Management and county response partners
1. Executive Summary
Mason County Sheriff's Office requests Board authorization for a one-time purchase of an Inspired Flight IF1200
Heavy-Lift Hexacopter system and associated thermalfvisual sensor, batteries, maintenance kit,ground control
station,and field landing pad.The current documented equipment subtotal is$61,800.At 8.9%sales tax,the
estimated tax is$5,500.20,for a total one-time purchase request of$67,300.20,before any shipping charges or
vendor discounts.The aircraft and associated equipment will be owned,assigned, maintained,and managed as
a Mason County Sheriff's Office asset supporting law-enforcement response,Search and Rescue, public-
safety,and emergency-management missions.
The acquisition wouLd establish a dedicated Sheriff's Office aerial situational-awareness capabilityfor law-
enforcement response,Search and Rescue, public-safety,and all-hazards missions. Law-enforcement uses
wouLd include critical-incident response, suspect and fugitive searches, perimeter and containment
operations,tacticaUSORT support, scene reconnaissance, officer-safety overwatch, crash and crime-scene
documentation,and other authorized missions where aerial observation can improve safety or command
decision-making.As a Sheriff's Office asset,the UAS will also be available to support Mason County Emergency
Management,the Emergency Operations Center(EOC), Incident Command,Unified Command,fire agencies,
Public Works, and other authorized response partners during emergencies and disasters.
The need is documented in Mason County's 2025-2026 County Emergency Preparedness Assessment(CEPA).
Situational Assessment is currently rated 1 in each Planning,Organization, Equipment,Training, and Exercises
component and is described as being performed on an ad hoc basis.This purchase directly addresses the
equipment portion of that gap while providing the platform around which policy,training, interagency
integration, and exercises can be standardized.
Mason County Sheriff's Office All-Hazards UAS Capability I Mason County
Page I
MASON COUNTY I ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
2. Requested Board Action
Authorize a one-time expenditure of$67,300.20 for the Mason County Sheriff's Office to acquire the UAS
equipment package,consisting of$61,800 in equipment and$5,500.20 in estimated sales tax at 8.9%,
subject to Mason County purchasing requirements,final vendor pricing,and any applicable shipping
charges.The aircraft and associated equipment will be assigned to, managed by,and maintained by the
Sheriff's Office for authorized law-enforcement response,Search and Rescue, public-safety,and all-hazards
operations,and will also be available to support Mason County Emergency Management and other
authorized county response functions.
The current equipment pricing is documented before applicable taxes,discounts,and shipping. If final
acquisition cost changes,staff will proceed consistent with applicable county purchasing and budget authority.
The request is for equipment acquisition.The aircraft will be assigned to and managed by the Mason County
Sheriff's Office and operated by existing trained Sheriff's Office UAS pilots as a collateral-duty capability.The
Sheriff's Office will make the system available to support Emergency Management and other county
departments or response partners when mission needs require aerial situational awareness. No new position is
requested as part of this acquisition.
3. Documented Need
Mason County Risk Environment
The CEPA identifies a broad set of natural,technological,and human-caused hazards affecting Mason County.
Among the highest-ranked risks are landslide,wildfire,flooding,severe wind, hazardous-material release,
sustained power outage,severe winter storms, earthquake, major transportation incidents, and critical-
infrastructure failure.
These hazards are compounded by Mason County's mountainous and heavilyforested terrain, long
transportation corridors, remote communities,shorelines and waterways, limited alternate access routes,
geographically dispersed public-safety resources,and reliance on mutual aid during major incidents.
Rapid aerial reconnaissance provides a practical way to obtain information before committing scarce personnel
and specialized resources to ground reconnaissance,particularly when access is blocked,terrain is hazardous,
or the scope of an incident is not yet known.
Primary Capability Gap: Situational Assessment
The CEPA identifies Situational Assessment as Mason County's clearest capability gap.Current scores are:
POETE Component Current CEPA Score
Planning 1
Organization 1
Equipment 1
Training 1
Exercises 1
The CEPA describes this capability as currently being performed ad hoc during an incident or disaster. It defines
Situational Assessment around identifying the nature and extent of hazards, cascading effects, status of
operations, hazard impacts, information analysis,situation reporting,and tracking response activities.
Mason County Sheriff's Office All-Hazards UAS Capability I Mason County
Page 2
MASON COUNTY I ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
A dedicated Sheriff's Office UAS platform converts aerial situational assessment from an improvised resource
into a predictable operational capability that can be activated,tasked, operated, and integrated into the
common operating picture for law-enforcement response,critical incidents,Search and Rescue, public-safety,
and Emergency Management missions.
4. Operational Capability Provided
The Sheriff's Office UAS capability is intended to reduce the time between a law-enforcement incident, public-
safety emergency,or disaster and delivery of accurate, decision-relevant information to deputies, supervisors,
incident commanders,and county decision-makers.The system would support the following core functions:
Critical-incident and high-risk scene reconnaissance to provide supervisors and incident commanders with a
current aerial view of the operating environment.
Suspect,fugitive,and evidence searches, including thermal and visual searches of large,wooded, rural,
shoreline,or otherwise difficult-to-access areas.
Perimeter,containment, and officer-safety support during armed or barricaded-person incidents and other
dynamic law-enforcement responses.
Tactical/SORT support, including pre-entry reconnaissance,observation of access and egress routes, hazard
identification,and overwatch when authorized by policy and law.
Major traffic collision and crime-scene documentation, including aerial imagery that can supplement
conventional photography, mapping,and investigative documentation.
Marine, shoreline, and remote-area law-enforcement response where aerial observation can reduce search
time or unnecessary exposure of personnel.
• Rapid visible and thermal aerial reconnaissance.
• Development and maintenance of a common operating picture for Incident Command and the EOC.
• Disaster damage assessment and documentation.
• Search and Rescue reconnaissance and thermal search support.
• Wildfire reconnaissance, perimeter observation, structure-threat assessment, and access-route
assessment.
• Flood, landslide,storm,and earthquake reconnaissance.
• Transportation-route, bridge-approach,washout, debris, and evacuation-route assessment.
• Critical-infrastructure and public-facility assessment.
• Remote observation of potentially hazardous environments before personnel are committed.
• Support to multiagency operations and neighboring jurisdictions when authorized and appropriate.
5. Mission Applications
Law-Enforcement Response
As a Sheriff's Office asset,the UAS will be available for authorized law-enforcement response functions when
aerial observation provides a legitimate operational,safety,search, documentation,or command benefit.
Potential applications include critical incidents;armed or barricaded subjects;suspect and fugitive searches;
perimeter and containment operations;tactical/SORT missions;officer-safety overwatch; major collision and
crime-scene documentation;evidence searches; marine and shoreline response; rural or remote-area
incidents; and mutual-aid law-enforcement operations. Use will remain subject to Sheriff's Office policy,
applicable law, mission-specific supervisory approval, privacy and records requirements, and any applicable
warrant or legal-process requirements.
Mason County Sheriff's Office All-Hazards UAS Capability I Mason County
Page 3
MASON COUNTY I ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
Critical Transportation
The system can rapidly evaluate blocked roadways,bridge approaches,washouts,landslide debris,flooded
roads,downed trees, alternate access routes, isolated neighborhoods, evacuation routes,emergency-vehicle
access, and potential staging locations.This allows Public Works, Emergency Management, Incident
Command, and other agencies to prioritize personnel and equipment before dispatching resources into
inaccessible or uncertain conditions.
Search and Rescue
Mason County's existing Search and Rescue capability includes volunteer ground, K9, drone,and off-road
resources.The Sheriff's Office UAS would supplement, not replace,those resources by providing a dependable
agency-owned platform for missing-person searches,thermal searches,wilderness and shoreline
reconnaissance, inaccessible terrain,disaster-area search,hazard identification for ground teams,and
coordination of ground, K9,aerial,marine,and off-road resources.
Wildfire and Fire Operations
Wildfire is one of Mason County's highest identified risks.The UAS can support initial reconnaissance,thermal
observation,fire-perimeter assessment, changing-condition observation,structure-threat assessment,
evacuation planning, access-route assessment, hotspot reconnaissance when operationally appropriate,and
post-fire damage assessment. It does not replace firefighting resources; it improves how existing resources are
directed.
Hazardous Environments and Responder Safety
The aircraft can provide remote visual reconnaissance before personnel enter potentially hazardous
environments.Applications include incident overview,damaged transportation equipment or container
observation,exclusion-zone observation,access-route assessment,incident progression monitoring,and
infrastructure observation.The system does not replace HazMat technicians or specialized detection
equipment; its value is early remote reconnaissance that can reduce unnecessary exposure.
Infrastructure and Damage Assessment
Following major emergencies,the Sheriff's Office UAS can support Emergency Management and partner
agencies with initial aerial assessment of roads, bridges, public buildings, public-safety facilities, utility
systems,communications infrastructure,flood-control systems, residential and commercial areas,and
transportation facilities.Aerial imagery can help qualified personnel prioritize locations requiring physical
inspection and provide a documented visual record of impacts.
6. Proposed Equipment and Cost
The requested one-time purchase consists of the following equipment package:
Equipment Cost
Inspired Flight Fl 200 Heavy-Lift Hexacopterwith GS- $40,500
ONE Ground Control Station
Gremsy VIO F1 Thermal and Visual Inspection $12,950
Payload
Fl 200 Battery Kit $5,900
IF1200 Spare Parts Maintenance&Repair Kit $2,300
IFT 5-foot Landing Pad $150
Mason County Sheriff's Office All-Hazards UAS Capability I Mason County
Page 4
MASON COUNTY I ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
Equipment Cost
Equipment Subtotal $61,800.00
Sales Tax(8.9%) $5,500.20
Total One-Time Purchase Request $67,300.20
The current documented equipment configuration totals$61,800.Applying 8.9%sales tax adds$5,500.20,
producing an estimated one-time purchase total of$67,300.20 before any shipping charges or vendor
discounts. Final procurement would be completed in accordance with applicable Mason County purchasing
requirements.
7. Equipment Justification
IF1200 Heavy-Lift Hexacopter
The IF1200 provides the aerial platform required to place visible and thermal sensors above affected areas and
conduct rapid reconnaissance in support of disaster response,wildfire,flood, landslide,Search and Rescue,
transportation assessment, infrastructure assessment, and damage assessment missions.
GS-ONE Ground Control Station
The GS-ONE provides the operator command-and-control interface for flight control, mission planning, sensor
operation, operator situational awareness,field deployment,and integration of the aircraft into incident
operations.
Gremsy VIO F1 Thermal and Visual Payload
The thermal and visual payload provides the sensing capability required for visible reconnaissance,thermal
search,wildfire observation,infrastructure inspection, disaster assessment, remote hazardous-area
observation,and Search and Rescue.
Battery, Maintenance, and Field Support
The battery kit supports repetitive missions during extended incidents rather than limiting the system to a single
flight cycle.The maintenance and repair kit supports readiness,field-level repair, reduced downtime,and long-
term sustainment.The landing pad supports operation from temporary and austere locations such as Incident
Command Posts,staging areas,fire stations, EOC support locations, and field deployment sites.
8. Sheriff's Office Ownership, Operating Model, and Multiagency Support
The Mason County Sheriff's Office will own, manage,maintain, deploy, and accountforthe UAS as a Sheriff's
Office asset.Trained sworn Sheriff's Office UAS pilots will operate the aircraft as collateral-duty operators
during authorized law-enforcement,Search and Rescue, public-safety,and emergency-management support
missions.Sheriff's Office supervisors will retain operational control consistent with agency policy and
applicable law.Emergency Management will be a supported partner and may request UAS support for EOC
operations, disaster response,damage assessment,evacuations, hazard reconnaissance,and other
emergency-management functions.This model places operational control and equipment accountability with
the Sheriff's Office while preserving countywide availability for all-hazards response.
Potential activation conditions include:
critical law-enforcement incident,tactical/SORT activation, suspect search,or perimeter/containment
operation;
• EOC activation or significant emergency-management incident;
Mason County Sheriff's Office All-Hazards UAS Capability I Mason County
Page
MASON COUNTY I ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
• wildfire or major fire incident;
• flooding, landslide,severe weather, or earthquake;
• Search and Rescue;
• hazardous-material or major transportation incident;
• critical-infrastructure disruption;
• disaster damage assessment;
• evacuation-route assessment;
• isolated or threatened populations;
• post-disaster reconnaissance;and
• other authorized law-enforcement, public-safety,or emergency-management incidents in which aerial
situational awareness materially supports operational objectives.
Mission prioritization will follow Sheriff's Office policy and,when operating within an incident command
structure,the Incident Command System. During multiagency incidents, information generated by the Sheriff's
Office UAS may be shared with Incident Command, Unified Command, Emergency Management,the EOC, and
authorized partner agencies as appropriate to the mission and applicable law and policy.
Primary responsibility for the capability will rest with the Mason County Sheriff's Office.The asset may support
patrol and critical-incident response,tactical/SORT operations,suspect or fugitive searches, perimeter
containment,Search and Rescue,scene documentation,traffic and major-collision response, marine or
shoreline operations, and other authorized Sheriff's Office missions. It may also support Mason County
Emergency Management,fire protection districts, Public Works, public health, GIS,transportation agencies,
utilities and infrastructure partners,the EOC,and neighboring jurisdictions through authorized mutual aid when
appropriate.
9. Implementation
Following Board approval and procurement, implementation would proceed through the following operational
steps:
1. Finalize Sheriff's Office UAS policy,governance,activation criteria, equipment accountability, and mission-
request procedures, including procedures for Emergency Management and partner-agency support
requests.
2. Acquire, inventory, configure, and establish accountability and maintenance records for the aircraft and
payload.
3. Finalize Sheriff's Office standard operating procedures, EOC and Emergency Management support
workflows, GIS integration, imagery and records management, damage-assessment procedures,and
SAR/wildfire mission profiles.
4. Complete platform familiarization and pilot training for qualified operators and mission-integration
orientation for participating agencies.
5. Validate the capability through tabletop,functional,and field exercises and correct identified deficiencies.
6. Place the Sheriff's Office UAS capability into operational status and incorporate it into applicable Sheriff's
Office procedures, emergency plans, recurrent training, multiagency exercises,and after-action review.
10. Fiscal and Sustainment Considerations
The immediate fiscal request is a one-time authorization of$67,300.20 for the Mason County Sheriff's Office,
consisting of$61,800 in equipment and$5,500.20 in estimated sales tax at 8.9%.The operating model relies on
existing trained sworn Sheriff's Office UAS pilots rather than creation of a new dedicated position.
Long-term sustainment will be managed by the Mason County Sheriff's Office and will include equipment
inspection, battery management, preventative maintenance,field-level repairs, recurrent operator qualification
and training, policy review, after-action evaluation,and future budgeting for consumables or replacement items
Mason County Sheriff's Office All-Hazards UAS Capability I Mason County
Page 6
MASON COUNTY I ONE-TIME PURCHASE REQUEST
as needed. Emergency Management integration can be maintained through joint planning,training,and
exercises without changing ownership or operational control of the asset.
Because the package includes additional batteries and a maintenance and repair kit,the initial purchase
establishes not only the aircraft and sensor capability but also a practical baseline for operational continuity
and field sustainment.
11. Performance and Accountability
The Sheriff's Office UAS should be evaluated as an operational capability rather than simply as an aircraft
purchase. Recommended performance measures include:
• Readiness: number of qualified operators, mission-ready percentage,and scheduled maintenance
completion.
• Response:activation-to-launch time, launch-to-first-usable-imagery time,and mission-request-to-
information-delivery time.
• Capability: number and type of emergency activations,SAR missions,wildfire missions, damage
assessments,transportation assessments,and infrastructure assessments supported.
• Preparedness: number of exercises, participating personnel and agencies,and completion of corrective
actions identified through after-action review.
• Strategic outcome: establish a reliable Sheriff's Office UAS capability that improves law-enforcement
response,critical-incident management, officer and responder safety,Search and Rescue,and public-
safety operations while providing a repeatable aerial situational-assessment resource for Mason County
Emergency Management and the EOC.
12. Conclusion
Mason County's geography,dispersed population, road network, heavilyforested terrain, and hazard profile
create a recurring need for fast, reliable aerial information during both law-enforcement incidents and larger
emergencies.The Sheriff's Office already has trained public-safety personnel and an operational structure
capable of deploying a dedicated UAS platform for critical incidents, suspect searches,tactical/SORT support,
perimeter operations,Search and Rescue, major crashes, scene documentation, and all-hazards missions.The
CEPA also documents a significant Situational Assessment gap that this Sheriff's Office asset can help address
when supporting Emergency Management functions.
Approval of this one-time purchase would provide the Mason County Sheriff's Office with a durable,agency-
owned UAS capability to obtain accurate information sooner, improve officer and responder safety, enhance
critical-incident and law-enforcement response, improve Search and Rescue operations,and support
coordinated decision-making.The asset would remain available to Mason County Emergency Management and
other authorized partners for disaster reconnaissance,damage assessment, EOC support, evacuation
planning, infrastructure assessment,and other emergency-management functions.
REQUESTED ACTION:APPROVE ONE-TIME PURCHASE OF$67,300.20, INCLUDING 8.9%SALES TAX
Mason County Sheriff's Office All-Hazards UAS Capability I Mason County
Page 7
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To:Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Brittany Pearson Ext:479
Department: Treasurer Briefing:
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s):9/14/26 Agenda Date(s):9/22/26
Internal Review: ® Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Item:Cancellation of Outstanding Warrants.
Background/Executive Summary: RCW 39.56-040 states in part—warrants not presented within
one year of their issue,shall be cancelled by passage of a resolution of the governing body......and
upon such resolution the Auditor.....and Treasurer shall transfer all records of such warrants back
to the funds as if they have never been issued.
The Auditor's office has finished their due diligence and provided the Treasurer's Office with an
updated list of outstanding warrants as set forth in Exhibit A.
Budget Impact(amount,funding source, budget amendment,etc.): None,no impact.
Public Outreach:N/A
Requested Action:Approval of the resolution to void outstanding warrants as listed in Exhibit A.
Attachment(s):Resolution and Exhibit A.
RESOLUTION NO.
CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING WARRANTS
WHEREAS, RCW 39.56.040 states in part................warrants not presented within in one year of
their issue,shall be canceled by passage of a resolution of the governing body of the municipal
corporations, and upon such notice of passage of such resolution the auditor of the municipal
corporation and the treasurer of the municipal corporation shall transfer all records of such warrants so
as to the funds as if such warrants had never been drawn.
WHEREAS, approval of such resolution will allow the auditor and/or treasurer of such municipal
corporation the authority to void the warrants as listed in Exhibit A and provide for in the process
adjusted cash balances to those funds for which the warrants were originally drawn as required by RCW
39.56.040.
WHEREAS,the County Auditor's Office has finished their due diligence efforts and provided the
Treasurer' s Office with an updated list of outstanding warrants to be voided.Such list has been
attached as Exhibit A.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Mason County Commissioners hereby
authorize the County Auditor's Office to void the outstanding warrants as set out in Exhibit A, attached
pursuant to RCW 39.56.040.
Dated this day of ,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 Whitehead, Chief Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney
Sharon Trask, Commissioner
cc: Auditor Finance,Treasurer' s Office
EXHIBIT A
VOIDED COUNTY WARRANT REPORT:
WARRANT AMOUNT DATE PAYEE
8106820 $100.00 8/6/2024 APRIL BREES
8106974 $120.00 8/14/2024 YOGA SHIELD
8107031 $20.72 8/15/2024 ABAD,TANYALYNN
8107041 $24.74 8/15/2024 BODINE,ASHBYAUGUSTINE
8107042 $27.42 8/15/2024 BOHNAS,TYLER LEE
8107051 $32.78 8/15/2024 CAUDLE,SEAN
8107057 $166.68 8/15/2024 DRAPER, MANDY LYN
8107068 $24.74 8/15/2024 FORE,JEFFREY MICHAEL
8107080 $18.04 8/15/2024 JEFFKO,PAUL JAMES
8107085 $26.08 8/15/2024 JUSTIN, BRIAN THOMAS
8107092 $34.02 8/15/2024 LOMMEL,DAVID KIMBALL
8107102 $20.72 8/15/2024 MCKEE, NICHOLAS ANTHONY
8107105 $36.80 8/15/2024 MCMILLEN, RANDY L
8107119 $18.04 8/15/2024 PHYTHIAN, MAX GARETT
8107126 $38.14 8/15/2024 RIDGWAY,ZACHARY P
8107130 $20.72 8/15/2024 RODGERS, HEATHER SUSAN
8107144 $12.68 8/15/2024 THIERY,ANGELA DAWN
8107372 $39.48 9/4/2024 JOCELYNN CAMACHO
8107488 $66.18 9/10/2024 BROCK,SAMANTHA SUSAN
8107490 $44.84 9/10/2024 COOK,GUNNAR JAMES
8107494 $14.02 9/10/2024 FAW,GREGORY SCOTT
8107499 $28.76 9/10/2024 GIVEN, KRISZTINA
8107510 $18.04 9/10/2024 JOHNSON,MARY K
8107520 $31.44 9/10/2024 MILLS, NATHAN THOMAS
8107801 $625.00 9/16/2024 MARK PENTONY
8107951 $308.38 9/25/2024 MICHAELLUBOMSKI
8108068 $499.49 10/2/2024 CRISTIAN LAIR
8108427 $28.76 10/22/2024 NATHAN VANDAE
8108425 $10.00 10/22/2024 GRACE GUNTLE
8108545 $23.40 10/28/2024 FRICKE,JOHN EDWARD
8108568 $26.08 10/28/2024 RETALLICK,JACK MARTY
8108569 $36.80 10/28/2024 SCHILTZ, MICHAEL DAVID
8108574 $11.34 10/28/2024 TRUMBLE, LESLIE KAY
8108576 $76.28 10/28/2024 WATSON,ZACHARY PAUL
8108884 $27.42 11/12/2024 DERHOVANISIAN,JOHN ARAM
8108886 $20.72 11/12/2024 DUFFIELD,AMBERJO
8108887 $36.80 11/12/2024 DUKOWITZ,OLIVIA PAIGE
8108904 $44.84 11/12/2024 HORTON,GABRIEL JAMES
8108916 $36.80 11/12/2024 LARANCE,ANDREW ROBERT
8108917 $28.76 11/12/2024 LAVER, KAREN BARKER
8108936 $36.80 11/12/2024 SCHROEDER,DAVID BRANDON
8108939 $26.08 11/12/2024 SIMMONS,ANDREA
8108949 $31.44 11/12/2024 VANDERVELDT, NICHOLAS JAME
8108954 $27.42 11/12/2024 WISEHART,CHAD WESTON
8108957 $11.34 11/12/2024 YATES,JAMES PATRICK
8108958 $39.48 11/12/2024 ZAMAGNE, DILLON WADE
8109140 $34.84 11/20/2024 CARLYSMITH
8109142 $159.46 11/20/2024 JAMIE DAILY
8109143 $64.32 11/20/2024 JENNIFER HAYDEN
8109146 $64.32 11/20/2024 SIERRAALVARADO
8109144 $10.67 11/20/2024 JOE SCHMIT
8109145 $10.00 11/20/2024 SANTANA KRISE
8109147 $10.00 11/20/2024 WADE MARTIN
8109244 $15.64 11/20/2024 MOUNTAIN MIST
8109497 $25.36 12/10/2024 AREOPAGITA, FEDERICO JUAN
8109516 $22.06 12/10/2024 CAMPBELL,JAMES DONALD
8109520 $34.12 12/10/2024 CLOSE,SABRINA LYNNE
8109531 $100.40 12/10/2024 DUPREZ,JEAN-CLAUDE ROBERT
8109536 $20.72 12/10/2024 GAINES,CARRI LEE
8109545 $35.46 12/10/2024 HAEGELE,ROBERTA LYNN
8109553 $15.36 12/10/2024 HINKLE, MISTYANN
8109561 $30.10 12/10/2024 JONES,JUSTIN ALLYN
8109564 $26.08 12/10/2024 KOPECKY,JILLANNA MARIE
8109577 $207.20 12/10/2024 MARTINEZ,RYAN JAMES
8109579 $198.54 12/10/2024 MAllARI, MATTHEW JAMES
8109584 $12.68 12/10/2024 MENDEZ, RODOLFO EZEQUIEL
8109587 $31.44 12/10/2024 MILLS, LISA SHERRIE
8109589 $58.24 12/10/2024 MOON,JOHN CLIFTON
8109590 $16.70 12/10/2024 MORAN,TRACY SUE
8109601 $32.78 12/10/2024 PORTSCHY, MELINDA R
8109609 $14.02 12/10/2024 SADLER,CHRISTOPHER JAMES
8109615 $26.08 12/10/2024 SHEPPARD,JUANITA MARIE
8109616 $16.70 12/10/2024 SMALL, MICHAEL RICHARD
8109617 $394.80 12/10/2024 SMITH, CLINTON ANDREW
8109625 $11.34 12/10/2024 TAYLOR, NATHAN AARON
8109632 $12.68 12/10/2024 VOGEL,TYLERJAMES
8109634 $12.68 12/10/2024 WEED, LEONARD DAVID
8109636 $12.68 12/10/2024 WHITNEY,JUSTIN MATTHEW
8109639 $34.12 12/10/2024 ZIMBECK, NATHAN EDWARD
8109930 $350.00 12/18/2024 JOHN FITZMORRIS
8110088 $4.82 12/26/2024 PAIGE ROBERTS
8110137 $16.70 12/30/2024 Susan Stringham
8110191 $20.72 1/7/2025 BROWNSTEIN, ROBERTA S
8110204 $26.08 1/7/2025 HENDRICKS,ATHENNA WANDA
8110213 $11.34 1/7/2025 LOGHRY, MARGARETEJENENE
8110214 $35.46 1/7/2025 LUNDBERG, NIKKI RACHEL
8110215 $26.08 1/7/2025 MAHONEY,EAIN ORION
8110217 $24.74 1/7/2025 MCCLELLAND, CASSANDRA ASUE
8110222 $12.68 1/7/2025 PURCHASE, GARY LEE
8110227 $24.74 1/7/2025 STEPHENS, EDWIN CHENIER
8110232 $11.34 1/7/2025 VANDERWAL,ZACHARYWILLIAM
8110730 $38.00 2/4/2025 CARPENTER,WILLIAM NATHANI
8110737 $14.20 2/4/2025 EATON, HANNAH LEE
8110742 $11.40 2/4/2025 FEWELL, CASSANDRA LYN-ANN
8110760 $24.00 2/4/2025 JULNES, DENNIS EDWARD
8110778 $38.00 2/4/2025 NORWIL, NICK ANTHONY
8110812 $22.80 2/4/2025 WEZA, BARBRA L
8110814 $17.00 2/4/2025 WIGHT,JASON ALEXANDER
8110918 $26.80 2/11/2025 STEVE LINGLE
8111214 $47.52 2/26/2025 ANDREW MARTIN
8111215 $74.32 2/26/2025 BRENDA WALSH
8111220 $74.32 2/26/2025 JEREMY SANDERSON
8111227 $58.24 2/26/2025 STACY HAWTHORN
8111320 $114.82 2/26/2025 KYLESEGGER
8112031 $14.48 4/9/2025 AMY VELASCO
8112817 $38.70 5/20/2025 Shannon M Dellinger
8112941 $12.10 5/29/2025 Yahir Pano Jacinto
8113306 $14.20 6/16/2025 ADDESSI,ATRAEYU WAYNE
8113307 $28.40 6/16/2025 AIGNER,SUSAN LEE
8113315 $39.40 6/16/2025 ANDERSON, LORI SUE
8113316 $57.60 6/16/2025 AQUININGOC,SADIE MONET
8113327 $46.40 6/16/2025 BRADLEY,BRYSON DEAN
8113330 $36.60 6/16/2025 BROWN,GLEN THOMAS
8113333 $29.60 6/16/2025 BYERS,COLBY JAMES
8113342 $14.20 6/16/2025 CHAMBERLIN, DENICE LINN
8113354 $11.40 6/16/2025 COX, DANIEL BRUCE
8113359 $19.80 6/16/2025 DALY, KAYLIE RENA
8113382 $62.00 6/16/2025 GRAHAM,ANDREW JAMES
8113385 $61.80 6/16/2025 GUNDERSON,ANTHONY EDWARD
8113390 $28.20 6/16/2025 HANN,SHEREE JO
8113404 $47.80 6/16/2025 JACKOVICH,CHRISTOPHER NIC
8113416 $35.20 6/16/2025 KAUER, NICOLE MARY ELLEN
8113418 $22.60 6/16/2025 KENNEDY, NOAH MICHEAL
8113426 $12.80 6/16/2025 LAMB,JASON
8113427 $70.40 6/16/2025 LARSEN,JACOB ROBERT
8113428 $57.60 6/16/2025 LAUTH, BARBARAJEAN
8113430 $12.80 6/16/2025 LAWSON,SARAH DIANE
8113434 $19.80 6/16/2025 LONG,JEFFREY MICHAEL
8113447 $11.40 6/16/2025 MICK,GEORGE ALAN
8113449 $12.80 6/16/2025 MOBLEY, KENNETH
8113460 $32.40 6/16/2025 NAVAL,ROBYN SUE
8113468 $21.20 6/16/2025 PARADISE,AMANDA ANN
8113479 $38.00 6/16/2025 RAKES,GREGORY DWAYNE
8113481 $42.20 6/16/2025 RASMUSSEN,LINA MARIE
8113496 $43.60 6/16/2025 SCRIVNER, ROBERTA ANN
8113500 $42.20 6/16/2025 SHOREY,THOMAS EDWARD
8113501 $14.20 6/16/2025 SINNOTT, BRUCE MICHAEL
8113510 $11.40 6/16/2025 STOSSER,GRACE LEA
8113528 $36.60 6/16/2025 WAYTUCK, DUSTIN L
8113535 $57.60 6/16/2025 WOODELL,GRANT CHRISTOPHER
$7,053.70 TOTAL FOR 631.00000.000.000.
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Marissa Watson Ext: 367
Department: Community Development Briefing:
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑X
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): September 14,2026 Agenda Date(s): September 29,2026
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: Rezone of parcel 22206-31-00000,which is approximately 40 acres from Rural Residential 10
(RR10)to Rural Residential 5 (RR5)within the rural lands.
Background/Executive Summary: If the rezone is approved the applicant proposes to develop the parcel
via a large lot subdivision, subdividing into eight lots.
Planning Advisory Commission reviewed materials at a public hearing on August 31,2026 and voted to
approve the recommendation as presented by the applicant and staff. Four members of the PAC were
present,with three voting in favor(chair does not vote unless a tie).All members were supportive of the
rezone.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.): N/A
Public Outreach: All property owners within 300 feet of the subject parcels were notified by mail on
August 12,2026.Public notice of the PAC hearing was published in the Shelton-Mason County Journal
on August 20 and 27,2026,and on-site posting occurred on August 11,2026.
Requested Action: Set a public hearing date of October 27,2026 to review a request to rezone parcel
22206-31-00000 from Rural Residential 10(RR10)to Rural Residential 5 (RR5).
Attachment(s): Notice of Hearing
• •
_ ______ TH J T _
Aerial view(approx. site location in orange box)
Rezone Area
w 1PO I h
Y --I h\ _ 1 ! / � p
1 �; 111A1A 11 //
9A10UID.R: m AM 18.118
0 006 0.1 011,1
❑ cnng6oumry r Rini R,tn ,mu2sMg T
o No FlYY P Rini M[¢1¢I6be[ 0 06 016 OdM
r ➢x Fab{?Dan 1141000Dn r Rai R¢¢1®11uICrti
R 1110 r R1ol Rube,thlROhrt[
■ P1 eIP1Rf • ' r /0144p R€Ic4 Rut n Mrt�p M r 1O nlww w+r[.e ✓'
L iIhouIgum
NOTICE OF HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Mason County Commissioners will hold
a public hearing in Mason County Building I,Commission Chambers,411 North Fifth Street,Shelton,
WA 98584 on October 27,2026 at 9:15 a.m.
SAID HEARING will be to take public comment on Tahuya Ranch LLC's
proposal to rezone parcel 22206-31-00000 from Rural Residential 10 (RR10) to Rural
Residential 5 (RR5). The parcel is approximately 40 acres. If the request is approved, the
applicant has indicated the intention of subdividing into eight lots.
Public testimony will be available in-person or via Zooms. The URL is available on the
County website https://www.masoncountywa.gov/ to sign into the meeting. Please use the "raise
hand"feature to be recognized by the Chair to provide your testimony. You can also email testimony
to msmithc masoncountywa.gov or mail to the Commissioners' Office, 411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA
98584; or call(360)427-9670 ext. 230.
If special accommodations are needed, please contact the Commissioners' office, (360)427-
9670 ext. 419.
DATED this 29th day of September, 2026.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith,Clerk of the Board
Bill: Department of Community Development
615 W. Alder St.
Shelton,WA 98584
Cc: Commissioners
Shelton Journal: Publ. 2t: October 15 & 22, 2026
A
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
s
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Ian Tracy and Kelly Frazier Ext:544
Department: Facilities and Public Health Briefing:
Action Agenda:
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): September 14,2026 Agenda Date(s): September 29,2026
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: Environmental Health Staff Rearrangement
Background/Executive Summary: We are proposing to rearrange the desk locations for our
environmental health specialists. We intend to accomplish the following with this move:
• Move staff who have frequent face-to-face customer interactions closer to the front counter.
• Relieve overcrowded workspaces to reduce distractions and noise that currently interfere with
phone calls and virtual meetings.
• Replace 20+year old carpet and repaint with standard county colors.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.): We are requesting
$10,000 from REET to cover the cost for Facilities staff to paint and replace carpet.
Public Outreach: N/A
Requested Action: Approval of the rearrangement and request for$10,000 from REET for paint and new
carpet.
Attachment(s): Current floorplan,Proposed floorplan
Current EH Layout
c
c C
0
i `\
911
2'lp N -1-
2'3 28' oN
1
kjT
1n U
N 6'
n AG
� 'J R
5'11 S Q1
2'
1'7
Fiarnacc 16'8 14'10" _
I E ol 1
12'6" I 1n ( v7
AT JW O1
6'
136" _ __ 1 [
DA to
6'2 441°aH IO4U tUUOJuu3 ..,�.�
N
10'2" w
6'2 61 7'2 4'2 , MDC
L 12'
Legend: 9'8" 25'
Orange—Cubicle Spaces N-Noah Roland AG-Alex Graham
'Green-Storage JR—Jacob Ritter R—Rhonda Thompson
S-Sunni Evans AT-AndreaTubens JW-JeffWilmoth
DO-Daniel Osborn L-Lexi Stanley DA—Dave Anderson
M—Michael Marrs W—Wendy Mathews
Proposed Move Plan For EH
��-. •.—�....11 «. ._ .w.«..a..w�.•.-..a-s - - .a ' n- 'J.��...�-,as; r W'.-x:�•..�nwtwi'sav-mar
fL1fl V
11 r
u
U_
c
� O
1. 135 00 sa:�-:�Z2 ry
2'3 f 1 " 28' o0
R
o LO VI V
N Q M
r1 Q c`d AG
JW____ DA 0
511
7' AT
2,3 ----- W
17 Fwrvice 16'8 y--- 14'10 3 _
$ u
13 irI:_ ,'6"
10'2" t2j
DO 7' M
12 4'2
9'8" '
Legend:
Orange—Cubicle Spaces N-Noah Roland AG-Alex Graham
green-Storage JR—Jacob Ritter R—Rhonda Thompson
S-Sunni Evans AT-AndreaTubens JW-JeffWilmoth
DO-Daniel Osborn L-Lexi Stanley DA—Dave Anderson
M—Michael Marrs W—Wendy Mathews
,N ant,
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Kevin Guijosa, Solid Waste Operations
Ext: 652
Program Manager
Department: Utilities&Waste Briefing: ❑x
Action Agenda: ❑x
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): September 14,2026 Agenda Date(s): September 29, 2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑ Risk ❑ Other
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Item: Replacement Booth for the Hoodsport Drop Box Facility
Background/Executive Summary:
Public Works requests Board approval to purchase and install a new employee booth at the Hoodsport
Drop Box facility. The existing booth has been in service for many years and provides limited amenities.
Upgrading the facility includes connecting to an existing water supply and installing a grinder pump and
low pressure force main to connect with existing drainfield serving the Foothills Park caretaker trailer.
The proposed replacement will be a durable concrete booth designed for long-term use and improved
employee functionality. The new booth will provide heating and cooling, running water, a staff restroom,
electrical outlets, interior lighting, and locking, roll-down window guards. These improvements are also
expected to reduce pest intrusion and ongoing maintenance issues.
This is the first of three planned booth upgrades at the drop box facilities. Additional site planning for
water and septic is needed before proceeding with the Union and Belfair sites.
Budiet Impact:
The Hoodsport replacement booth is in the approved 2026 Solid Waste Fund budget. The purchase price
is $177,778 (including tax)through Washington State Department of Enterprise Services (DES) Contract
No. 052725.
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Request that the Board authorize Public Works to purchase a replacement booth for the Hoodsport Drop
Box station off the Washington State DES Contract for$163,700.00 plus tax.
Attachment(s):
1. Quote
Page lot 3
Quote#: l VJEGOP:IEGh1-2
Mailing Address:
CXT Incorporated,an LBFoster Co.
606 N. Pines Road,Suite 202
Inc. an L.C. Foster Company Spokane Valley,WA 99206
Phone: (800)696-5766
To: Mason County Date: 04/09/2026
411 North 5th Street
Shelton,WA 98584
Attention: Kevin Guijosa Re: WA Booth Replacement Mason County
Phone: (360)427-9670
Fax: (360)427-7765
Our quotation for the Schweitzer-TW13 building Is as follows: Per Building
Schweitzer single flush toilet building with simulated cedar shake roof and barnwood wall $163,700.00
texture, 16-guage galvanized steel doors and frames,vitreous china plumbing fixtures
(1-lavatory, 1-water closet),one 3-roll toilet paper holder,one exhaust fan,vinyl sliding
windows w/rollup doors,GFI outlets,floor drains,one s/s mirror,hand dryer, Insulated,
HVAC,ADA grab bars,ADA signs,one hose bib in chase area,motion controlled interior
lights and photo cell controlled exterior lights.
Includes Extra Crane 8 HR Min.
Includes Washington PE stamped drawings.Proposal Drawing#ISW-788.
Includes full install, CXT deliverying building to site and setting with our crane.
Freight
$163,700.00
FOB: Freight FOB Plant Prepaid and Add.
Terms: Net 30 days subject to corporate credit approval.
Notes: Sales tax not included
Number of Units:
This quotation is subject to the conditions on the attached sheet and the CXT,Incorporated
terms hereof shall constitute the exclusive agreement of the parties and all
conflicting or additional terms in Buyer's purchase order or any other such
documents of Buyer shall have no force or effect. By /B �2¢PiL
Todd Weger
Accepted this day of 20 tweger@lbfoster.com
By: (Customer Name)
(Signed)
,N ant,
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
X854
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Richard Dickinson,Deputy Director/U&W Ext: 652
Department:Utilities&Waste Briefing: ❑x
Action Agenda: ❑x
Public Hearing: ❑
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): September 14,2026 Agenda Date(s): September 29,2026
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑ Legal ❑ IT ❑Risk ❑ Other
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Item: Sole Source Authorization for Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.AquaDisk®Disk Filter Rehabilitation
and Replacement Components
Background/Executive Summary:
The North Bay Water Reclamation Facility in Allyn utilizes two specialized filters for tertiary treatment and effluent
filtration. The facility does not always meet turbidity standards,and replacing the aged filter system should correct this.
Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.is the original equipment manufacturer and exclusive supplier of the proprietary Model
54x4E-PC AquaDisk Cloth Media Disk Filter.As such,they are the sole source provider of the AquaDisk replacement
components required for the County's existing equipment.After an on-site inspection and evaluation,they provided a
quote in the amount of$168,311 plus tax.
The proposed purchase includes center tube assemblies,backwash assemblies,vacuum gauges and transmitters,float
switches,pressure transducers,influent valves,spare parts,and an installed controls upgrade.These components are
specifically engineered for and fully compatible with the County's existing AquaDisk system and are not available from
alternate suppliers.
AquaDisk personnel will provide five days' on-site services with delivery,including: installation of delivered control
components and mechanical check out and start up.
Budget Impact:
Filter replacement is in the approved 2026 North Bay Utility fund budget.The budgeted amount is$200,000 and the total
purchase price,inclusive of engineering, freight, service,and sales tax is$182,785.75.To fully integrate the filters there
may be some electrical and control programming work to be completed.The budget should be adequate.
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Request the Board approve the sole source purchase of AquaDisk replacement components, spare parts,and control
upgrades from Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc. on a sole source basis through December 31,2027,in the total amount of
$168,311.
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution
2. Sole Source letter
3. Quote
RESOLUTION NO.: 2026-
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE FROM AQUA-AEROBIC
SYSTEMS,INC.
WHEREAS,Mason County owns and operates the North Bay Wastewater Reclamation Facility
in Allyn,Washington,which utilizes two Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc. (AASI)Model 54x4E-PC
AquaDisk Cloth Media Disk Filters; and
WHEREAS,the existing equipment and components are aging and require rehabilitation and
replacement to maintain reliable operation and filtration performance; and
WHEREAS,Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. is the original equipment manufacturer and exclusive
supplier of the proprietary AquaDisk replacement components and controls required for the County's
existing equipment; and
WHEREAS,the required components are specifically designed for the County's existing
AquaDisk®system and are not available from alternate suppliers,making Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.
the sole practicable source for the required purchase;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the Board of Mason County Commissioners that:
1. The Board finds that the purchase of AquaDisk replacement components and controls from Aqua-
Aerobic Systems,Inc. qualifies as a sole source purchase under RCW 39.04.280(1)(a).
2. The Board authorizes the purchase of the required AquaDisk replacement components, spare
parts, and controls upgrade from Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc. in the amount of$168,311.
inclusive of engineering,freight, and service.
3. The Board further authorizes the Public Works Department to purchase AquaDisk replacement
components, spare parts, and control upgrades from Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc. on a sole source
basis through December 31,2027,provided funds have been appropriated in the approved budget
and all applicable County purchasing requirements are met.
ADOPTED this day of , 2026.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
Pat Tarzwell, Chair
McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board
Randy Neatherlin, Vice Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Tim Whitehead, Ch. DPA Sharon Trask,Commissioner
AOLUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS, INC. Protecting the World's Water.
A Methwaof Company
August 31, 2026
Correspondence ID#: AAL-53810
North Bay WRF
Attn: Richard Dickinson
North Bay of Case Inlet
Allyn, Washington 98524
USA
Email: rdickinson@masoncountywa.gov
Project: NORTH BAY WRF (AKA NORTH BAY/CASE INLET)
RE: Sole Source Letter- Project ID# 105791 B
Dear Richard,
The Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. (AASI)AquaDisk®Cloth Media Filter is of
Aqua-Aerobic proprietary design, fabricated to ANSI specifications. Aqua-Aerobic is
the exclusive original equipment manufacturer of the AquaDisk®Cloth Media Filters
at the North Bay WRF located in Allyn, WA. As such, all equipment and components
are manufactured to ANSI specifications, the exclusive vendor supplier for this
equipment; this includes all types of replacement cloths, centertube components,
backwash nozzles, instruments, valves and controls components.
If you desire additional information or have any questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact me at my direct line, 815-639-4589 or by email,
TMangione@aqua-aerobic.com.
Sincerely,
Thomas
AMS Senior Sales Engineer
CC: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.
Michaela Villarreal / MViIlarreal@aqua-aerobic.com
Aeration and Mixing I Biological Processes I Filtration I PFAS Solutions I Owns Systems I Membranes Aftermarket and Rentals
6306 N.Alpine Rd. Loves Park,IL61111-7655 815.654.2501 aqua.aerobic.com
Copyright 2026,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc Punter:September 1,2026 Page 1 of 1
AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS, INC. Protecting the World's Water.
A Metawater Company
cU
Proposal#: 184875
TO: North Bay WRF PROJECT: NORTH BAY WRF(AKA NORTH BAY/CASE
1000 Reclamation Rd. INLET)
Allyn
WA 98585
USA
ATN: Richard Dickinson PROPOSAL DATE: August 27,2026
CC: Goble Sampson Associates, Inc-Joshua West
The following Notes apply to Aqua-Aerobic Systems' proposal:
-We are pleased to quote, for acceptance within 60 days of this date, prices and terms on goods listed below.
- Equipment will be furnished by Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. with unloading of goods, civil work and, installation of
the mechanical components, by the Buyer.
-The Controls Components included in this Proposal will be installed by Aqua-Aerobic Systems Field Service
personnel.
-This proposal is for the Rehabilitation of two(2) Model 54 x 4E- PC Disk Filters located at North Bay WWTP, WA.
Cloth Media Filters
AquaDisk Centertube Assemblies
2 Centertube(s) consisting of:
- Centertube bearing kit(s).
-Viton V-ring effluent port\centertube seal(s).
- Centertube Tail Shaft, 304SS
- Pile cloth media sock(s).
AguaDisk Backwash/Sludge Assemblies
2 Backwash System Assembly(ies) consisting of:
- 304 stainless steel backwash nozzles.
-Torsion springs- 316 SS
- 1.5" diameter BW Hose, 78"
- Stainless steel hose clamps.
AguaDisk Instrumentation
2 Suction Pressure Gauge with Transmitter(s) consisting of:
-Vaccum gauge(s).
-Vacuum transmitter(s).
-Valves and Hardware
2 Float Switch(es) consisting of:
- Float switch(es).
2 Pressure Transducer Assembly(ies) each consisting of:
- Pressure transducer(s).
- Bellows
AguaDisk Valves
2 Influent Valve(s) consisting of:
Aeration and Mixing Biological Processes Filtration PFAS Solutions Ozone Systems Membranes Aftermarket and Rentals
6306 N.Alpine Rd. Loves Park, IL 61111-7655 815.654.2501 aqua-aerobic.com
Copyright 2026,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc Printed:August 27,2026 Page 1 of 5
AQUA-AEROBIC
PROPOSAL DATE: August 27, 2026 Proposal#: 184875 A` SYSTEMS. I NC-
A Mmawaler Company
- 10" butterfly valve(s)with gear and handle wheel operator as manufacturer by Nibco or equal.
AquaDisk Misc/Spare Parts
I Lot of Recommended Spare Parts consisting of:
-Viton V-ring effluent port\centertube seal(s).
-Actuator Assembly, RCEL-005L
- Drive sprocket, 2.25" bore
- Float switch(es).
- Pressure transducer(s).
- Compactlogix Processor- Preprogammed
- PanelView Plus 7 7" color touch screen - Preprogrammed
AquaDisk Controls wo/Starters
2 Control Panel Upgrade Package(s) consisting of the following:
- Compactlogix Processor.
- Input Card(s)
- Output Card(s)
-Analog Input Card(s)
- PanelView Plus 7 7" color touch screen display(s).
- Panelview Plus Adapter Plate
- Ethernet switch(es).
- Ethernet Cable
AquaDisk Engineering_
I Set(s) Documentation will be provided as described:
- Operation & Maintenance Manuals (English language).
- Operation & Maintenance Manuals (English language) in electronic format.
AquaDisk Supervision/Freight Domestic
1 Supervision Services and Freight Package(s) for the AquaDisk will be provided as follows:
- Five (5) Day(s) On Site for Mechanical Check Out and Start Up
-Three (3)Trip(s)for Mechanical Check Out and Start Up
- Installation of the Controls Components only, listed in this proposal.
- Freight to jobsite
The Following Notes apply to Aqua-Aerobic Systems Proposal:
-We expect record set drawings and equipment to be completed and in transit to you approximately 22-26*weeks
after receipt of order with acceptable terms and conditions and guarantee of payment. *Schedules may be adjusted
at time of order placement, depending upon existing order backlog. Weeks quoted are actual working weeks.
- Schedule changes due to supply chain disruption may impact the above quoted times. Aqua-Aerobic Systems will
advise if/when any such disruption applies.
- F.O.B. JOBSITE; TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS: All prices and all shipments of goods are F.O.B. Allyn, WA. It is the
responsibility of the Buyer to unload shipments and utilizing the packing list and bill of lading provided with the
shipment notate shortages/damages upon receipt of the shipments and notify Aqua-Aerobic Systems in writing
within 7 days of the shortages/damages to facilitate filing of a freight claim. Delivery of the goods sold hereunder by
the carrier shall be deemed delivered to Buyer, and upon such delivery, title to such goods and risk of loss or
damage shall be upon Buyer.
-TAXES: State and/or local taxes are not included in the price but will be charged unless we receive a valid sales
exemption certificate, direct pay permit, or other documentation required specifically by the taxing entity prior to
shipment.
- PAYMENT TERMS: Subject to credit approval and guarantee of payment, payment Net 30 days from date of each
Aeration and Mixing Biological Processes Filtration PFAS Solutions Ozone Systems Membranes Aftermarket and Rentals
6306 N.Alpine Rd. Loves Park, IL 61111-7655 815.654.2501 aqua-aerobic.com
Copyright 2026,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc Printed:August 27,2026 Page 2 of 5
AQUA-AEROBIC
PROPOSAL DATE: August 27, 2026 Proposal#: 184875 A` SYSTEMS. I NC.
A Mmawat,.Company
shipment; no retainage allowed.
-Additional supervision services can be provided for an additional charge of$1750/day plus travel and living
expenses.
- Only the components specifically called out in this proposal will be replaced. All other parts will be reused. These
parts include, but are not limited to:
- Filter Tank
- Centertube
- Backwash Pump
- Backwash Valves and Actuators
- Backwash Nozzles and Weldments
- Filter Cloth Frames
- Influent and Effluent Weirs
- Backwash Weldments
- Control panel enclosure
- Starters
- Power Supplies
-Transformers
- Relays
- Fuses and Circuit Breakers
-Aqua field service personnel will complete wiring and terminations inside the control panel and start up the panel.
Any work or wiring outside of the panel is the responsibility of the purchaser. These include specifically the
pressure transducer and new vacuum transmitter.
- If the filters are connected to a plant wide control system and the controls are upgraded, then modifications to the
plant wide control system may be required to account for new PLC memory addresses in the AquaDisk filter
controls. Plant wiring changes may be required as well.
-TRADEMARKS: Aqua-Jet®Surface Mechanical Aerator,Aqua-Jet II®Contained Flow Aerator,AquaDDM®
Direct-drive Mixer, Endura®Series Limited Maintenance Product, OxyMix®Pure Oxygen Mixer, OxyStar®
Aspirating Aerator, Fold-a-Float®Self-Deploying Segmented Float, SAF-T-Float®Safe Accessible Float
Technology,TurboStar® Directional Mixer, DualStarTM Directional Mixer,Aqua MixAir®Aeration System,Aqua
CAM-D®Combination Aerator/Mixer/Decanter,AquaSBR®Sequencing Batch Reactor,AquaNereda®,Aqua
MSBR®Modified Sequencing Batch Reactor,AquaPASS®Phased Activated Sludge System,Aqua EnduraTube®
Fine-bubble Tube Diffuser,Aqua EnduraDisc®Fine-bubble Disc Diffuser,Aqua CB-24®Coarse-bubble Diffuser,
Aqua TruDenseTM True Densified Sequencing Batch Reactor, AquaDisk®Cloth Media Filter,AquaDiamond®Cloth
Media Filter,AquaDrum®Pressure Series Cloth Media Filter, Aqua MiniDisk®Cloth Media Filter,Aqua MegaDisk®
Cloth Media Filter,AquaPrime®Cloth Media Filter,AquaStorm®Cloth Media Filter, OptiComb®Backwash System,
OptiFiber®Cloth Filtration Media, OptiFiber PES-1 3®Cloth Filtration Media, OptiFiber PA2-12®Cloth Filtration
Media, OptiFiber PES-14®Cloth Filtration Media, OptiFiber PF-14®Cloth Filtration Media, OptiFiber UFS-9®Cloth
Filtration Media,AquaABF®Automatic Backwash Filter,AquaPRSTM PFAS Removal System,Aqua PR-206TM
PFAS Removal Sorbent,Aqua MultiBore®P-Series Polymeric Membrane System,Aqua MultiBore®C-Series
Ceramic Membrane System,AquaMB Process®Multiple-Barrier Membrane System,Aqua-Aerobic®MBR
Membrane Bioreactor System,Aqua ElectrOzone®F-Series Ozone Generator, IntelliPro®Monitoring and Control
System. The Aqua-Aerobic logo, registered trademarks and pending trademarks are the property of Aqua-Aerobic
Systems, Inc. Nereda®is a registered trademark of Royal HaskoningDHV. All other products and services
mentioned are trademarks of their respective owners.
GOODS QUOTED ABOVE WILL BE SOLD SUBJECT ONLY TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE SET
FORTH HEREIN. ANY DIFFERENT OR ADDITIONAL TERMS ARE HEREBY OBJECTED TO.
Total Price: $168311
Aeration and Mixing Biological Processes Filtration PFAS Solutions Ozone Systems Membranes Aftermarket and Rentals
6306 N.Alpine Rd. Loves Park, IL 61111-7655 815.654.2501 aqua-aerobic.com
Copyright 2026,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc Printed:August 27,2026 Page 3 of 5
AQUA-AEROBIC
PROPOSAL DATE: August 27, 2026 Proposal#: 184875 SYSTEMS. I NC.
A Melawale,Conpany
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS,INC.(A Metawater Company)
Page 1 of 2
This offer and all of the goods and sales of Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.are subject only to the following terms and conditions.The acceptance of any order resulting
from this proposal is based on the express condition that the Buyer agrees to all the terms and conditions herein contained. Any terms and conditions in any order,
which are in addition to or inconsistent with the following,shall not be binding upon Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.This proposal and any contract resulting therefrom,
shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois,without regard to conflicts of laws principles.Resale of any products purchased
from-Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc,is not permitted without prior written agreement with Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc expressly consenting to such resale.Any party
who sells a product purchased from Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc,is subject to the terms and conditions includedherein.
DURATION OF QUOTATION
This proposal of Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.shall in no event be effective more than 30 days from date thereof,unless specifically stated otherwise,and is subject to
change at any time prior to acceptance.
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION
This proposal,including all descriptive data,drawings,material,information and know-how disclosed by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.to Buyer in relation hereto is
confidential information intended solely for the confidential use of Buyer,shall remain the property of Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.and shall not be disclosed or
otherwise used to the disadvantage or detriment of Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.in any manner.
PAYMENT TERMS;ORDERS;
Unless specifically stated otherwise,quoted terms are Net 30 Days from invoice date.Past-due charges are 1.5%per month and will apply only on any past-due
balance.Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.does not allow retainage of any invoice amount,unless authorized in writing by an authorized representative of our Loves Park,
Illinois office.Terms of payment are within Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc's sole discretion,and unless otherwise agreed to by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc,payment terms
must be accepted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc prior to Aqua-Aerobic Systems'acceptance of an order.Payment for the products must be made by approved credit
card,check,wire transfer,or some other prearranged payment method unless credit terms have been agreed to by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.Invoices are due and
payable within the time period noted on the invoice,measured from the date of the invoice.Orders are not binding until accepted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.
SECURITY
If at any time the financial responsibility of the Buyer becomes unsatisfactory to Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.,or Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.otherwise deems itself
insecure as to receipt of full payment of the purchase price from Buyer hereunder,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.reserves the right to require payment in advance or
security or guarantee satisfactory to Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.of payment in full of the purchase price.
SHIPMENT
Shipping dates are not a guarantee of a particular day of shipment and are approximate,being based upon present production information,and are subject to change
per the production schedules existing at time of receipt of purchase order. Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.shall not be responsible for any delay in shipment for causes
beyond its control including,but not limited to,war,riots,strikes,labor trouble causing interruption of work,fires,other casualties,transportation delays,
modification of order,any act of governmental authorities or acts of God.Quoted shipment dates in this proposal are approximate dates goods will be shipped and,
unless agreed to in writing by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.,Buyer may not postpone or delay the dates of shipment of goods from our plant or from our supplier's
plants beyond the dates set forth in this proposal.Buyer is required to notify Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc within 7-days of any discrepancies with shipment.
SHIPPING CHARGES;TAXES and OTHER RELATED FEES.Separate fees for shipping and handling will be charged on all purchases unless specifically stated
otherwise.Prices quoted do not include any taxes,customs duties,or import fees.The Buyer is responsible for sales use and all other taxes and fees associated with the
purchase.If aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.is required by any taxing authority to collect or to pay any such tax,duty or fee,the Buyer shall be separately billed at such
time for the amounts Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc is required to pay
TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS
F.O.B.Destination-Delivery of goods to the destination shall be deemed delivery to the Buyer,and upon such delivery,title to such goods and risk of loss or damage
shall be upon Buyer.
F.O.B.Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc's plant at Loves Park,Illinois-Delivery of the goods sold hereunder to the carrier shall be deemed delivery to the
Buyer,and upon such delivery,title to such goods and risk of loss or damage shall be upon Buyer.
INSURANCE
Unless the goods are sold on a CIF basis,the Buyer shall provide marine insurance for all risks,including war and general coverage.Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc will
provide evidence of coverage upon request.At no time will Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc issue a certificate of insurance listing Buyer as additional insured unless under fully
executed contract and Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc is providing start-up services.
LIMITATION OF ACTION
No action shall be brought against Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.for any breach of its contract of sale more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action
thereof,and,in no event,unless the Buyer shall first have given written notice to Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.,of any claim of breach of contract within 30 days after
the discovery thereof.
CANCELLATION CLAUSE
No acceptance of this proposal,by purchase order or otherwise,may be modified except by written consent of Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.nor may it be canceled
except by prior payment to Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.the following sums as liquidated damages therefore:1)If cancellation is prior to commencement of production
and prior to the assumption of any obligations by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.for any materials or component parts,a sum equal to 15%of the total purchase price;2)
If cancellation is after the commencement of production or after the assumption of any obligations by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.for any materials or component
parts,a sum equal to the total of the direct,out-of-pocket expenses incurred to the date of cancellation for labor,machine time,materials and any charges made to us
by suppliers for cancellation,plus 30%of the total purchase price.All charges and expenses shall be as determined by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.In the event any
items are used by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.to fill a subsequent order,then upon receipt of payment for such order,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.shall pay the Buyer
a sum equal to the direct out-of-pocket expenses previously charged and received from Buyer.
Aeration and Mixing Biological Processes Filtration PFAS Solutions Ozone Systems Membranes Aftermarket and Rentals
6306 N.Alpine Rd. Loves Park, IL 61111-7655 815.654.2501 aqua-aerobic.com
Copyright 2026,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc Printed:August 27,2026 Page 4 of 5
PROPOSAL DATE: August 27, 2026 Proposal#: 184875 AQUA-
AEROBIC SYSTEMS, INC-
A Malawa1ar Company
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS,INC.(A Metawater Company)
Page 2 of 2
QUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE AND INDEMNITY
In the event the acceptance of this proposal by Buyer either is contingent upon or subject to the approval by any third party such as,but not limited to,a consulting
engineer,with respect to goods,parts,materials,descriptive data,drawings,calculations,or any other matter,then upon such approval by any third party,Aqua-
Aerobic Systems,Inc.shall have no liability to Buyer or to any third party so long as the goods sold and delivered by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.conform to this
proposal.In the event any such third party requires modifications in the proposal prior to the approval thereof,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.may at its sole option
and without liability to any party elect to cancel this proposal or return the purchase order to Buyer.In the event Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.elects to modify
this proposal to conform to the requirements for approval by any third party,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.in such event shall have no liability to Buyer or to any
third party so long as the goods sold and delivered by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.conform to this proposal as modified.
Buyer agrees to indemnify and save harmless Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.from and against all costs and expenses and liability of any kind whatsoever
arising out of or in connection with claims by third parties so long as the goods sold hereunder conform to the requirements ofthis proposal as approved by
anythirdparty.
WARRANTY;LIMITATION OF LIABILITY;AND DISCLAIMER
In return for purchase and full payment for Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.goods,we warrant new goods provided by us to be free from defects in materials and
workmanship under normal conditions and use for a period of one year from the date the goods are put into service,or eighteen months from date of shipment
(whichever first occurs). If the goods include an"Endura Series"motor,the complete Endura Series unit shall be warranted by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc to be
free from defects in materials and workmanship under normal conditions and use for three years from the date the product is put into service or 42 months from the
date of shipment(whichever occurs first).
OUR OBLIGATION UNDER THIS WARRANTY IS EXPRESSLY AND EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED to replacing or repairing(at our factory at Loves Park,
Illinois)any part or parts returned to our factory with transportation charges prepaid,and which our examination shall show to have been defective.Prior to return
of any goods or its parts to our factory,Buyer shall notify Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.of claimed defect,and
Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.shall have the privilege of examining the goods at Buyer's place of business or where the goods have otherwise been placed in service.
In the event this examination discloses no defect,Buyer shall have no authority to return the goods or parts to our factory for the further examination or repair.All
goods or parts shall be returned to Buyer,F.O.B.Loves Park,Illinois.This warranty shall not apply to any goods or part which has been repaired or altered outside
our factory,or applied,operated or installed contrary to our instruction,or subjected to misuse,chemical attack/degradation,negligence or accident.This
warranty and any warranty and guaranty of process or performance shall no longer be applicable or valid if any product,including any software program,
supplied by Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.,is modified or altered without the written approval ofAqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.Ourwarranty on accessories and
component parts not manufactured by us is expressly limited to that ofthemanufacturerthereof.
THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS MADE IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES,EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,AND OF ALL
OTHER LIABILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS ON OUR PART,INCLUDING ANY LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE,STRICT
LIABILITY,OR OTHERWISE;AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE IS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED;AND WE EXPRESSLY DENY THE RIGHT OF ANY OTHER PERSON TO INCUR OR
ASSUME FOR US ANY OTHER LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF ANY GOODS PROVIDED BY US.THERE
ARE NO WARRANTIES OR GUARANTEES OF PERFORMANCE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY STATED OTHERWISE.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES,INCLUDING ANY CLAIM OF NEGLIGENCE,STRICT LIABILITY,OR OTHERWISE,
SHALL AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS,INC.BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,COSTS
OF CONNECTING,DISCONNECTING,OR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE RESULTING FROM A DEFECT IN THE GOODS.
LIMIT OF LIABILITY:AQUA-AEROBIC SYSTEMS,INC.'S TOTAL LIABILITY UNDER THE ABOVE WARRANTY IS
LIMITED TO THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY DEFECTIVE PART.THE REMEDIES SET FORTH HEREIN ARE
EXCLUSIVE,AND OUR LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO ANY CONTRACT OR SALE,OR ANYTHING DONE IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH,WHETHER IN CONTRACT,IN TORT,UNDER ANY WARRANTY,OR OTHERWISE,SHALL
NOT,IN ANY CASE,EXCEED THE PRICE OF THE GOODS UPON WHICH SUCH LIABILITY IS BASED.
Final acceptance of this proposal must be given to Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.at their office in Loves Park,Illinois.Please acknowledge
acceptance by signing the proposal and returning it to Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc.
Accepted by: Offe spectfully Submitted,
Company:
Tomas Ma S Senior Sales Engineer
By: Date: Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc.
Aeration and Mixing Biological Processes Filtration PFAS Solutions Ozone Systems Membranes Aftermarket and Rentals
6306 N.Alpine Rd. Loves Park, IL 61111-7655 815.654.2501 aqua-aerobic.com
Copyright 2026,Aqua-Aerobic Systems,Inc Printed:August 27,2026 Page 5 of 5
North Bay Break Out Pricing Inclusive of Engineering, Freight, &Service
Centertube Assemblies $ 29,981
Backwash Assemblies $ 14,193
Vacuum Gauges/Transmitters $ 6,152
Float Switches $ 1,866
Pressure Transducers $ 5,945
Influent Valves $ 11,750
Spare Parts $ 23,243
Controls Upgrade (installed) $ 75,182
Total $ 168,311
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): September 14,2026 Agenda Date(s): September 29,2026
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:
GovQA Public Records Tracking System Cost Increase
Background/Executive Summary:
In 2021,approval was given to purchase and implement GovQA public records tracking software to
improve the manage of public records requests and align with the Sheriff's Office,which was using the
program at the time. Since then, GovQA has been maintained under an annual software contract that
renews each January. Over time,the cost of the software has increased, and Mason County is now
required to enter into a three year contract.
The 2026 contract price is $28,483.22. The anticipated annual prices of the three-year contract are as
follows:
2027 - $29,400.08
2028 - $32,340.09
2029 - $35,574.10
Associated Costs/Budget Impact(amount, funding source,budget amendment, etc.):
N/A
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Approval for the County Administrator to sign the three-year GovQA software contract for continued use
of the public records tracking system.
Attachment(s):
2026 Contract Invoice
2027-2029 Three-Year Contract
GRAN I CU S Invoice
Date 12/31/2025 invoice# 222329
Terms Net 30 Due Date 01/30/2026
A.O.Number:
Payments via check can be Payments via ACH can be
directed to: directed to:
Granicus LLC Bank Name:JPMorgan Chase
Dept#880806 Bank
PO Box 29650 Account Name:Granicus,LLC
Phoenix,AZ 55038-9650 Routing#:102001017
Account#:678717375
Bill To �.Sold To
Mason County WA Mason County WA
411 N 5th Street,STE 1 411 N 5th Street,STE I
Shelton WA 98584 Shelton WA 98584
United States United States
Term Start Term End Tax
Description Date Date Tax Rate Amount Amount
FOIA Module Non Enterprise 01/01/2026 12/31/2026 8.90% $1547.70 $17,389.91
Hosted Data Storage(TB) 01/01/2026 12/31/2026 0.00% $0.00 $6,998.40
WA State JLARC Reporting 01/01/2026 12/31/2026 8.90% $208.17 $2,339.03
}
Subtotal $26,727.34
TaxTotal $1,755.88
Total $28,483.22
Amount Paid $0.00
Amount Due _$2a,483.22 USD
50 p . 0oonop. ODD . Duo • t5l� • o • 6+ti oIo.
For any questions about your invoice, please contact
us at AR@granicus.com or 1-800-314-0147
Thank you for your.business
I of I
G GRAN ICUS
THIS IS NOT AN INVOICE Order Form
Prepared for
Mason County, WA
Granicus Proposal for Mason County, WA
ORDER DETAILS
Prepared By: Andi Vargas
Phone:
Email: andi.vargas@granicus.com
Order#: Q-568736
Prepared On: 04 Sep 2026
Expires On: 31 Dec 2026
ORDER TERMS
Currency: USD
Payment Terms: Net 30 (Payments for subscriptions are due at the beginning of the period of
performance.)
Current Subscription
End Date: 31 Dec 2026
Initial Order Term End
Date: 31 Dec 2029
Period of Performance: 01 Jan 2027-31 Dec 2027
Order #: Q-568736
Prepared: 04 Sep 2026
Page 1 of 7
G GRAN ICUS Order Form
Mason County, WA
PRICING SUMMARY
The pricing and terms within this Proposal are specific to the products and volumes contained within this
Proposal.
• Once purchased data storage has been exceeded, data storage is billed in increments of ITB over
the purchased data storage amounts herein and will be assessed an additional annual fee of
$1,200.00 and billed in arrears. Storage is reviewed annually and is adjusted at the next annual
renewal. Throughout the term of the contract Mason County, WA is able to contact Granicus for a
report on how much storage has been used.
Renewing Subscription Fees
Solution Billing Quantity/Unit Annual Fee
Frequency
Advanced Email Tracking Annual 1 Each $0.00
Hosted Data Storage (TB) Annual 5 Each $7,698.25
FOIA Module Non Enterprise Annual 1 Each $19,128.90
Fortress Hosting Annual 1 Each $0.00
Hosted Data Storage (TB) Annual 1 Each $0.00
WA State JLARC Reporting Annual 1 Each $2,572.93
SUBTOTAL: $29,400.08
Order #: Q-568736
Prepared: 04 Sep 2026
Page 2 of 7
G GRANICUS
Order Form
Mason County, WA
FUTURE YEAR PRICING
Period of Performance
Solution(s)
O1 Jan 2028 - 31 Dec 2028 01 Jan 2029 - 31 Dec 2029
Advanced Email Tracking $0.00 $0.00
Hosted Data Storage (TB)
$8,468.08 $9,314.88
FOIA Module Non Enterprise $21,041.79 $23,145.97
Fortress Hosting
$0.00 $0.00
Hosted Data Storage (TB)
$0.00 $0.00
WA State JLARC Reporting
$2,830.22 $3,113.25
SUBTOTAL: $32,340.09 $35,574.10
Order #: Q-568736
Prepared: 04 Sep 2026
Page 3 of 7
G GRANICUS Order Form
Mason County, WA
PRODUCT UPDATES
FOR INFORMATION ON RECENT AND UPCOMING PRODUCT ENHANCEMENTS ACROSS THE GRANICUS
PORTFOLIO, PLEASE REFER TO THE SEMIANNUAL UPDATE INFORMATION ON THIS WEBPAGE:
: HTTPS://GRANICUS.COM/SEMIANNUAL-UPDATES/
PRODUCT DESCRIPTIONS
Solution Description
Advanced Email Tracking Advanced Email Tracking
Hosted Data Storage (TB) A secure, cloud-based repository for storing documents related to records
requests, designed to meet public sector compliance standards while
ensuring dependable access and retention.
FOIA Module Non Enterprise A centralized public records request management and tracking platform
which includes:
A branded public portal for request intake with a patented, request
deflection technology option
Automated date calculation that uses public records law and organization
work schedules to calculate request due dates
Highly configurable workflow rules to automate request processing tasks
Request tracking with monitoring tool, configurable escalations, and a
complete audit trail
A robust reporting suite
Fortress Hosting Legacy- Fortress Hosting
Hosted Data Storage (TB) A secure, cloud-based repository for storing documents related to records
requests, designed to meet public sector compliance standards while
ensuring dependable access and retention.
WA State JLARC Reporting WA State JLARC Reporting
Order #: Q-568736
Prepared: 04 Sep 2026
Page 4 of 7
G GRAN ICUS Order Form
Mason County, WA
TERMS & CONDITIONS
• This quote, and all products and services delivered hereunder are governed by the terms located at
https://granicus.com/legal/licensing, including any product-specific terms included therein (the "License
Agreement"). If your organization and Granicus has entered into a separate agreement or is utilizing a
contract vehicle for this transaction,the terms of the License Agreement are incorporated into such separate
agreement or contract vehicle by reference,with any directly conflicting terms and conditions being resolved
in favor of the separate agreement or contract vehicle to the extent applicable.
• If submitting a Purchase Order, please include the following language:The pricing,terms and conditions of
quote Q-568736 dated 04 Sep 2026 are incorporated into this Purchase Order by reference and shall take
precedence over any terms and conditions included in this Purchase Order.
• This quote is exclusive of applicable state, local,and federal taxes,which,if any,will be included in the invoice.
It is the responsibility of Mason County, WA to provide applicable exemption certificate(s).
• Any lapse in payment may result in suspension of service and will require the payment of a setup fee to
reinstate the subscription.
• Al SYSTEM USAGE: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any contract between Client and Granicus,
Client's use of Al functionality contained in any Granicus product or service will be subject to the terms set forth
in the Al Addendum located here: https://granicus.com/wp-content/uploads/AI-Functionality-All-
Products.pdf Any conflict between the terms of the contract and the Al Addendum will be resolved in favor of
the Addendum. If Client is not willing or able to accept the terms set forth in the Addendum, Client is not
permitted to access or use any Al functionality absent separate written agreement between Client and
Granicus.
Tier Low High
Annual 1 0 99
Request 2 100 299
Volume 3 300 499
(ARV) 4 500 999
5 1,000 2,499
6 2,500 4,999
7 5,000 7,499
8 7,500 10,000
Subsequent tiers 2,500
Client will be renewed in the ARV tiers specified in the table above for use of Records Requests products (i.e.,
GovQA) based on the actual Request Volumes available in the Client's production environment from beginning
Order #: Q-568736
Prepared: 04 Sep 2026
Page 5 of 7
G GRAN ICUS Order Form
Mason County, WA
of the current Term up to the provision of a renewal quote projected as an ARV.
If less than six (6) months of Request Volume data is available, client will be renewed at the same tier as the
previous Term.
Order #: Q-568736
Prepared: 04 Sep 2026
Page 6 of 7
G GRANICUS
Order Form
Mason County, WA
BILLING INFORMATION
Billing Contact: Purchase Order [ ] - No
Required? [ ] -Yes
Billing Address: PO Number:
_ If PO required
Billing Email: Billing Phone:
If submitting a Purchase Order, please include the following language:
The pricing, terms, and conditions of quote O-568736 dated 04 Sep 2026 are incorporated into this Purchase
Order by reference and shall take precedence over any terms and conditions included in this Purchase Order.
AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE
By signing this document, the undersigned certifies they have authority to enter the agreement. The
undersigned also understands the services and terms.
Mason County, WA
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Order #: Q-568736
Prepared: 04 Sep 2026
Page 7 of 7
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
issa
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Michael Collins,PLS, PE, County Ext• 450
Engineer
Department: Public Works Briefing: ❑x
Action Agenda: ❑x
Public Hearing: ❑x
Special Meeting: ❑
Briefing Date(s): September 21,2026 Agenda Date(s): September 29, 2026- Set
Hearing, October 27, 2026-Hearing
Internal Review: ❑ Finance ❑ Human Resources ❑x Legal ❑ IT El Risk El Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item: CRP 2062 Evergreen Estates Water Main Extension—Project Closeout
Background/Executive Summary:
This project was to replace an existing community well-water system with a new connection to City of Shelton
water system.The purpose and need for the proposal were to alleviate elevated nitrate concerns and provide
for a clean,consistent water supply for the Evergreen Estates community.The project expanded the City's
water system with a new water main and associated connections to integrate the existing Evergreen Estates
community water system.
HCON Incorporated was awarded the contract at bid amount$298,740.25,final contract amount$328,588.28.
HCON Incorporated completed the project on June 11,2026.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact:
The project was fully grant funded,with a total project budget of$551,764.Approximately$422,866 is
estimated to have been expended.The estimated remaining balance of$128,898 will be returned to CDBG.
Public Outreach:
Hearing notice will be published in the Shelton Journal.
Requested Action:
Requesting the Board to authorize the following actions:
1. September 29,2026,Regular Agenda:
• Schedule public hearing for October 27,2026,at 9:15 AM to review final project performance
for CRP 2062 Evergreen Estates Water Main Extension.
2. October 27,2026,Public Hearing,adopt resolution to approve the:
• Final project performance for CRP 2062 Evergreen Estates Water Main Extension.
Attachment(s):
1. Notice of Hearing
2. Resolution for Project Closeout
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Mason County Commissioners will
hold a public hearing in the Commissioners Chambers of Mason County Courthouse Building I,
411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, Washington 98584 and live stream at http://masonwebtv.com/on
Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 9:15am.
SAID HEARING will be to review final project performance on County Road Project
(CRP) 2062 Evergreen Estates Water Main Extension on Blevins Road North, funded by
Community Development Block Grant(CDBG).
Public testimony will be available in-person or via Zoom. The URL is available on the County
website https://www.masoncountvwa.gov/ to sign into the meeting. Please use the "raise hand"
feature to be recognized by the Chair to provide your testimony. You can also email testimony to
msmith(2i,masoncountywa.gov or mail to the Commissioners' Office, 411 N 5th St, Shelton, WA
98584; or call(360)427-9670 ext. 230.
If special accommodations are needed,please contact the Commissioners' office,
(360)427-9670 ext. 419.
DATED this day of , 2026.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board
Bill: Mason County
Department of Public Works
100 W Public Works Drive
Shelton,WA 98584
cc: Commissioners
Community Development
Public Works
Shelton Journal: Publ.2t: 10/8/26&10/15/26
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
APPROVING FINAL PROJECT PERFORMAND AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
CLOSEOUT FOR COUNTY ROAD PROJECT 2062 -EVERGREEN ESTATES WATER
MAIN EXTENSION
WHEREAS, Mason County received Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)
funding for County Road Project(CRP) 2062—Evergreen Estates Water Main Extension on
Blevin Road North; and,
WHEREAS, the project replaced the existing Evergreen Estates community well-water
system with a connection to the City of Shelton water system to address elevated nitrate concerns
and provide a reliable water supply to the community; and,
WHEREAS, HCON Incorporated was awarded the contraction contract in the amount of
$298,740.25, with a final contract amount of$328,588.28, and completed the project on Jun 11,
2026; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the 27th day
of October 2026, to review final project performance and receive public testimony; and,
WHEREAS, the required Contract Closeout Report has been completed and ready to be
submitted to satisfy CDBG closeout requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the Board of Mason County
Commissioners that the final performance of CRP 2062 —Evergreen Estates Water Main
Extension is hereby approved and accepted, and the project is authorized to proceed to final
CDBG closeout.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that County staff are authorized to complete and
submit any remaining documentation necessary to formally close out the project.
ADOPTED this day of , 2026.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
Pat Tarzwell, Chair
McKenzie Smith, Clerk of the Board
Randy Neatherlin, Vice Chair
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Vacant, Commissioner District 3
Tim Whitehead, Ch. D.P.A.
Cc: Cmmr
Public Works
Community Development
County Road Admin.Board
WSDOT
Washington State
Department of
Ve Commerce
Community Development Block Grant
CONTRACT CLOSE OUT REPORT— CONSTRUCTION
1. Contract Number: 22-62210-024
2. Grantee Jurisdiction: Mason County
3. Chief Administrative Official and Title: Pat Tarzwell, Chair, Board of County Commissioners
4. CDBG Contract End Date or Project Completion Date:June 11, 2026
5. Final Public Hearing Date: October 27, 2026
6. Brief project summary and results achieved:
This project was to replace an existing community well-water system with a new connection to City of
Shelton water system. The purpose and need for the proposal were to alleviate elevated nitrate concerns
and provide for a clean, consistent water supply for the Evergreen Estates community.The project
expanded the City's water system with a new water main and associated connections to integrate the
existing Evergreen Estates community water system.
® Project photos have been submitted to your CDBG project manager.
7. Physical address of the project/activity(s): NE Blevins Road,Shelton, WA 98584
The chief administrative official of the grantee jurisdiction certifies that:
1. The financial information and data provided in this report is accurate as of the signature date indicated
below.
2. The project was completed in accordance with the grant contract and scope of work.
3. A final public hearing was conducted to assess project performance.
4. Records supporting the information provided in this report will be maintained for a minimum of six(6)
years from final close out and made available upon request.
5. The CDBG Program can use or reproduce all media material provided by the grantee.
In the event audits disclose disallowable costs,the Washington State Department of Commerce shall retain the
right to recover an appropriate amount of costs after fully considering the recommendations on disallowed
costs resulting from the final audit.
Signature:
Chief Administrative Official Date
I
January 2026
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Budget Summary
HUD IDIS Activity Number,
Budget Code and Description CDBG Expenditures
IDIS Activity# Budget Code and Description Budget Amount Funds Expended Balance*
8679 03J Water System $551,764 $422,866 $128,898
Improvements
Total Project $551,764 $422,866 $128,898
*Any dollar amount reflected in the Total CDBG Balance column will be de-obligated and returned to the
CDBG Program.
LABOR STANDARDS REPORTING
Did any contractors have to correct certified payrolls and provide wage restitution due to worker
underpayments?
Using the Labor Standards Compliance Report on the next page, list all underpayments
❑ Yes for this project. For underpayments greater than $999.99 per contractor, contact your
CDBG project manager for additional steps.
® No Complete certification below
I certify to the best of my knowledge that all laborers and mechanics employed on this
construction contract were paid in accordance with the labor standard provisions.
V l 2Z 2'D 2-U'
Signature: Date:
Name and Title: Kobree Glaser, Engineering& Construction Assistant Manager
2
January 2026
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners
From: Kim Monroe Ext. 422
Department: Human Resources Briefing: N
Action Agenda: N
Public Hearing: El
Special Meeting: El
Briefing Date(s): 9/28/2026 Agenda Date: 10/6/2026
Internal Review: N Finance N Human Resources N Legal El Information Technology N Risk
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Below for Clerk of the Board's Use Only:
Item Number:
Approved: El Yes El No El Tabled El No Action Taken
Ordinance/Resolution No. Contract No. County Code:
Item:
Approval to set an Agenda Item on the October 6, 2026 to increase the 2027 non-represented medical
contribution by$52 per month,from$1,622 per month to$1,674 per month and to adopt County's 2027 health
insurance contributions set forth below. RCW 3.16.070 states that the Board of County Commissioners shall
fix the compensation of all employees.
Contribution of$1,674 per month, per employee(2027 rate):
MEDICAL- It is recommended that the Board adopt,effective January 1, 2027,the County's health insurance
contribution rates for Elected Officials, eligible Non-Represented Employees, and any Collective Bargaining
Agreements (Community & Family Health, Public Defenders, Probation, Prosecutors Support Staff, Public
Defense Support Staff,Sheriffs Office Lieutenants Guild, Deputy Prosecutors and General Services)in place
and ratified on January 1, 2027, who participate in PEBB medical and utilizing the pooling method, and
resulting in a distribution as follows:
$1179.04 per month FULL PKG PEBB per Employee for those individuals enrolled in PEBB medical as an
employee only (no dependent coverage). This contribution also covers dental, vision, and basic life
insurance.
$1,225.60 per month per Employee for those individuals enrolled in PEBB medical ONLY WCIF DVL as an
employee only (no dependent coverage).
$2,129.89 per month per Employee for those individuals enrolled in PEBB medical as an employee with one
or more dependents. This contribution also covers dental, vision, and basic life insurance.
Background/Executive Summary:
$52 medical increase for Elected Officials and Non-Represented employees maintains parity with
recommended increases proposed for the members of the current Collective Bargaining Agreements within
the County
Budget Impact(amount, funding source, budget amendment):
2027 Budget
Public Outreach (news release, community meeting, etc.):
NIA
Requested Action:
Approval places an amendment to resolution 2025-068 on the October 6, 2026, action for the County's
2027 health insurance contributions to the following:
Effective January 1, 2027, for participants of the PEBB Medical program, which allocates through the pooling
method, $1,179.04 per month County contribution for employees with single enrollments on medical,
$1,179.04 per month County contribution for employees with single enrollments on medical,and $2,129.89
with dependent enrollments, for Teamsters Probation, Community & Family Health, Non-Represented,
Elected Officials, Sheriff's Lieutenants Guild, Public Defenders, Prosecutors Support Staff, Public Defense
Support Staff, Deputy Prosecutors and General Services
Attachments:
Resolution
Pooling Calculation Details
PEBB Medical Premium charts
K.ABOCC Briefing-Action Agendas -Resolutions\Resolutions\Medical Health and WelfareA2027\2027 Medical Rates Briefing.Agenda cover.docx
Resolution No.
AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 2025-068 DETERMINING THE COUNTY'S
2027 HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS
WHEREAS,RCW 36.40.080 states that the Board of County Commissioners shall fix and
determine each item of the budget separately and shall by resolution adopt the budget; and
WHEREAS,RCW 36.16.070 states that the Board shall fix the benefit compensation of all
employees; and
WHEREAS,the Board has determined that the County's contribution towards health insurance
premiums for Elected Officials, eligible non-represented employees, shall increase by$52 per month for a
total contribution of$1,674(One thousand six hundred and seventy-four dollars)per month, effective
January 1,2027; and
WHEREAS,the Board has determined the County's contribution towards health insurance
premiums for Elected Officials, eligible non-represented employees,and those members of the Collective
Bargaining Agreements who participate in PEBB medical insurance to utilize the pooling method; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the Board of County Commissioners of Mason
County hereby effective January 1,2027,for Elected Officials,eligible non-represented employees, and
the following Collective Bargaining Agreements who participate in PEBB: Teamsters Community&
Family Health, General Services,Probation, Prosecutor's Support Staff, and IAM Woodworkers Public
Defense Support Staff, Sheriff's Lieutenants Guild,Public Defenders,Deputy Prosecutors and General
Services utilizing a pooling method to allocate contributions to be resulting in a distribution as follows:
• $1179.04 per month FULL PKG PEBB per Employee for those individuals enrolled in PEBB
medical as an employee only(no dependent coverage). This contribution also covers dental,
vision, and basic life insurance.
• $1,225.60 per month per Employee for those individuals enrolled in PEBB medical ONLY
WCIF DVL as an employee only(no dependent coverage).
• $2,129.89 per month per Employee for those individuals enrolled in PEBB medical as an
employee with one or more dependents. This contribution also covers dental,vision, and basic
life insurance.
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 Whitehead,Chief Deputy Prosecuting
Vacant,Commissioner District 3 Attorney
GENERAL SERVICES AND DEPUTY PROSECUTORS
PEBB-Medical Benefits&WCIF-Dental Vision Life and AD&D 2027
The County premium contribution using the pooling method,effective January 1,2027 by Resolution 2026-xx-All pooled @ 2027 rate of$1,674
Copays Annual Deductibles Max out-of-pocket I Employee I EE/Spouse I EE/Children I Full Family
Kaiser Permanente WA CLASSIC PREMIUM $1,067.49 $2,062.00 $1,813.37 $2,807.88
$15 Primary Care $175/Person $2,000/Person WCIF DENTAL VISION LIFE $157.13 $157.13 $157.13 $157.13
$30 Specialist $525/Family $4,000/Family PREMIUM TOTAL $1,224.62 $2,219.13 $1,970.50 $2,965.01
COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,225.60 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE I $89.24 I NONE $835.12
Kaiser Permanente WA PREMIUM $1,064.48 $2,055.98 $1,808.11 $2,799.61
VALUE $30 Primary Care $250/Person $3,000/Person WCIF DENTAL VISION LIFE $157.13 $157.13 $157.13 $157.13
$50 Specialist $750/Family $6,000/Family PREMIUM TOTAL $1,221.61 $2,213.11 $1,965.24 $2,956.74
COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,225.60 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE I $83.22 I NONE $826.85
Kaiser Permanente WA PREMIUM $972.00 $1,869.86 $1,659.98 $2,499.51
CDHP 10%/Primary Care $1,650/Person $5,100/Person WCIF DENTAL VISION LIFE $157.13 $157.13 $157.13 $157.13
10%Specialist $3,300/Family $10,200/Family PREMIUM TOTAL $1,129.13 $2,026.99 $1,817.11 $2,656.64
COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,225.60 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE NONE NONE $526.75
Kaiser Permanente WA PREMIUM $1,068.47 $2,063.96 $1,815.09 $2,810.58
SOUND CHOICE 0 Primary Care $125/Person $2,000/Person WCIF DENTAL VISION LIFE $157.13 $157.13 $157.13 $157.13
15%Specialist $375 Family $4,000/Family PREMIUM TOTAL $1,225.60 $2,221.09 $1,972.22 $2,967.71
(Must live or work in Snohomish,King, COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,225.60 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
Pierce or Thurston County) EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE I $91.20 I $837.82
IJll as] 1I • ' •
Uniform Medical Plan Classic PREMIUM $1,062.06 $2,051.14 $1,803.87 $2,792.95
15%Primary Care $250/Person $2,000/Person WCIF DENTAL VISION LIFE $157.13 $157.13 $157.13 $157.13
15%Specialist $750/Family $4,000/Family PREMIUM TOTAL $1,219.19 $2,208.27 $1,961.00 $2,950.08
COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,225.60 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE $820.19
Uniform Medical Plan Select PREMIUM $999.26 $1,925.54 $1,693.97 $2,620.25
20%Primary Care $750/Person $3,500/Person WCIF DENTAL VISION LIFE $157.13 $157.13 $157.13 $157.13
20%Specialist $2,250/Family $7,000/Family PREMIUM TOTAL $1,156.39 $2,082.67 $1,851.10 $2,777.38
COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,225.60 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE NONE NONE $647.49
Uniform Medical Plan CDHP PREMIUM $978.29 $1,882.44 $1,670.99 $2,516.81
15%Primary Care $1,650/Person $4,200/Person WCIF DENTAL VISION LIFE $157.13 $157.13 $157.13 $157.13
15%Specialist $3,300/Family $8,400/Family PREMIUM TOTAL $1,135.42 $2,039.57 $1,828.12 $2,673.94
COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,225.60 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE NONE • NONE $544.05
Tobacco Use Surcharge $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00
Spouse Waiver Premium Surcharge $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00
Waived Medical Surcharge $183.55
DENTAL •VISION LIFE and AD&D
Delta Dental Plan D Monthly premium reduced by $0.10 Basic$24K IDependent Life $1K I AD&D$5K
W CI F Willamette(Managed Care&their facilities) May enroll in optional/voluntary life within 31 days of initial eligibility for
VSP$175 Frame Allowance WCIF enefts.After 31 days must also complete Evidence of Insurability
form.
COMMUNITY FAMILY HEALTH,ELECTED OFFICIALS, NON REPRESENTED,PUBLIC DEFENDERS,PROBATION,
PROSECUTORS SUPPORT STAFF,PUBLIC DEFENDERS SUPPORT STAFF and MCSO LT's
PEBB-Medical-Dental-Vision-Life-AD&D-LTD 2027
The County premium contribution using the pooling method,effective January 1,2027 by Resolution 2026-xx-All pooled @ 2027 rate of$1,674
opays Annual Deductibles Max out-of-pocket I Employee I EE/Spouse I EE/Children Full Family
Kaiser Permanente WA PREMIUM $1,178.06 $2,172.57 $1,923.94 $2,918.45
CLASSIC $15 Primary Care $175/Person $2,000/Person COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,179.04 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
$30 Specialist $525/Family $4,000/Family IEMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) I NONE I $42.68 I NONE I $788.56
Kaiser Permanente WA PREMIUM $1,175.05 $2,166.55 $1,918.68 $2,910.18
VALUE $30 Primary Care $250/Person $3,000/Person COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,179.04 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
$50 Specialist $750/Family $6,000/Family IEMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) I NONE I $36.66 I NONE I $780.29
Kaiser Permanente WA PREMIUM $1,082.57 $1,980.43 $1,770.55 $2,610.08
CDHP 10%/PrimaryCare $1,650/Person $5,100/Person COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,179.04 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
10%Specialist $3,300/Family $10,200/Family IEMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE I NONE I NONE I $480.19
Kaiser Permanente WA PREMIUM $1,179.04 $2,174.53 $1,925.66 $2,921.15
SOUND CHOICE 0 PrimaryCare $125/Person $2,000/Person COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,179.04 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
(Must live or work in Snohomish,King, 15%Specialist $375 Family $4,000/Family EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE $44.64 NONE $791.26
Pierce or Thurston County)
Uniform Medical Plan Classic PREMIUM $1,172.63 $2,161.71 $1,914.44 $2,903.52
15%PrimaryCare $250/Person $2,000/Person COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,179.04 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
15%Specialist $750/Family $4,000/Family EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) I NONE $31.82 NONE I $773.63
Uniform Medical Plan Select PREMIUM $1,109.83 $2,036.11 $1,804.54 $2,730.82
20%PrimaryCare $750/Person $3,500/Person COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,179.04 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
20%Specialist $2,250/Family $7,000/Family EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) NONE NONE I NONE $600.93
Uniform Medical Plan CDHP PREMIUM $1,088.86 $1,993.01 $1,781.56 $2,627.38
15%PrimaryCare $1,650/Person $4,200/Person COUNTY POOLED CONTRIBUTION $1,179.04 $2,129.89 $2,129.89 $2,129.89
15%Specialist $3,300/Family $8,400/Family EMPLOYEE PAYS(Payroll Deduction) I NONE I NONE NONE $497.49
Tobacco Use Surcharge $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00
Spouse Waiver Premium Surcharge $0.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00
Medical Waived$183.55
DENTAL Deductibles Max out-of-pocket VISION OPTIONS BASIC LIFE I AD&D Insurance I LTD
Uniform Dental Group#3000 You pay amounts over Davis Vision by MetLife Basic Life $35,000 Basic AD&D $5,000
$50/Person$150/Family
Delta Dental PPO $1,750 May enroll in supplemental Term Life Insurance without providing evidence of
insurability if enrolled no later than 60 days after becoming eligible.
Delta Care Group#3100 NONE No General Plan EyeMed
Managed care w/limited dentists Maximum VTL-Self pay-you receive bill at home-Administered by MetLife
Willamette Dental(Group WA82) No General Plan MetLife Vision-Default Plan
NONE Maximum May enroll in optionafvoluntary life within 31 days of initial eligibility for PEBB
Managed care&their facilities benefits.After 31 days must also complete Evidence of Insurability form.
PEBB
Effective January 1,2027 County Pooling Contribution Calculations
NON-REPRESENTED,ELECTED OFFICIALS,GENERAL SERVICES,PROBATION,COMMUNITY FAMILY HEALTH,DEPUTY PROSECUTORS,PUBLIC DEFENDERS,PROSECUTORS CLERICAL,PUBLIC DEFENSE
SUPPORT STAFF AND MCSO LT'S
Counts as of 9.11.2026
2027 Contribution per Employee-Probation&Public Defenders
Com Family Health,Elected Officials,Non-Rep,Deputy Prosecutors $1,674.00 minus $1,179.04 Highest Employee only premium = $494.96
and Prosecutors Clerical,MCSO LT's
2027 Contribution per Employee-General Services and Deputy _
Prosecutor $1,674.00 minus $1,225.60 Highest Employee only premium - $448.40
2027 Contribution per Employee-Probation&Public Defenders
Com Family Health,Elected Officials,Non-Rep,Prosecutors $494.96 X 46 Employee only premiums = $22,768.16
Clerical,MCSO LT's
2027 Contribution per Employee-General Services and Deputy $448.40 X 34 Employee only premiums = $15,245.60
Prosecutors
1 Medical Waiver $1,674.00 minus $183.55 PEBB dental,vision,life only amount = $1,490.45
2 Medical Waiver $1,674.00 minus $183.55 PEBB dental,vision,life only amount = $1,490.45
3 Medical Waiver $1,674.00 minus $183.55 PEBB dental,vision,life only amount = $1,490.45
4 Medical Waiver $1,674.00 minus $183.55 PEBB dental,vision,life only amount = $1,490.45
5 Medical Waiver $1,674.00 minus $183.55 PEBB dental,vision,life only amount = $1,490.45
6 Medical Waiver $1,674.00 minus $183.55 PEBB dental,vision,life only amount = $1,490.45
Total pooling per month for dependent coverage = $46,956.46
$46,956.46 divided by 103 Employee+Dependent Coverages = $455.89
2027 Contribution per Employee-Probation&Public Defenders
Com Family Health,Elected Officials,Non-Rep,&Deputy $1,674.00 + $455.89 Pooling amount per Employee+Dependent Coverages = $2,129.89
Prosecutors and Prosecutors Clerical
2027 Contribution per Employee-General Services and Deputy $1,674.00 + _
Prosecutors $455.89 Pooling amount per Employee+Dependent Coverages $2,129.89
Full Pkg County Contribution for Employee only Coverage = $1,179.04
Med Only County Contribution for Employee only Coverage = $1,225.60
Monthly #Months Annual Indiv
Premium Premium
2027 Contribution per Employee-Probation&Public Defenders
Com Family Health,Elected Officials,Non-Represented,&Deputy $2,129.89 12 $25,558.66
Prosecutors and Prosecutors Clerical
2027 Contribution per Employee-General Services and Deputy $2,129.89 12 $25,558.66
Prosecutors
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners
Item No.
From: CHARLES G. RHODES
344
Department: Clerk
Briefing: 01
Action Agenda: ►•
Public Hearing: •
Special Meeting: ■
Briefing Date(s): 09/28/2026
Agenda Date(s): 09/29/2026
Internal Review: 88 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: WSP GRANT AWARD: FY25NCHIP
Background/Executive Summary: IN AN EFFORT TO SECURE FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE
DIGITIZING OF LEGACY RECORDS, THE CLERK'S OFFICE PURSUED THE FY25NCHIP
GRANT AS A SOURCE OF OUTSIDE FUNDING. IN SEPTEMBER 2026, THE CLERK'S
OFFICE WAS SELECTED AS A SUBRECIPIENT FOR THE PURSUED FUNDS.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact (amount, funding source, budget amendment, etc.):
97,878.32
Public Outreach:
Requested Action:
TO APPROVE CHARLES G. RHODES, MASON COUNTY CLERK TO SIGN AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF PUBLIC AGENCY
Attachment(s):
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
FEDERAL GRANT SUBRECIPIENT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Contract Summary
WSP Agreement No.
K22976
Subrecipient No.
FEDERAL GRANT
Federal Grant Award Name:
FY25 NCHIP �
ALN Number(s):
16.554
Award Year:
2025
Award Number:
15PBJS-25-GK-02288-
MUMU
Award Date:
6/1/2026
Award Amount
$2,860,071.00
Performance Period
7/1/2026-12/31/2028
Is the Public
assistance
Agency a subrecipient of federal
for the purposes of this agreement?
Is this agreement funded
research and development?
❑ Yes
by
a federal award for
No
SUBRECIPIENT
DETAILS
Public Agency Name:
Mason Co Superior Court
Statewide Vendor Registration Number:
Location Address:
419 N 4th St Shelton, 98584-3419
Mailing Address (if different from location address):
411 N 5th St, Shelton, 98584-3466
Contact Name: Catherine Reed
Universal Entity Identifier (UEI):
Contact Telephone: 360-427-9670 ext. 347
Contact E-mail: creedmasoncountywa.qov
Additional Public Agency Contact Name:
Travis Adams
Additional E-mail Address:
tadamsmasoncountywa.gov
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL PROJECT MANAGER
WSP Project Manager Name and Title:
Deborah Collinsworth Assistant Division Commander
WSP Project Manager Address:
106 11'h Ave SW OLYMPIA, WA 98501
Telephone:
(360) 534-2102
E-mail Address:
deborah.collinsworthAwsp.wa.gov
WASHINGTON STATE PATROL CONTRACT PROFESSIONAL
Contract Professional Name and Title:
Adam Vigil
WSP Budget and Fiscal Services
PO Box 42602, Olympia WA 98504-2602
Telephone: 360-790-4202
E-mail Address: adam.Vigil@wsp.wa_gov
SUBAWARD DETAILS
Start Date: 7/1/2026
End Date:
12/31/2028
Maximum Expenditure Amount: $97,878.32
This Agreement, including the attached Terms and Conditions and any other documents incorporated by reference contain
all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings or representations, oral or otherwise,
regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be deemed to exist or bind the parties. The parties signing below
warrant that they have read and understand this Agreement and have the authority to enter into this Agreement.
FOR THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL:
FOR THE PUBLIC AGENCY:
WSP Signature Date
Digitally signed by Abigail
Abigail Snyder, Acting Snyder, Acting Chief Contracts
Public Agency Signature
�- Date
Chief Contracts Officer officer
Date: 2026.09.16 13:30:14 -07 00
.; — 0/,.)--)
Printed Name and Title'rinted
For: John R. Batiste, Chief
me nd .- itle—�'
Charles G. Rhodes, Mason County Clerk
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Template
GENERAL 12/9/10
Page 1 of 10
WSP Contract No. K22976
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit A
Terms and Conditions
1. Definitions.
"Agreement" means this Federal grant subrecipient agreement, including all documents attached or
incorporated by reference.
"Equipment" means an article of nonexpendable, tangible personal property having a useful life of more
than one year and an acquisition cost which equals the lesser of (a) the capitalization level established by
the governmental unit for financial statement purposes, or (b) $10,000.
"Federal Granting Agency" means the federal agency that has granted the funds to WSP.
"Public Agency" means the entity performing services to this Agreement and includes the Public Agency's
officers, directors, trustees, employees and/or agents unless otherwise stated in this Agreement. For the
purposes of this agreement, the Public Agency shall not be considered an employee or agent of WSP.
"WSP" means the State of Washington, Washington State Patrol, and its officers, directors, trustees,
employees and/or agents.
2. Entirety of Agreement. This agreement consists of the following:
a. Contract Summary
b. Exhibit A, Terms and Conditions
c. Exhibit B, Statement of Work
d. Exhibit C, Special Terms and Conditions
3. Statement of Work. The Public Agency shall perform the services as set forth in the attached Exhibit A,
Statement of Work.
4. Special Terms and Conditions. In addition to the terms contained in this Agreement, the Public Agency
shall comply with the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit B, Special Terms and Conditions, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein.
5. Agreement Execution and Start Date. This Agreement shall be binding on both parties upon full
execution. Upon execution of the Agreement, expenditures are eligible for reimbursement beginning with
the start date listed on page one.
6. Billing Procedure. WSP shall reimburse the Public Agency according to Exhibit A, Statement of Work, for
work performed to the satisfaction of the WSP Project Manager. Compensation for services rendered shall
be payable upon receipt of properly completed invoices, which shall be submitted not more often than
monthly to the WSP Project Manager named on the Contract Summary page. The invoice shall be in the
format designated by WSP and shall include the following:
a. description of the work performed
b. activities accomplished
c. progress of the project
d. fees and expenses
e. match amount as well as amount requested for reimbursement
f. a copy of the Public Agency's property record which includes the tag number that is assigned to the
equipment
g. reference to WSP's agreement number.
The Public Agency shall submit the final invoice no later than forty-five (45) calendar days from the
completion of the Project or no later than 45 days of the Agreement End Date.
7. Agreement Alterations and Amendments. WSP and the Public Agency may mutually amend this
Agreement. Such amendments shall not be binding unless they are in writing and signed by personnel
authorized to bind WSP and the Public Agency.
Federal Grant Subrecipient interagency Agreement Page 2 of 10
WSP Contract No. K22976
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit A
Terms and Conditions
8. Assignment. The work to be provided under this Agreement, and any claim arising thereunder, is not
assignable or delegable by either party in whole or in part, without the express written consent of the other
party.
9. Certification regarding Debarment, Suspension or Ineligibility. Federal funds are the basis for this
Agreement. The Public Agency certifies that neither the Public Agency nor its principals are presently
debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from
participating in this Agreement by any federal department or agency. If requested by WSP, the Public
Agency shall complete and sign a Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and
Voluntary Exclusion form. Any such form completed by the Public Agency for this Agreement shall be
incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Further, the Public Agency agrees not to enter into any
arrangements or contracts related to this Agreement with any party that is on the "General Service
Administration List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Non -procurement Programs" which
can be found at www.sam.gov.
10, Compliance with Civil Rights Laws. During the period of performance for this Agreement, both parties
shall comply with all federal and state nondiscrimination laws.
11 Disputes. In the event that a dispute arises under this Agreement, it shalt be determined by a Dispute
Board in the following manner: The Chief of WSP shall appoint a member to the Dispute Board. The
Public Agency shall appoint a member to the Dispute Board. The Chief of WSP and the Public Agency
shall jointly appoint a member to the Dispute Board. The Dispute Board shall evaluate the dispute and
make a determination of the dispute. The determination of the Dispute Board shall be final and binding to
all parties to this Agreement.
12. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. In order to comply with the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act, the Public Agency shall provide to WSP the following information:
a. The Public Agency's Unique Entity Identifier;
b. The names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of the Public Agency if
the Public Agency in the preceding fiscal year received (i) 80 percent or more of its annual gross
revenues in Federal awards; and (ii) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal
awards; and (iii) the public does not have access to information about the compensation of the senior
executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986; and
c. Other relevant information specified by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget in subsequent
guidance or regulation.
13. Indemnification. The Public Agency shall be responsible for and shall indemnify and hold WSP harmless
for all claims resulting from the acts or omissions of the Public Agency and its subcontractors. WSP shall
be responsible for and shall indemnify and hold the Public Agency harmless for all claims resulting from the
acts or omissions of WSP and its subcontractors.
14. Independent Capacity. The employees or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of
this Agreement shalt continue to be employees or agents of that party and shall not be considered for any
purpose to be employees or agents of the other party.
15. Monitoring
a. Visits and requests for documentation. WSP is responsible for monitoring Public Agency's compliance
with grant requirements. Monitoring may consist of visits to Public Agency and routine requests for
project documentation.
b. Maintenance of Records. During the term of this Agreement and for one year following termination or
expiration of this Agreement, the Public Agency shall give reasonable access to the Public Agency's
place of business and records to WSP and any other employee or agent of the State of Washington or
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Page 3 of 10
WSP Contract No. K22976
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit A
Terms and Conditions
the United States of America for the purpose of inspecting the Public Agency's place of business and
its records, and monitoring, auditing and evaluating the Public Agency's performance and compliance
with applicable laws, regulations, rules and this Agreement.
During the term of this Agreement and for six years following termination or expiration of this
Agreement, the Public Agency shall maintain records sufficient to document (I) performance of all acts
required by statute, regulation, rule, or this Agreement; (ii) substantiate the Public Agency's statement
of its organization's structure, tax status, capabilities and performance; and (iii) demonstrate accounting
procedures, practices and records which sufficiently and properly document the Public Agency's
invoices to WSP and all expenditures made by the Public Agency to perform as required by this
Agreement.
16. Order of Precedence. In the event of any inconsistency in the terms of this Agreement, or between its
terms and any applicable statute or rule the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving precedence in the
following order to:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Applicable federal and state law, regulations and rules, including those incorporated by reference;
Award of Federal Grant under which this Agreement is funded;
Exhibit D, Public Agency's Approval;
Exhibit A, Terms and Conditions;
Exhibit B, Statement of Work;
Exhibit C, Special Terms and Conditions;
Amendments hereto;
Any other provision of this Agreement.
17. Personnel. WSP personnel performing work under the terms of this Agreement shall be under the direct
command and control of the Chief of WSP or designee and shall perform duties required under this
Agreement in a manner consistent with WSP policy and regulations, and applicable federal, state and local
laws. The assignment of WSP personnel under this Agreement shall be at the discretion of the Chief of
WSP or designee.
18. Savings. In the event that funds WSP relied upon to establish this Agreement are withdrawn, reduced or
limited, or if additional or modified conditions are placed on such funding, WSP may immediately terminate
this Agreement by providing written notice to the Public Agency. This termination shall be effective on the
date specified in the notice of termination.
19. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by
reference shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which
can be given effect without the invalid provision, if such remainder conforms to the requirements of
applicable law and the fundamental purpose of this Agreement, and to this end the provisions of this
Agreement are declared to be severable.
20. Single Audit Act Compliance. If the Public Agency expends $1,000,000 or more in federal awards from
any and/or all sources in any fiscal year, the Public Agency shall procure and pay for a single audit or a
program -specific audit for that fiscal year. Upon completion of each audit, the Public Agency shall:
a. Submit to the WSP Project Manager the data collection form and reporting package specified in 2 CFR
Part 200, Subpart F, reports required by the program -specific audit guide (if applicable), and a copy of
any management letters issued by the auditor;
Follow-up and develop corrective action for all audit findings; in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200,
Subpart F; prepare a "Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings" reporting the status of all audit
findings included in the prior audit's schedule of findings and questioned costs.
21. Statewide Payee Registration. The Public Agency shall register as a Statewide Payee prior to submitting
a request for payment under this Agreement. The Washington State Department of Enterprise Services
(DES) maintains the Statewide Payee Registration System; to obtain registration materials go to:
http://www.des.wa.qov/services/Contracting Purchasinq/BusinessNendorPav/Pages/default. aspx.
b.
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Page 4 of 10
WSP Contract No. K22976
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit A
Terms and Conditions
22. Subcontracting. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Public Agency may subcontract for
any of the services provided under this Agreement with the prior, written approval of WSP. The Public
Agency shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of any subcontractor.
The Public Agency agrees to comply with the Procurement Standards requirements set forth at 2 C.F.R. §§
200.317 through 200.326 inclusive, whichever may be applicable, and with applicable supplementary
Federal Granting Agency directives or regulations. If determined necessary for proper Project
administration, the Federal Granting Agency reserves the right to review the Recipient's technical
specifications and requirements.
23. Termination. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, either party may terminate this Agreement
upon thirty (30) calendar days written notification. if this Agreement is so terminated, the terminating party
shall be liable only for performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for performance
rendered prior to the effective date of termination.
24. Waiver. A failure by either party to exercise its rights under this Agreement shall not preclude that party
from subsequent exercise of such rights and shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights under this
Agreement unless stated to be such in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party and
attached to the original Agreement.
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Page 5 of 10
WSP Contract No.
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit B
Statement of Work
1. Introduction
Mason County Clerk's Office seeks NCHIP funding to digitize historically significant criminal and juvenile
offender court records that remain in paper form and are at high risk of loss. Although the County
implemented the Odyssey case management system in 2017, legacy records —approximately 442 boxes
totaling an estimated 1.193 million pages —are stored across multiple non —climate -controlled locations,
including the former county jail, creating serious threats from environmental damage, pests, and disasters.
The proposed project will focus on digitization of adult criminal and juvenile offender records, approximately
115 boxes and 310,500 pages. This project will use existing Enterprise Content Management systems,
public access portals, and Odyssey integration, with grant funding supporting staff overtime to complete the
work cost-effectively in-house. This project will preserve irreplaceable historical records, mitigate
preservation risks, improve equitable public access, and strengthen Mason County's records infrastructure
in alignment with NCHIP program goals.
2. Scope of Work
This NCHIP-funded project will focus on digitizing adult criminal and juvenile offender case files, which are
among the most frequently requested and operationally critical records maintained by the Clerk's Office.
The full digitization effort encompasses 395 boxes of adult criminal records and 47 boxes of juvenile
offender records, totaling 442 boxes. NCHIP funding will support Phase 1 of this effort, limited to the
digitization of approximately 115 boxes. Based on estimates developed during the County's digitization
planning, each box contains approximately 2,700 pages, resulting in an estimated 1.193 million pages
across the full 442-box project requiring review, scanning, indexing, and upload into Odyssey and the
County's Enterprise Content Management system. Phase 1 will encompass approximately 310,500 pages,
representing a defined and achievable subset of the total records requiring digitization.
3. Project Budget
Category
Item
Cost
Personnel
Overtime hours to fund the digitization of criminal records
$
97, 878.32
$
$
$
$
$
Total Cost
$97,878.32
Federal (Reimbursable) Amount
$97,878.32
Indirect may be charged for total direct costs. As a local government, the Public Agency is required to
prepare and retain its indirect cost proposal on fife for review. If applicable, the Public Agency shall use the
approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the Public Agency and the Federal
Government or, if no such rate exists, either a rate negotiated between WSP and the Public Agency, or a
de minimis indirect cost rate as defined in 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f). Any changes to the indirect amount noted in
the above budget will require an amendment.
The Public Agency Match may only be for allowable grant expenses. It is the Public Agency's responsibility
to maintain records of the expenses used for match.
Expenditures may only occur within the categories listed above. Changes of up to 10 percent can be made
without prior approval from WSP. Changes that exceed 10 percent will require the Public Agency to submit
a budget change request to WSP for pre -approval.
4. Equipment Management.
a. Equipment. Any equipment purchased under this award shall conform to Federal Granting Agency
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Page 6 of 10
WSP Contract No.
FEDERAL. GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit B
Statement of Work
requirements.
b. Title to Equipment. Upon successful completion of the terms of this Agreement, all equipment
purchased by the Public Agency with Agreement funds will be owned by the Public Agency, or a
recognized subrecipient for which a contract, subgrant agreement, or other means of legal transfer of
ownership is in place.
c. Use of Equipment. The Public Agency, or a recognized subrecipient, shall be responsible for any and
all operation, maintenance, replacement, and for the safe operation of the equipment, including all
questions of liability.
d. Equipment Records. The Public Agency shall maintain Equipment records that include: a description
of the Equipment; the manufacturer's serial number, model number, or other identification number,
including the tag number; the source of the Equipment, including the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number; who holds title; the acquisition date; the cost of the Equipment and the
percentage of federal participation in the cost; the location, use and condition of the Equipment at the
date the information was reported; and disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of
the Equipment. Equipment records shall be retained by the Public Agency for a period of six (6) years
from the date of the disposition, replacement or transfer. If any litigation, claim, or audit is started
before the expiration of the six -year period, the records shall be retained by the Public Agency until all
litigations, claims, or audit findings involving the records have been resolved. A copy of the Public
Agency's record showing the above information of the purchased equipment is required when
requesting reimbursement for the equipment.
e. Inventories. The Public Agency shall take a physical inventory of the Equipment and reconcile the
results with the property records at least once every two years. Any differences between quantities
determined by the physical inspection and those shown in the records shall be investigated by the
Public Agency to determine the cause of the difference. The Public Agency shall, in connection with the
inventory, verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the Equipment. The Public
Agency shall develop a control system to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, and
theft of the property. Any loss, damage or theft shall be investigated and a report generated. The Public
Agency will develop adequate maintenance procedures to keep the property in good condition.
f. Disposition of Equipment. The Public Agency shall contact WSP before equipment is disposed. If the
Public Agency is authorized or required to sell the property, proper sales procedures must be
established to ensure the highest possible return. When original or replacement equipment is no longer
needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by a
federal agency, disposition of the equipment will be made as follows:
• Items of equipment with a current per -unit fair market value of less than $10,000 may be retained,
sold or otherwise disposed of by the Public Agency with no further obligation to the awarding
agency.
• Items of equipment with a current per -unit fair market value of more than $10,000 may be retained
or sold and the Public Agency shall compensate the Federal Granting Agency for its share.
5. Reports.
a. Semi -Annual Reports. The Public Agency shall submit to the WSP Project Manager semi-annual
progress reports within 15 calendar days after the end of the reporting periods, which are January 1 -
June 30 and July 1 - December 31, for the life of this Agreement.
b. Final Report. The Public Agency shall submit a final report to the WSP Project Manager at the
completion of the Project, documenting all relevant project activities during the entire period of support
under this Agreement. The Final Report shall be in the format provided by WSP and shall include a
summary and assessment of the program carried out with this Agreement, including how funds were
actually used and data to support statements of progress. The final report is due no later than 30 days
at the completion of the Project and no later than 30 days following the close of the Agreement.
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Page 7 of 10
WSP Contract No.
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit C
Special Terms and Conditions
1. Federal Funding.
a. Federal funds under this award will be used to supplement and not supplant local government funds.
Grant funds may be used only for the purposes in the Public Agency's approved application.
b. if Public Agency has other active awards of federal funds or receives other federal awards during the
period of performance for this award that are to be used in part or in whole for identical costs for which
funds are provided under this award, the Public Agency shall promptly notify WSP in writing of potential
duplication. If so requested, Public Agency must seek budget or project modification to eliminate
inappropriate duplication of funding.
c. All recipients of federal funds shall comply with all applicable restrictions on the use of federal funds set
out in federal appropriations status.
2. Part 200 Uniform Requirements. The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, as adopted and supplemented by the Federal Granting Agency in 2
C.F.R. Part 2800 (together, the Part 200 Uniform Requirements) apply to the award from the Federal
Granting Agency,
3. Financial Guide. The Public Agency agrees to comply with the financial and administrative requirements
set forth in the current edition of the Federal Granting Agency's Financial Guide.
4. Personally Identifiable Information (P11) Requirement. The Public Agency must have written procedures in
place to respond in the event of an actual or imminent "breach" (OMB M-17-12) if it creates, collects, uses,
processes, stores, maintains, disseminates, discloses, or disposes of "personally identifiable information
(PII)" (2 CFR 200.79) within the scope of the Federal Granting Agency grant -funded program activity, or 2)
uses or operates a "Federal information system" (OMB Circular A-130). The Public Agency's breach
procedures must include a requirement to report actual or imminent breach of PII to WSP no later than 24
hours after an occurrence of an actual breach, or the detection of an imminent breach.
5. Procurement contracts exceeding $150,000. The Public Agency is to obtain pre -approval from WSP for any
procurement contracts that are in excess of $150,000.
6. Requirements pertaining to prohibited conduct related to trafficking in persons. The Public Agency must
comply with all applicable requirements pertaining to prohibited conduct related to the trafficking of
persons. Requirements and further details are posted on OJP website at
https://oip.gov/funding/Explore/ProhibitedConduct-Trafficking.htm and are incorporated by reference here.
7. Equal Employment Opportunity Plan. The Public Agency acknowledges that failure to submit an
acceptable Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (if Public Agency is required to submit one pursuant to 28
C.F.R. Section 42.302) that is approved by the Federal granting Agency, may result in suspension or
termination of funding, until such time as the Public Agency is in compliance.
8. Employment Eligibility Verification. The Public Agency shall ensure that, as part of the hiring process that
is funded with award funds, the Public Agency properly verifies the employment eligibility of the individual
who is being hired, consistent with the provisions of 8 U.S.C. 1324a(a)(1) and (2). The Public Agency may
choose to participate in E-Verify (www.e-verify.gov) to confirm employment eligibility for each position that
will be funded by award funds.
9. Lobbying. The Public Agency understands and agrees that it cannot use any federal funds, either directly
or indirectly, in support of the enactment, repeal, modification or adoption of any law, regulation or policy, at
any level of government.
10. Federal False Claims Act. The Public Agency must promptly notify WSP of any credible evidence that a
principal, employee, agent, contractor, subgrantee, subcontractor, or other person has either 1) submitted a
false claim for Agreement funds under the False Claims Act; or 2) committed a criminal or civil violation of
laws pertaining to fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, gratuity, or similar misconduct involving Agreement
funds.
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Page 8 of 10
WSP Contract No.
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit C
Special Terms and Conditions
11. Performance Measures. The Public Agency agrees to provide performance related data, as outlined in the
program announcement to be used to measure the results of the project.
12. Withholding Funds. The Public Agency understands and agrees that funds may be withheld (including
funds under future awards), or other related requirements may be imposed, if the required information is
not submitted on a timely basis. Funds may also be withheld if the Public Agency fails to satisfactorily and
promptly address outstanding issues from audits or investigations or reviews of the Federal Granting
Agency awards.
13. Consultant Rates. Approval of this Agreement does not indicate approval of any consultant rate in excess
of $650 per day. A detailed justification must be submitted to and approved by WSP prior to obligation or
expenditure of such funds.
14. Environmental Laws and Regulations. The Public Agency agrees to comply with all federal, state, and
local environmental laws and regulations applicable to the development and implementation of the activities
to be funded under this Agreement.
15. Text Messaging While Driving. Pursuant to Executive Order 13513, "Federal Leadership on Reducing Text
Messaging While Driving," 74 Fed. Reg. 51225 (October 1, 2009), the Federal Granting Agency
encourages recipients and sub recipients of Agreement funds to adopt and enforce policies banning
employees from text messaging while driving any vehicle during the course of performing work funded by
this Agreement, and to establish workplace safety policies and conduct education, awareness, and other
outreach to decrease crashes caused by distracted drivers.
16. Conferences. The Public Agency shall comply with all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and the
Federal Granting Agency guidance governing the use of federal funds for expense related to conferences,
including the provision of food and/or beverages at such conferences, and costs of attendance.
17. Non -disclosure Agreements. The Public Agency shall not require any employee or contractor to sign an
internal confidentiality statement that prohibits or restricts the reporting of waste, fraud, or abuse to an
investigative or law enforcement representative of a federal department or agency authorized to receive
such information.
18. Federal Granting Agency Training Guiding Principles. Any training or training material that the Public
Agency develops or delivers with award funds shall adhere to the Federal Granting Agency Training
Guiding Principles for Grantees and Subgrantees.
19. Reprisal. The Public Agency, in compliance with 41 U.S.C. 4712, shall not discriminate against an
employee as reprisal for the disclosure of information related to gross mismanagement of a federal grant, a
gross waste of federal funds, an abuse of authority relating to a federal grant, a substantial and specific
danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law, rule or regulation related to a federal grant.
20. Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). AFIS equipment purchased under this award must
conform to the American National Standards Institute (ANS!) Standard, "Data Format for the Interchange of
Fingerprint, Facial & Other Biometric Information" (ANSI/NIST-ITL 1-2007 PART 1) and other reporting
standards of the FBI.
21. National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Requirements
a. The Subrecipient agrees to comply with all applicable federal statues pertaining to firearms and
background checks, including but not limited to 18 U.S.0 § 922 and 34 U.S.C. Chapter 409
b. If this award is used to fund any project, program, or system that results in court dispositions,
information, or records that constitute "eligible records" under federal or State law relevant to NICS the
Subrecipient must ensure that all such records are promptly made available to the NICS or to the State
repository/database that is electronically available to and accessed by the NICS.
c. The Subrecipient shall promptly update, correct, modify, or remove NICS-relevant "eligible records"
when appropriate or required by law.
Federal Grant Subrecipient interagency Agreement Page 9 of 10
WSP Contract No.
FEDERAL GRANT INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Agency Name
Exhibit C
Special Terms and Conditions
22. Data Rights. The term "subject data" used in this section means recorded information, whether or not
copyrighted, that is developed, delivered, or specified to be delivered under this Agreement. The term
includes graphic or pictorial delineations in media such as drawings or photographs; text in specifications or
related performance or design -type documents; machine forms such as punched cards, magnetic tape, or
computer memory printouts; and information retained in computer memory. Examples include, but are not
limited to: computer software, engineering drawings and associated lists, specifications, standards, process
sheets, manuals, technical reports, catalog item identifications, and related information. The term does not
include financial reports, cost analyses, and similar information incidental to Project administration.
As authorized by 2 C.F.R. § 200.315(b), the Federal Granting Agency reserves a royalty -
free, non- exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to
authorize others to use, for Federal Government purposes:
a. Any work developed under a grant, cooperative agreement, sub -grant, sub -
agreement, or third -party contract, irrespective of whether or not a copyright has been
obtained; and
b. Any rights of copyright to which a Recipient, Subrecipient, or a third- party contractor
purchases ownership with Federal assistance.
23. Subrecipients.
a. General. if the Public Agency is a subrecipient of federal awards as defined by 2 CFR Part 200 and this
Agreement, the Public Agency shall:
(1) Maintain records that identify, in its accounts, all federal awards received and expended and the
federal programs under which they were received, by Catalog of Federal. Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
title and number, award number and year, name of the federal agency, and name of the pass -through
entity;
(2) Maintain internal controls that provide reasonable assurance that the Public Agency is managing
federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements
that could have a material effect on each of its federal programs;
(3) Prepare appropriate financial statements, including a schedule of expenditures of federal awards;
(4) Incorporate 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F audit requirements into all agreements between the Public
Agency and its Subcontractors who are subrecipients;
(5) Comply with the applicable requirements of 2 CFR Part 200, including any future amendments to 2
CFR Part 200, and any successor or replacement Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular or
regulation; and
(6) Comply with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe streets Act of 1968, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and all
Federal authorities relating to nondiscrimination.
b. "High Risk" Designation. If the Public Agency is designated a "high risk" by a federal grant -making
agency outside of the Federal Granting Agency during the course of this award, the Public Agency
must disclose the fact to WSP. The Public Agency agrees to comply with any additional requirements
may be imposed by the Federal Granting Agency or WSP.
c. Overpayments. If it is determined by WSP, or during the course of a required audit, that the Public
Agency has been paid unallowable costs under this or any Program Agreement, WSP may require the
Public Agency to reimburse WSP in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.
d. The Public Agency, if a law enforcement agency, shall have been certified or in the process of being
certified by an approved independent credentialing body.
Federal Grant Subrecipient Interagency Agreement Page 10 of 10
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
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): 9/14/2026 Agenda Date(s): 9/29/2026
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: Board of County Commissioners Agreed 2027 Budget Actions
Background/Executive Summary:
Commissioners Pat Tarzwell and Randy Neatherlin held discussion on the 2027 budget on Monday
9/14/2026. During this discussion they agreed to nine position cuts, a three-month hiring delay, six annual
furlough days, as well as various funding shifts and conditional improvements should eligibility be
established.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact (amount, funding source, budget amendment, etc.):
Confirmed 2027 improvement: $4,162,406
If conditional items included: $5,477,038
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
Establish the agreed upon 2027 budget actions
Attachment(s):
Board of County Commissioners Agreed 2027 Budget Actions
2027 General Fund Budget Summary
Agreed actions of Commissioners Neatherlin and Tarzwell
Confirmed improvement: $4,162,406
If conditional items included: $5,477,038
Confirmed expenditure reductions
Emergency Management Manager — 1 position $154,260
Clerk’s Office — 1 position $73,076
Support Services / BOCC — 1 position $78,824
Parks maintenance — 1 position $129,786
Superior Court — 1 position $121,837
District Court — 1 position $72,933
Auditor’s Office — 2 positions $221,946
Human Resources — 1 position $128,396
Nine position cuts subtotal $981,058
Three-month hiring delay $1,171,979
Six annual furlough days at 90% participation $509,369
Total expenditure reductions $2,662,406
Confirmed General Fund revenue and funding shifts
Road diversion $500,000
Levy shift from Public Works $1,000,000
Total funding shifts $1,500,000
Conditional General Fund improvements
Juvenile Detention outsourcing — subject to feasibility $500,000
Grantwriter — .09 funds $130,994
Two Port Security deputies — .09 funds $297,662
Corrections Deputy — Treatment Sales Tax $131,458
Two code enforcement positions — REET $254,518
Total conditional improvements $1,314,632
Position funding changes are subject to legal review and partner agreement.
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
85
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): 4/28/2026,5/26/2026, 7/21/2026
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 iP one
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 a . 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: Ioowers5679
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: 1powers5679
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
� ., s- �x..., s ` c+ . � �95af. •r � it� �� A 22 t 1♦3. '.:1-" - � � � `'a! .,` X '-tis�
a l r .� j1 1'�
r:ait fuvy sr .t 1g v 1, O „ a
i
:
b �'v r s N 41 iS � 72 20 16
tll<f „ M
p�,11ii` �.
Wke WJoaBrvde Dr. � , � 1 �1L� 7 tii �',� d" .� ,
'�. � .., .� ��`�-
`�-
t 7
1; 12 y �c _
e1 d
1fi +
10 20
fir, 20 18 1G 14 11 733Q
1514 11 6 11 14
y_ 19p 16 21 21 16
13� 1fi
4 �� 22 $i 20 22 24 23
`;� 24-
23 :: 29 27 26
22 2 21
t u'.21 227 i2726 20 � 021 `
5 14 za6 31 r
{ 3 "i�'
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
On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 11:44 AM Rhonda Smith 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
Family Lake house located @
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
ear Commissioners,
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,
d I imagine Lake Cashman as well.
am concerned that it will fusel a lot more boat traffic; specifically wake boats to Mason Lk and
k Cushman and therefore a safety concern.
Boaters don't comply with the 250fi 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 shnchrral integrity of our dock.
Our boat, even with mooring whips, gets hammered too. The boat at times, still hits our dock, and
e bilge has filled with water due to some waves. (the stern is toward the beach).
II
In addition, it is a safety concern for small watercrafts-paddle boards, kayaks, and swimmers.
II
If it does pass that wake boats are not allowed on the smaller lakes, I request consideration be made
or some system be put in place for property preservation and safety of owners on Mason Lake and
e Cushman.
II
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?
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 71 W Olympic View Dr, Shelton WA 98584 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
*Resident for over 45 years*
P RT OF GRAPEVIEW
P.O. Box 3
Grapeview, WA 98546
www.aortofgrape view.corn
425-610-6552
May 11, 2026
Mason County Board of Commissioners
411 N 5th Street
Shelton, W S 98584
VIA EMAIL to Commission Clerk
Subject: :ommunity Conflict and Scientific Concerns Reg arding Wake Boat
Operations on Mas on Lake and Lake Cushman
Dear Corn iissioners,
I am writinJ as a resi lent of Mason Lake, a Professional Enginee 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.
Throughou: my profe sional and volunteer service, I have remai ied committed to protecting
water quality, human health, and aquatic ecosystems within Mas m County. As a Port of
Grapeview Commissioner, I am equally dedicated to protecting the interests and quality of life
of my cons:ituents in 3rapeview.
I understa id the envi onmental impacts associated wi h wake boats and large artificial wakes.
I have also experienc d 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 increasin 3 intensity of boat traffic has created significant safety concerns. Before
implementing any policy that may further intensify sh 'reline wave impacts, I strongly
recommen I that Mas in County Board of County Commissioners ormally consult with the
Washington State De 'artment of Ecology to determine whether in Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is warranted. See attachment.
I have researched how other states have approached this issue. )ne particularly relevant
study was conducted iy 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 iy wake b ats may require between 400 and 1,023 feet to dissipate to wave
heights and energy le eels comparable to those produced by conventional recreational boat
operating at normal c uising speeds.
Email portofgrapeview@ymai/corn
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
1591 E. Mason Lake Drive E.
Grapeview, WA 98546
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
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,
� 1 /2
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
Tee Lake
_J
4292026,8:59:17 AM 1:6,118
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 ml
o County Boundary 0 0.07 0.15 0.3 km
❑ No Filled n /�
Tax Parcels (Zoom in to 1:30,000) Cm ices:EI rL HEF.E.Gam b.II Imap,Nceme ltP Oo Q..GEBC0,UCGC,
F.4C'.NP .NF.C?.N,Geollase,IGN,ladattel NL,Ordlace.^dIvey.BII
Japes.MET.ES IICIIIa(Holg lolg,,QCJ 0pel.CteetMapooEEb1DN,ald
lie G G Use I CUII m I l Ih'
I $01 COI Ity WAGE; Nb Rap?ppII al i
Masol Co I I Y dlclalo s acct rao/,re Ibb Iry.o rtln e h, olwebs I!II G.lot RU P A I bsses t m a IB Ice m It Itps'IIMw.masolcou lywa,gov tl6claln a r.pl p
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 23'd day of October,2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: MASON COUNTY,WASHINGTON
Rogers,Clerk o e Board
erb�I Baze,Chairperson
AP O'VE FORM:
4
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Wesley B1 John n,Commissioner
Michael Clift
C: Clerk of the Board pJei/,iz_
Sheriff Bob Holter,Commissioner
Public U-' 5
Printed From Mason County DMS
Printed from Mason County DMS
•
•� t sJ ---- � �.�'l �.t}!Vr _,." �" •,y
fir,:~ ,r• �
F.^
1
• r , \
From: Dave a Be(w Livaav
To: Md(enzie Sniff.
Subject: Advocacy for limns on Wake Surfing on lake Nahwatzel
Date: Tuesday,April 28,202611:59:24 AM
Atta hmeots: Advocacy Packet Lake Nahwatzel.odr
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 fmd 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.
P
❑B Virus-free.wv.w.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)
________________________________________________________R
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)
ve 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
x e 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.
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://Iastwildernessalliance.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 jan'ion
To: Pat Tarzwell: Sharon Trask rneathedinlamasonmumvwa.uov: Pam
Subject Wake/surf boat restrictions
Date: Wedr day,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,
Jeff Jarmon
Yahoo Mail: Search. Organize. Conquer
From: kenclanCaaol.com
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 Stoner
To: Raven Lund:McKenzie Smith
Subject: RE: Proposed Wake Boat Ordinance
Date: Monday,April 27,2026 7:21:90 AM
Attachments: aae001.ma
aae002.ma
aae003.aw
maae004.om
Lost Lake Resident-O000sed to Prop 1 Wake Enhanced Ordinance.odf
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 ` 360-482-2200
Partner ® mike/loeactemnnevcom
Easter&Stoney, P.S. 0 PO Box 3037/513 N 3rd St.,Elma,WA 98541
From: Ravyn Lund <RLund(cbmasoncountvwa.gov>
Date:April24, 2026 at 4:27:24 PM PDT
To: ioshe.steeLe(cbvahoo.com
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,
+''^I-- '�h a ISTPATIV ASSISTANT
MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OFFICE
(360)427-9670 x419
rlundomasoncountywa gov
°u 411 N.S`"Street.Shelton,WA 98584
wwwmasoncountywa_gov
—Pleats note. Mason Coenty complies with ens P•DNc Records Act Chapter 42 So RCN.
As tech. any •-mail teat to and/or rrom the Coeety may D• teDl•ct to pnDtic d,sc)otore.
Mike & Connie Stone
April27, 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 along-
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 take 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 roles 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
lam here to discuss Wake Boats and other boating issues
in Mason County.
• My name is Art Whitson, and I live at
• I am a recreational boater, registered Civil Engineer in
the State of Washington, and my formal education and
work experience also includes Estuarine Ecology, and
Systems Engineering. Therefore; I know something
about the affects of large waves on shorelines in
environments where these waves do not occur
naturally.
• I am a Port of Grapeview Commissioner and serve on
two Mason County advisory committees; Mason County
Clean Water District and the Onsite Sewage Committee
where I am committed to protecting human health and
the environment.
• I discussed this issue in detail in a letter dated May 11 ,
2026, 1 submitted via email to the County Commission
Clerk on Port of Grapeview letter head. I do not need to
regurgitate those details. What I want to emphasize in
this presentation is the importance of acting to resolve
all the boating issue County Wide; not just the latest
issue which is wake boats. Dumping all the wake boats
on Mason Lake and Lake Cresent is not the answer, it is
just kicking this latest boater NIMBY CAN down the road
without a complete understanding of the County Lakes
natural systems, their changes and potential property
destruction.
This Memorial Day Weekend was basically the 2026
boating opening day on Mason County Lakes. Lake
users come to the County Lakes from all over the region
to let their hair down and just have fun. This fun is often
at the expense of other Lake users. Some of the things
witness from my property on Mason Lake this weekend
was;
o Jet skis going past my dock at 50 mph + within 100
ft of the shoreline the wrong way where people
often swim,
o Wake Boats kicking up surf waves withing 200 ft of
my dock swamping my dingy and a small boat full
of people two docks down trying to fish. In one
instance the waves came over my dock deck which
is 2 ft above the water surface.
o My grand kids 4 and 8 could not enjoy playing in the
water because of the waves this weekend.
o Fast moving boats heading north towards the boat
Launch greater than 20knots at 9:45 PM in the
evening approximately 200 ft. from the shoreline.
• pay a heck of a lot of money in taxes to have the
privilege of owning and sustaining waterfront property
that I can not use during summer weekends because of
the actions of a few inconsiderate boaters on Mason
Lake.
• For the sake of sanity and boater safety action is
needed by the Mason County Commissioners to
develop boating rules and regulations that are
enforceable and law enforcement has the means to
enforce them. In my May 11th letter, I recommend the
County establish a short-term advisory committee with
a clearly defined scope and timeline that should be
done by mid-Summer 2026. The committee should
include stakeholders representing:
✓ Lakefront property owners
✓ Recreational boaters
✓ Scientists and technical experts
✓ Environmental specialists
✓ Law-enforcement representatives
✓ Local government officials
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding
my testimony proposal today.
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.
2 a,:�"w ,, ..?1"i'"k✓r EE. -�L.'r�"'4if x ,.'�°-tl1 >r„ti�s.�,,'r
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 pub/ic 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
1591 E. Mason Lake Drive E.
Grapeview, WA 98546
Attachment: (1)
z;.-lf €„411x,'”
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.
To whom it may concern:
Myself :and family have been a
lakefront property owners on Lost Lake for
over 40 years. Im representing the
Burbdge family in write this letter in
strong opposition to any wakeboard boat
ban.
We find this topic,: extremely troubling
and upsetting, and a very simplistic naive
answer for a select f6wlhat. do not own
wakeboard boats, and many who have
relatively recently, purchased their
lakefront property, fully aware of the
existence and operation of the very boats
in question.
Before we would entertain the
conversation of such a ban, we would
want to know the exact details,
� •
� i
�• � �.� � "�I_ �' � � ��• �. � ��b�� � � �,. _ a
I� _
3
• � �I �"w � * � � ilk � � � � � $ • # �
s
g�" � � °� `=�, '� s "� '
� � G
~¢ � , '
iii_?' • 0 I
s
a• m
sa w • •.
'. eZ
I . µ 4 m
g ~ v o-• 7 r
M v•p
$�" i
• "$ ► _ �� a n
h :damage,,,-� Damage insured
• indisputably, above• and beyond any other
natural factor and/or any other boat. Even
then we feel were skirting the real
pro blem.
The true problems on Lost Lake are
not caused buy the responsible lakefront
owners and. they"re "wake board boats."
- . .
The true issue lies in the no• . n-residence
:that come to the boat launch and treat it
like its a public- . beach. These. - : v isitors
bring double and triple the volume to the
lake on these warm weekends, show a
minimize stress to shoreline, docks: and
property etc0 and create a safer, cleaner,
less congested, lake with better rule
compliance, significantly improving
enforcement would be far more effective
then punishing responsible residence. - -
The Burbidge family purchased this
lakefront properly years ago. for the
.. -
recreational opportunities • •this lake
provides. Opportunities that many others
who live here also sought. Banning
'`wakeboard boats" vv�uld undermine the• very reasons we inve- - ---------------------------- -----
community and would.-negatively impact - --•
lakefront property values.
Finally we feel the., process behind this
proposed ban has been inconsiderate and
inappropriate. Longtime property owners
ere not informed or consulted. We
b.0" Oght our homes fully aware of this
lakes recreational character, and we
should not now-, have::those established
uses taken away.
urge you to reject this ban and
address this lake's real issue at the boat
launch through better enforcement of the
existing laws, and respect the rights of
responsible Ue rcnt owners.
Thank you for your time and
con&deratioa.
Sincerely,
Cale Burbdge and 'F ily
From: kendan
To: Md(enne S.n h
Date: Fiday,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.
Che�urdy
Hello Mason County Commissioners,
I have been a Mason County resident living on lost lake for more than 21
years. I own 190 feet of low bank waterfront very exposed shoreline on the
busiest part of the take. My property has not suffered any erosion due to the
surfing boats. My family really enjoys and loves the take we use for swimming,
boat cruises fishing and surfing. This is why we want to live on one of the very
few alt sports takes. The current proposed changes of a 250 feet distance from
shore and 20-foot minimum depth requirement should protect the take and
shorelines and still allow for lost lake to have two areas more than large
enough to serve safely so we can alt enjoy take activities. Thank you and let us
please consider a compromise to keep the surf lakes open for all of us and our
future generations.
Curt and Jannette Harmon
To whom it may concern,
My family has been a resident on Lost Lake since 1995. We have enjoyed all the outdoor
boating and non-boating activities the take has afforded us for 31 years.
We have not experienced any shore or property damage.
Our hope is that the community can come to a compromise,as our wish is that our seven
grandchildren will be able to experience the same memories over their lifetime.
Education and responsible operation of all motor boats is imperative to allow all kayakers,
fisherman,swimmers..,to enjoythe beauty of Lost Lake.
Sincerely,
Dan &Cyd Naranjo
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 andvnemasonmumvwa.mv:Pat Tarz ell Sharon Trask
Subject: Wake Boat Ordinance-The Science
Date: Malay,May 25,2026 4:45:28 PM
Attachments:
preview.pno
ara
preview.pna
preview.pna
preview.ona
preview.pna
preview.pna
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.
STATFOFMICNIGRN
OEPARTEENT OP NATURAL RES URGES
EJk*anµwwI bIUI N
—"—" FISHERIES OMSION
FISHERIES REPORT 37
Fisheries-Report-37-Wake-Boat-
Study-ORcial-Version-Releasedon-
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.
portalct.9ov
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
enviromnental,property-related, and safety-related.
4. Mercier-Blair and Prairie, 2014, Quebec
Study: Assessment of waves created by wake boats on Lakes Memphremagog and Levering.
B,.ra aa.aM.a,>Iw.at B..m
led St by
IYo ®W Ba a b oe Ye Stare M Ne
Wr®.wa—Lw 1a
SmMnm.Blti[ad Tin PitFE
Impact-of-Waves-Created-by-Wake-
Boats-Canada
PDF Document-4-2 NIB
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 O
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. Rupreclt et al., 2015
Study: Wakesurfing: Some Wakes Are More Equal Than Others,Australasian Coasts & Ports
Conference.
M'—
(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.
9.rfire
een
ONSIN'S
EVOIC.r VOICE! Cae,.....,e.
The Effects of Wake Boats on
Lake Ecosystem Health:
A literature Review
M•y2024•
WakeBoatsLakeEcosystemHealth_
WGF-May2D24_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.
ML
adverse-impacts-attributed-to-the-
operationof-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.
---=ts
•
Impacts-on-Nutrient-and-Sediment-
Resuspension-by-Various-
Watercraf-Proceedings-of-the-
Indiana-Academy-ofScience-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.
4 --
tat
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 ofBoat Wake Wave Impacts on Shoreline Erosion and Potential Solutions for
the Chesapeake Bay.
Review or boa xakewave lmplds Ca
WaroUn emelou eod poroul.Solutions for
de cheepnke Bs
STAG RMee Roes
F'R2016
6TACPohIWtlOe 17- fl
Chesapeake-BaySTAC-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 I Water Institute
I University of Waterloo
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: dladvbuolacenturrtel.net
To: Md(enzie Smith
Subject: Public Comment to Mason County Commissioners for 5/26 mug
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 causes 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 Sheriffs 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
:1
Jj /11T s _
,1 114U
I --
tr t ;
may _
From: Deidra Miller
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Skurring 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: ieffdonahue
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Ban on wake serf boats on Phillips rake
Date: Thursday,May 21,20261:96:16 PM
I support the ban on wake surf boats especially on Phillips Lake.
Jeffrey Jahn Donahue PLS and CFedS
Open Letter to Mason County Board of County Commissioners:
For the May 26, 2026 Meeting
Re: Revised boating regulations
I may be old and obsolete at 86 years old, but still have some opinions on the subject as
follows:
1. When I was in high school, we started water skiing on Lake Washington. The
law/rules were simple: Within 200 feet of any obstacle, you were restricted
to a 6 MPH maximum speed and producing no wake. Well, one water skier
was bussing the docks on water skis and was decapitated — not following the rules.
2. My parents purchased land and built a cabin on Mason Lake in the 1950's and we
followed the same law/rules: Within 200 feet of any obstacle, you were
restricted to a 6 MPH maximum speed and producing no wake. Back then
marine engineers strived to have small wakes for ski boats and hydroplanes made
very little wake. Today marine engineers are striving to make the largest possible
man-made wake.
3. About 12 to 15 years ago our neighbor was trying to repair his damaged bulkhead
from large man-made waves and a large wave making boat came close by and
knocked him to the ground. He could have been injured, but was just a very mad,
mad person. Following the old law/rule would have prevented this situation.
Within 200 feet of any obstacle, you were restricted to a 6 MPH
maximum speed and producing no wake.
4. Major shore erosion has resulted from man-make wakes. We ended up with the
expense of installing a shoreline bulkhead to prevent further erosion of the shoreline.
The man-made waves were eroding our grassy beach and endangering our
landscaping and could eventually have reached the foundation. We did like the grassy
beach where we could just walk into the water and pull water toys, small boats, etc.
up onto the grassy beach.
5. Even this does not address the conditions where people along the shoreline are
unable to play in the water with small children because of the large waves.
i
6. The county should be reducing or eliminating regulations, in order to encourage the
installation of boat lifts to help prevent docked boat damage by large man-made
waves. The county should also reduce or eliminate the regulations for repairing the
damage caused by man-made waves to docks. It is hard to protect your dock, boats,
personal watercraft, etc. from large waves. Please note that boat lifts probably cause
less damage to the bottom land than many boat anchors do by dragging along the
bottom land.
Boats producing large man-made waves can be used on any waterway where they simply
follow the above law/rules/common courtesy: Within 200 feet of any obstacle, you
were restricted to a 6 MPH maximum speed and producing no wake. This is just
for the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Thank you for reading this letter,
Lf /4°��
Joan Reece
P.S. Art Whitson provided the Board of County Commissioners with a great letter on this subject.
2
•
• • • •
• • �J W
•
• a • - •
wsia
r6�r�a��L�1!ti
WATER SPORTS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
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
Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................................i
ExecutiveSummary ..........................................................................................................ii
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Backgroundon wakes ....................................................................................................... 1
Studyobjectives ................................................................................................................ 2
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2
Results .............................................................................................................................. 9
Discussion........................................................................................................................ 21
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 25
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 26
References ....................................................................................................................... 27
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
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 rim 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. ^w i Max.height=6.a"
Senwr Ks S
Note that the wave
heights are given in terms s.renrae
of the total height of the
wave from its trough to sere0r93
its crest. It is worth
noting that very close to 110
the boat the trough is sensorm
deeper than the height of ; a Max.height=219"
the crest. Specifically, at 9emor Ml Wakeboarding at 22.2 mph and
sensor#1 a trough 11.8" 10'standoff in shallow water
deep precedes a 10" crest —10
for a total wave height of
21.8". _200 10 20 90 40 50 90 70 so 90
Time(sac)
II
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.
30
Wave Height vs. Distance From Boat Track
Wakesurf shallow
1-
25
20 —
Wakesurf deep
C IJ
Wakebord
deep
10
Cruising deep Wakeboard shallow
Cruising shallow
0
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0
Distance from bwt tmadt(R)
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.
iii
Maximum wave height (in)
Distance from track (FT) 0 100 200 300
Cruising Shallow 15.42 10.16 8.83 5.09
Cruising Deep 14.54 9.95 7.19 6.32
Wakeboard Shallow 21.82 11.18 9.13 6.93
Wakeboard Deep 22.46 13.63 10.10 9.87
Wakesurf Shallow 27.83 11.75 9.63 5.91
Wakesurf Deep 26.14 19.88 15.89 12.92
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.
iv
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.
1
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.
2
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.
Deep-water boat tracks Shallow-water boat tracks
10' 110' 10' 210' 110' 210'
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0 #5
5 #5 #4 #3 #2
#4 #3 #1
10
#2 Shallow-water site(Harrel)
is
20
Deep-water site(deArmas) #1
25
30
35
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.
3
i
I 9--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
I
300 ----1---
1I
s
250 ----T---
I
- 7
zoo -- -
- s
150 ---�----
so '
' o ---- ice-
I
B��scK2,, ,,,,
250 -L-
-
200 ----
I
--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------
I —'
20 depth
a.
----- ---------- I------------------------------------------- 5 depth
Figure 5. Station#2 with an Akamina AWP-24-2 capacitance wave probe.
Specifications
Linearity: 0.15% of Full Scale
Accuracy: 0.15% of Full Scale
Air temperature coefficient: 0.03% of Full Scale/°C
Water temperature coefficient: 0.03% of Full Scale/°C
Operating temperature: -10°C to 50°C
Measurement update rate: 200Hz
Output filter frequency: 40Hz
Output signal: -5Vdc to +5Vdc
Power supply: 8Vdc to 24Vdc maximum
Power consumption: 16 mA (average)
Enclosure dimensions (L W H): 125 x 80 x 58 mm
Standard probe lengths: 30, 60, 100, 150, 200 cm*
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.
6
AM L RCA
'± i 0- 20ftWC
SUPPLY. 11 -28 VUC SIN: 201504
_OY'f,RYIl.-fk;?O:�A OOMr 04.10 -
Figure 6. A Keller America submersible Levelgage.
Specifications
Range: 0-5 feet
Accuracy: 1% of Full Scale
Resolution: 0.002%of Full Scale
Temperature compensation: -10'C to 80'C
Output: 4...20 mA
Supply: 8-28 VDC
Wetted materials: 316L S.S.
Polyamide
Fluorocarbon
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.
7
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 Lab View 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.
8
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.
Mode Speed Distance from Station
(mph) #1 (ft)
20 10 110 210
Cruising 25 10 110 210
30 10 110 210
21.2 10 110 210
Wakeboard 22.2 10 110 210
23.2 10 110 210
10 10 110 210
Wakesurf 11 10 110 210
port 11.5 10 110 210
12 10 110 210
10 10 110 210
Wakesurf 11 1 10 110 210
starboard 11.5 10 110 210
12 1 10 110 210
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
9
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.
—� — Sensor#5
Sensor p4
0
F
& Se uor q3
≥ 10
3 Sensor M2
Sense pl
0 10 20 30 M 'A W mn BO 90
Time(sec)
Figure 10. Shallow-water Rim#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 fomming 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.wildpedia.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.
10
Sensor Max. height=6.4"
#5
Sensor#4
V
C
Sensor#3
U 10
Sensor#2
N
7
3 0 Max. height=21.8"
Sensor#1
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time(sec)
Figure 11. Shallow-water Run#15 - Wakeboarding, 22.2 mph, 10' standoff.
Progressing to larger wakes, a wakesurfing example is presented in Figure 12.
Max. height=7.5"
Sensor#5
ar
U Sensor#4
C
o
F '
> Sensor#3
a
U 10
U Sensor#2
N
J
f0
3 0 Max. height=27.8"
Sensor#1
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time(sec)
Figure 12. Shallow-water Run#24 - Wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, 10' standoff.
11
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.
Sensor#5
Sensor#4
Sensor#3
Sensor#2
Sensor#1
0 10 20 30 - 50 60 70 80 90
Time(sec)
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".
12
Sensor#5
Sensor#4
Senor#3
Sensor#2
D
Sensor#1
0 10 20 9a 40 SD 60 ]D BD 90
Time(sec)
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.
30
MOOM10' U 110' L 210'
2S
a, 20
d
3 1
E
E
: 10
05
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from boat track(ft)
Figure 15. Maximum wave heights cruising at 25 mph at various standoffs.
13
30
S 10' 110' 210'
25
C
U
20
M 15
3
E
E 10
X
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from boat track(ft)
Figure 16. Maximum wave heights wakeboarding at 22.2 mph at various standoffs.
30
S10' •110' 210'
25
C
L
U 20
N
15
E
E
m 10
5
0 T
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from boat track(ft)
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.
14
30
10' 110' 210'
25
s 20
oa
a)
a,
m 15
3
E
•x 10
M
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from boat track(ft)
Figure 18. Maximum wave heights cruising at 25 mph in deep water at various standoffs.
30
10' X110' X210'
25
20
al
15
X 10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from boat track(ft)
Figure 19. Maximum wave heights wakeboarding at 25 mph in deep water at various standoffs.
15
30
$ 10' -U--110' 210'
25
c
r 20
CU
O7
3 15
E
3
x 10
m
5
0 -1 1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from boat track(ft)
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.
30
Shallow 10' (Shallow 110' Shallow 210'
25
Deep 10' Deep 110' tDeep 210'
20
15
E
sE
10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from track line(ft)
Figure 21. Maximum wave heights wakesurfing to port, 11 mph, in shallow and deep waters.
16
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=Pg2 Hmo2Te/6471
where P is the wave power or the wave energy flux,p is the density of water,g is the
acceleration of gravity,Hmo 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.
700
600
500 Station 1(outer probe)
3 400
QC�
C
QI 9M
a WV
Station 2
0
a
200
Station 3
100 Station 4 Station 5
0 —�
0 10 20 30 40 5a 60
Time(sec)
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.
17
Station Energy(J/m)
1 2,495
2 1,563
3 1,143
4 717
S 628
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.
3000
Shallow 10' (Shallow 110' Shallow 210'
2500
Deep 10' IDeep 110' ♦Deep 210'
a
2000
G1
1500
c
v
v
3 1000
500
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Distance from boat track(ft)
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
18
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.
450
400
350
E 300
________________
250
oo
200
Deep 10' Deep 110' Deep 210'
3 150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance from boat track(ft)
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
19
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.
30 .
Wave Height vs. Distance From Shore
25 —
•Cruise Shallow Cruise Deep
6 Wakeboard Shallow Wakeboard Deep
Wakesurf Shallow Wakesurf Deep
20
f1s
x
• x x x •
10
■
s
0 ____ H ' __
500 DSO 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 so 0
Df,tanoe from sla,o(M
Figure 25. Wave height vs. distance from shore in shallow and deep water.
30
Wave Height vs. Distance From Shore
25
Wakesurf shallow Wakesurf deep
Wakeboard
shallow
Wakebord
I,
deep
•C1f k
Cruising shallow
0
SOO 0 ♦S0 o 400.0 350.0 100.0 350.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 OA
DYtana from!110,0(*)
Figure 26. Wave height vs. distance from shore, trend lines only.
20
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.
30
Wave Height vs. Distance From Boat Track
Wakesurf shallow
25
30
Wakesurf deep
a /
is /C
Wakebord
deep
10
Cruising deep Wakeboard shallow
Cruising shallow
o
0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 Sub 0
Distance from boat track(ft)
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.
21
SIGNIFICANT HT. (ft.)
PEAK SPECTRAL PERIOD (s)
-- MIN. DURATION (min., hr.)
45 ,
r
42 '
E ' " I j
34 ' ` c� r
40 / , /
38
36 , /
1 l
32 /,
30 ` '
a +
28 i +
/ l /�i W +
r
= 26 'r ' N f/
a-
r O r
r r
24
LU 22 2 /
- l i i !
(I) '
20
p r
I lr /rte lr
18
r ,
` O�cS l `
16
f '
r
r
14
0 ,' O r l f f
Cf
7
12 f / f
f f f f
! / r r
r l r r
r / / /
r
10
1 1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FETCH LENGTH (STATUTE MILES)
Figure 28. A nomograph for wind-driven waves (VDOT Drainage Manual).
Fetch
Wind 1 mile 4 miles
(mph) Hmo (ft) Te (s) Hmo (ft) Te (s)
10 0.30 1.30 0.60 1.98
20 0.62 1.58 1.19 2.42
30 0.90 1.76 1.82 2.77
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.
22
10
0
-10 —H 3D,T.1.30 —IF0.6y T.L6e —K,&9°,T.Ln —MA.60,T1.9B —a.L1e,TW2 —H.LB;T.LTT
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
TWe(ur)
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.
Wind speed Fetch Hmo T. Energy
(mph) (mi) (ft) (s) (Joules/min)
10 1 0.3 1.3 208
20 1 0.62 1.6 790
30 1 0.9 1.8 3,148
10 4 0.6 2 1,046
20 4 1.19 2.4 2,418
30 4 1.82 2.8 17,572
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.
23
Operating mode Water depth Stand off Total wake Recurrence equivalent (sec)
(ft) energy (J/m) 10 mph/1mi 20 mph/4 mi
10 305 88 8
deep 110 349 101 9
210 293 85 7
Cruising 10 280 81 7
shallow 110 274 79 7
210 230 66 6
10 850 245 21
deep 110 616 178 15
Wakeboarding 210 602 174 15
10 666 192 17
shallow 110 519 150 13
210 478 138 12
10 1846 533 46
deep 110 937 270 23
210 821 237 20
Wakesurfing
10 2495 720 62
shallow 110 868 250 22
210 692 200 17
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.
24
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.
25
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.
26
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.
hup://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ShorelandZoning/documents/20 v/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-l-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/multipartforms/mpf resource 44 1 Ref-
21_Tweed Wake_Investi atg ion.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/WglamoreDPWApaper.pdf
moreDPWApaper.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
27
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.
28
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
Tuesday, 26 May 2026
Testimony
I am Malcolm R. Dick,Jr. and reside at •n Lake Nahwatzel. I am here to
speak in favor of the proposed wake-boat ban on smaller lakes in Mason County. Please let me '...
make three points.
First, wake boats are damaging our shorelines and appurtenant underwater submerged lands. '..
That is more than my opinion as has been or will be noted. For example, Nahwatzel has a State
Threatened plant, water lobelia (Lobelia dortmanna) that is affected by out-sized boat wakes.
Nahwatzel has an extensive undeveloped shoreline that shelters multiple species of plants and
animals.The wake-boats damage or destroy the habitat for all these species.
Second, docks and floats are affected by the large wakes. My dock is relatively new and was
built to take normal wear and tear. The wakes from these boats ripped out a steel plate held in
place by four large lag screws, all of which I had to replace. This dock is a substantial Investment
and I do not see wake boat owners lining up to pay for the damage they do. At a minimum, they
need to be held accountable for the damage they cause.
Third, it is claimed property values will be reduced by a ban. After watching my property values
climb in recent years, I have my doubts. Until someone presents believable data, color me
unconvinced.
In summary, those who try to tell us the world will end if we enact a wake boat ban are perhaps
a bit over-wrought. I've lived on Lake Nahwatzel for over eighty years. I've fished, skied, swam,
Inner-tubed and much more and not once have I felt deprived. Our smaller lakes and the people
who live here will be just fine without the one activity that negatively affects all others.
Do us all a favor and enact the ban.
Thank you
41k Z `L
From: a stein man(d)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
Memo
To: Mason County Commissioners
From: Michael Parker
cc:
Date: 5/26/2026
Re: Proposed Ordinance Prohibiting Wake Surfing (Artificially Larger Wakes)
As the owner of both a Phillips Lake waterfront home and a wake surf capable boat, the
proposed ordinance prohibiting wake surfing (artificially larger wakes) on lakes in Mason County
— other than Mason Lake and Lake Cushman —would impact myself, my wife and our two boys
directly.
I ask you not to enact a county-wide ordinance.
My wife and I purchased our Phillips Lake home in 2020 knowing that boating activities were a
normal part of lake life there. I imagine all property owners on the lakes in Mason County that
allow motorboats knew this when their properties were purchased. It is likely the reason most
people purchased the properties to begin with!
Even during Phillips Lake's busiest times —which occur only a couple weekends a year—the
wakes from boats do not generate waves of a nature that cannot be dealt with. My younger son
wanted you to know that he enjoys the waves, whether he is floating on an inflatable or
bouncing along in a tube.
I've read the article regarding this proposed ordinance's genesis at Island Lake and the property
erosion claims. As a property owner, I can understand the concerns. However, all lakeside
property owners should take the steps they deem necessary to protect their property. We have
a bulkhead to ensure property protection and regularly maintain our shoreline, whether the
effects come from weather or wakes.
Like many owners on Phillips Lake, we have been in the process of redeveloping our property.
I've removed derelict buildings and replaced them with new ones. I've invested in upgraded
septic and water systems to protect,the environment. All these improvements, including those I
plan to make in the future, are predicted on the use of the lake in a manner that this ordinance
stands to limit. Should the proposed ordinance be enacted, I will have to reconsider my further
investment in my property.
I believe banning wake surfing is, potentially, the first step toward banning motorboats from the
lakes of Mason County. Even if you disagree, such a decision will have an impact on property
owners, visitors and business owners.
The proposed ordinance will have an impact on property values for all the lakes impacted. This
not only injuries the property owners themselves, but it will impact Mason County when the
Assessor's Office reduces the value of these properties and their associated taxes.
As the owner of the McDonald's in Belfair, I understand the significant number of visitors that
come to Mason County to enjoy outdoor activities such as boating.-The proposed ordinance will
have a negative impact on the number of visitors to the County and the associated benefits to
the businesses that serve those visitors.
In summary, I feel this proposed ordinance is not positive for myself, my family, my Phillips Lake
property or neighbors, my continued investment in Mason County, my business in Mason
County or the County as a whole. With a list like that, I'd ask you not to enact a county-wide
ordinance.
2
Mason County Commissioners
411 N5thSt
Shelton.WA 98584
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
My name is Michele Rognlin and I am writing to share my experience as a property
owner on Lost Lake in the Elma Country Club area.
Our family has owned property on the lake, and throughout that time we have not
experienced any shoreline damage as a result of wakesurfing boats. Our property includes
a well maintained bulkhead and dock, both of which remain in excellent condition with no issues
related to wake activity.
Our family actively participates in wakesurfing and greatly values the physical activity and
quality time it provides. It has been a positive way for us to spend time together outdoors.
We are also very mindful and respectful of our neighbors and the lake environment. When
wakesurfing, we consistently maintain a safe distance from the shoreline.
As long time property owners,we have not observed any negative impacts to our
property or shoreline from wakesurfing activity on Lost Lake.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Mi che 11
nil g
t
Michele
Rognlin
Mason County
Commissioners
Public Hearing: Wake
Boats on Island Lake
26 May 2026
I'
� A.
Mike Jones
Owner:
Island Lake Science
Bibliography
Prepared for Mason County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing May 26, 2026
By Michael Jones 600 E Island Lk Dr Shelton WA, 98584
National Research Efforts
Current Researchers on Wake Boat
Impacts in Lakes
Several research teams and institutions are actively studying the
effects of wake boats on lake ecosystems, focusing on erosion,
sediment disturbance, aquatic vegetation, and invasive species.
1 . University of Wisconsin—Madison (Center for
Limnology)
David A. Ortiz, Michael Meyer, Terry Daulton, and Bob
Kovar, along with editors Carolyn Pralle and Don Behm,
have produced a May 2024 literature review summarizing
the ecological impacts of wake boats on lakes. Their work
covers shoreline erosion, sediment resuspension, aquatic
plant damage, and effects on birds and fish, while also
identifying data gaps and recommending future research
2. James Francis, Joel Nohner, John Bauman, Brian Gund
erman
Affiliation: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDN
R)
Focus: Comprehensive reviews of wake boat impacts on
aquatic habitat, including wave energy, sediment resuspensi
on, and AIS transport. Their 2023 literature review highlights
the need for best operating practices such as minimum dept
h and shoreline distance to mitigate damage.
3. Mercier-Blais & Prairie (2014)
Focus: Measurement of wave energy from wake boats under
different operating modes (wake-surfing vs. wake-
boarding), producing quantified distances for wave
dissipation.
4. Marr et al. (2022), Water Environmental Consultants 2021
Focus: Comparative energy analysis, demonstrating that wa
ke boats produce waves up to 12 times more powerful than t
ypical motorboats, impacting shorelines and aquatic vegetati
on significantly.
5. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDFR 202
4)
Focus: Studies emphasizing ballast water transport of AIS (e
.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil) and ecosystem-
level consequences such as sediment re-
suspension and nutrient cycling disruption.
Emerging Scientific Findings
• Shoreline Erosion: Wake boats create powerful wakes that
can transfer up to 12 times more energy to shorelines than n
on-
wake boats; erosion remediation with riprap is environmental
ly and financially costly.
• Aquatic Vegetation: Native aquatic plants, including cultural
ly significant species like wild rice, are highly susceptible to u
prooting from turbulence, reducing biodiversity.
• Sediment Resuspension: Wake boats can disturb sedimen
t at depths greater than 30 feet, increasing turbidity and rem
obilizing phosphorus, fueling algal blooms.
• AIS Spread: Internal ballast water retention enables the
transport of AIS between lakes; proper hot-
water sanitation protocols (≥140°F) are recommended to min
imize this risk.
• Fish and Wildlife: Enhanced noise, turbulence, and habitat
disruption can affect near-
shore spawning activity and bird nesting behaviors.
Current Research Gaps and
Recommendations
• Lack of longterm, quantitative studies on cumulative impacts
of repeated wake boat activity.
• Inconsistent data on optimal wake-boats to
shore distances and mixing depth effects across varying lake
morphologies.
• Need for standardized AIS sanitation protocols across
• internal ballast systems.
• Investigation into mitigation measures such as controlled
• wake zones, speed regulations, and advanced boat hull or
• ballast designs to reduce ecological impact.
• Emphasis on repeated, year-over-
year studies to adaptively manage ecological impacts as
• wake boat technologies evolve.
States with Restrictions or Bans on Wake Boats
Prepared for Mason County Commissioners Public Hearing 5/26/26
Several U.S. states have enacted or are considering laws to limit or ban wake boats (boats
designed to produce large wakes for wakeboarding or wakesurfing) on inland lakes due to
environmental, safety, and property concerns.
States with active restrictions or bans:
• Vermont — Enacted April 15, 2024 rules defining wake boats and requiring them to
stay in a "home lake" unless decontaminated. Wake sports must be in zones at least
500 ft from shore, 20 ft deep, and over 50 acres. Boats must be decontaminated when
moving between waters, and operators must complete an education
course mncola.org.
• Maine — Signed April 9, 2024; bans wakesurfing within 300 ft of shore and in waters
less than 15 ft deep. Requires boat dealers to inform buyers about safety courses, and
operators must complete them. Civil fines up to $100; repeat offenses can be
reclassified as a Class E crime mncola.org.
• Wisconsin — Prohibits wakeboarding/wakesurfing between sunset and sunrise; bans
on lakes <400 ft wide; no wake surf over idle speed within 200 ft of moored vessels,
docks, or people in water. Also bans wake surf on lakes >500 ft above sea level and
≥20,000 acres www.wwcoalition.org.
• Michigan — Considering increasing the wake sport buffer from 100 ft to 500 ft, which
could remove the sport from many lakes wakesurfingisnotacrime.com.
• Minnesota — Local lake associations and advocates are pushing for science-based
rules, including larger buffers and operator education, but no statewide ban
yet mncola.org.
• Oregon — Has designated a continuous 30-mile stretch on one of its top lakes for wake
surf bans, plus other restricted areas wakesurfingisnotacrime.com.
• Wisconsin Conservation Congress proposals — Suggest banning wakesurfing on
lakes smaller than 1,500 acres, which could remove the sport from most lakes in the
state wakesurfingisnotacrime.com.
•
Other states with proposed or partial bans:
• Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee — Have been discussed or
proposed for restrictions wakesurfingisnotacrime.com.
•
Key regulatory elements in these laws:
• Minimum distance from shore (often 200-500 ft)
• Minimum water depth (often 15-20 ft)
• Size limits on lakes
• Operator education or certification
• Decontamination requirements when moving between waters
Prepared by: Michael Jones 600 E Island Lk Dr Shelton, WA
Wake Boat Restrictions in Washington State
Prepared by Mike Jones
For Mason Co. Commissioners Hearing 5/26/26
Washington State does not have a statewide ban on wake boats, but
there are local and county-level restrictions on wakeboarding,
wakesurfing, and water skiing in certain lakes and waterways, and some
counties are considering broader rules.
Statewide context
Washington's recreational boating laws require all motorized and non-
motorized vessels to be operated safely, with limits on alcohol and drug
use while boating Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.
There is no blanket ban on wake boats statewide, but local governments
can impose their own rules.
Local bans and restrictions
• Lake Waramaug (Kent, WA) — In July 2025, residents of Kent,
Washington, and Warren voted to ban wakeboarding and
wakesurfing on Lake Waramaug. The ordinance was approved with
about 78% support, citing erosion, property damage, water quality
concerns, and safety issues 195 Rock.
• Bantam Lake (Morris, CT) — While not in WA, this example shows
how some communities are moving toward shore-based bans (e.g.,
200 ft from shore for water skiing, 500 ft for wakeboarding/surfing)
and fines for violations 195 Rock.
• Snohomish County — DCNR has reviewed damage data and public
input, finding it difficult to create a statewide wake-surfing ban due to
enforcement challenges and the sport's popularity. However, they
are:
Updating county code to clarify definitions of wake-related
activities.
Recommending that water ski associations move course buoys
at least 200 ft from shore.
Promoting an "Own Your Wake" campaign to educate operators
on liability and safe use.
Considering closing special use courses on hazardous
lakes Snohomish County, WA - Official Website.
Enforcement and liability
In Snohomish County, operators are reminded .that their wake can be
legally liable in civil cases, and that higher lake levels can increase damage
risk Snohomish County, WA - Official Website.
(Cost to Deal with Algal Blooms in Big Lake,
Skagit County
Source: www.goskagit.com
Controlling algal blooms in Big Lake is a multi-million-dollar
challenge that goes far beyond the current local tax funding.
Current funding gap
Local Lake Management District 1 taxes bring in about $84,000 per
year (roughly $240 per developed lakefront property, rising -8% annually)
to test water quality and control noxious weeds biglakealgaecleanup.com.
However, the full cost of algae management is estimated at about
$325,000 annually. This means the current tax base is only covering a
fraction of the needed work.
Why taxes don't cover it
Algae management requires special permits, treatment plans, and outside
contractors. It's not part of the regular county environmental budget, and
most funding comes from competitive grants. Skagit County has applied
multiple times for algae-specific grants, but both its 2024 and 2025
requests were denied biglakealgaecleanup.com.
Funding sources and costs
• State/Federal grants: Washington State Department of Ecology
funds small grants up to $50,000 for algae control projects, but these
are competitive and not guaranteed Washington State Department of
Ecology.
• Community fundraising: The Big Lake Algae Cleanup group has
sought $2.2 million in algae treatment and lake care funding from
state legislators, but realistic approval amounts could be closer
to $50,000 if any are granted biglakealgaecleanup.com.
• Timeline: Even if funding is approved, the earliest possible year for
significant algae treatment could be 2028 biglakealgaecleanup.com.
Why it matters
Without intervention, water quality will continue to decline, recreational use
(swimming, boating) will become less safe or enjoyable, and property
values in the area could be harmed biglakealgaecleanup.com.
Bottom line
The annual cost to fully address algal blooms in Big Lake is about
$325,000, but current local funding is only -$84,000. The rest must come
from grants or community fundraising, which are uncertain and may take
years to materialize./
i':
I
/: -
1" ,
,~
r 1f
.� ' t
'p1 I1t
,ul A
•
i
'�
3
I __
. :. •: •- 4
• •1
S
•
From: Mvchael Rava
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
May 4, 2026
Mason County Commissioners
411 N 5th St
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Mason County Commissioners,
My name is Nick Rognlin, and I am writing regarding our property on Lost Lake in the
Elma Country Club.
We have not experienced any shoreline damage related to wakesurfing boats. Our
bulkhead and dock are both well maintained and have shown no signs of deterioration
or issues attributable to wake activity.
From our perspective, the lake has remained stable, and we have not observed any
adverse effects to our shoreline or structures.
Thank you for taking the time to consider our experience.
Sincerely,
27/l47 1f -
Nick Rognlin
To whom it may concern.
My name is Lisa O'Gorman. I live on Lost Lake in Shelton and own three waterfront properties. It
has been brought to my attention that a few property owners on the lake want to ban wake boats.
I would like to say that I personally have not noticed any unreasonable erosion to my shore lines or
damage to my docks. I purchased my property on this lake because it is one of the few lakes in
Mason county that is an all sports lake and it would be very concerning to me if that were to
change. I fear this would devalue all of my properties. I also feel it is very unfair to people who
already own one of these boats and live on Lost Lake. I understand that there are a few people
that are upset about this issue, but that shouldnt change the rules for the many others who would
not support this ban.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Lisa O'Gorman
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
Petition to Mason County Board of Commissioners
To the Honorable Mason County Commissioners
We Respectfully Submit a petition to prevent the proposed ordinance on the
ban and use of wake boats in Mason County lakes. Please reconsider the
proposed ordinance and explore solutions that support both environmental
protection and recreational freedom.
The Issue
The proposed ordinance to ban wake-enhanced boats and wake surfing could have
significant consequences for our local communities, recreational enthusiasts, and the
local economy. Wake-enhanced boats and wake surfing have become increasingly popular
activities for many water sports enthusiasts, providing both adrenaline-pumping
excitement and recreational enjoyment. However, the blanket banning of these activities
overlooks the potential for balancing environmental concerns with recreational use.
Wake-enhanced boats are designed specifically to create larger wakes, offering a unique
and thrilling experience for those who enjoy water sports. These boats are not only a source
of enjoyment, but they also generate revenue for local businesses that rely on tourism and
water sports activities. In addition, wake surfing fosters a sense of community among
enthusiasts and provides a healthy and exciting way to enjoy outdoor activities.
While it's important to address the environmental concerns associated with wake-
enhanced boats and wake surfing, a more nuanced approach should be considered.
Solutions such as designating specific areas for these activities, sending waves to the
center of the lake, and promoting responsible wake surfing/wake boarding practices can
mitigate environmental impacts without a complete ban.
Many communities have successfully implemented regulations that balance
environmental stewardship with recreational use, demonstrating that coexistence is
possible. By Implementing a 250 ft from shoreline and 20 ft deep restrictions along with
only sending the waves toward the center of the lake. Mandatory certification programs for
boat operators, can also help minimize potential harm.
Let us work together to find a viable compromise that respects both our natural resources
and the interests of water sports enthusiasts. Please sign this petition to urge local
authorities to reconsider the proposed ordinance and explore solutions that support both
environmental protection and recreational freedom.
Commissioner Meeting
Join Zoom Commissioner Meeting
to attend the meeting virtually
May 26 at 9:15
Below is the Zoom link
hops_//us_Q6we_b.zonm us/j/8987621.181$?pwd. I<I≤R8xQn_ENZif-1FICmDsU5xJ_Cnl_t ZyxQ7.._1_
Meeting ID: 898 7621 1818
Passcode: 258740
Export List
Trista East• 2 hours ago
Choosing to own a house on a lake with boating comes with the responsibility to maintain
your dock and waterfront. Buying a house near an airport comes with.....noise! Accept your
choices please instead of taking away ours.
James East• 2 hours ago
Of all the counties in Washington State, I chose to retire from the Navy in Mason County for
its stance on personal freedoms. As the rest of the state throttles toward higher taxes and
wasteful spending, Mason seemed to have the right balance, but has lately gotten more
and more like the rest of the state. My assessed property taxes have tripped over the last 8
years (over$500K increase in made up value).... Think about that. I lived in Belfair before
living in Shelton, my home value over 13 years only went up about$50K in value as a
comparison. Same county. I am being taxed higher than if I lived on the Sound. I tried to
fight this, but lost. The assessor said, Lake property in Mason County is more valuable than
each foot of Sound property. Hogwash. Are there boat bans on the Sound?The only good
thing I get for this excessive, absolutely criminal property tax is a wake surf ban proposal?
Let's take away a good sport that is easier on the body? Opponents to wake surfing say the
boats are causing damage, excessive boat traffic causes same wake action. What's next jet
skis?Jet boats? It boils down to people respecting others by trying to minimize danger and
maximizing safety. In our Lake,we stay right down the middle of the lake to minimize wave
action, maneuver at last minute to turn and go right back down same channel. My point is
people have spent a lot of money on this sport, it generates a ton of revenue for our county
(gas, boat tabs, property taxes). Mason County has been over taxing Lake property owners
for years (300% increase in property tax over 8 years, ridiculous), for what?We pay high
property taxes to use our lakes, we pay excessive boat tabs for what?To use our lakes.To
outright ban means a lot of people are going to say, enough is enough, bye Washington.
Commissioners, find a better way, everyone has to do shoreline maintenance, dock
maintenance on lakes or on the Sound. Let's see some receipts, I can show how much I
have invested in my property and my wake surf hobby, bet it's more than anyone that's
complaining.All Mason County wake boaters unite, we should be grandfathered if a
ordinance is enacted. Final Food for Thought, almost any boat can become a "wake" boat.
A bunch of passengers overloading one side of the boat and a gadget attached to the hull,
presto it's a surf boat. So people will find a way.The lakes will still have a ton of wave
action, it's the number of boats operating at same time. I hardly use my Lake on weekends
for this reason, I try to go during the week when there is less traffic. End of the day, we need
to respect other boaters within reason, as for property damage... I think everyone living on
shoreline has to do maintenance, it's part of preservation of your property.
John Martinez• 2 hours ago
I've lived in Washington for 6 years, and before moving here I never had the opportunity to
engage in the joy of watersports like wake boarding and wake surfing. Since moving here I
have been lucky to get to enjoy watersports every summer with my extended family on
Phillips take. I support environmental conservation and being good stewards of the
environment, but I I haven't seen a clear case showing demonstrable harm to support this
ban. I support mitigation through regulation to balance the needs of the community and the
environment.
Tyler Giraldes• 21 hours ago
Wake surfing is a great low-impact activity that people of all ages can enjoy compared to
most other water sports, which can be hard on the body when you fall.
Susan Friedlander• 1 day ago
I am against any kind of restriction imposed on waterways. Allowing this restriction opens
the door for every boat being banned on every lake.
Troy smith 1 day ago
We have a family place on the lake wake surfing brings the grandchildren out to have fun ,
we bought our new boat just for this reason, changing this sport would devalue our
property also , in 22 years on the lake we have never had erosion on the beach
Jill Kershaw• 2 days ago
To Mason County Commissioners regarding the banning of wake boats: It is interesting to
me that the County is not seeking a solution to help all people affected by this issue. A ban
will anger those who enjoy this activity. Doing nothing affects the environment and property
owners. It is interesting to me that in an era of government not listening to constituents that
Mason County appears to be not listening and is prepared to penalize wake boat
enthusiasts.A more moderate approach of working with wake boating would foster better
communication, better community, and give multiple views a voice and a chance to be
heard. I encourage the County to pass rules that help wake boating to continue and allow
property owners to maintain their property as well as protect the environment. It seems to
me this is a complex issue; to prohibit an enjoyable activity instead of seeking a multi
pronged solution does not create community.And government needs to be helping build
community, not creating walls. I hope the County Commissioners will not ban wake boating
in Mason County.Thank you.
Name City State Postal Cod Country Signed On
Wesley Harmon Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
A.J.Comer Winlock WA 98596 United States 5/12/2026
Jordin pruett Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Shane gibson Tenino WA 98589 United States 5/12/2026
Kathy Shumate Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Braeden Kemmer Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Jannette Harmon Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Haelee Hernandez Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Chana Nutt Graham WA 98338 United States 5/12/2026
Kristine Nielsen Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Sophie comer Winlock WA 98596 United States 5/12/2026
Staci Nickelson Klamath Falls OR 97603 United States 5/12/2026
Debbi Teesdale Puyallup WA 98371 United States 5/12/2026
Delaney Smith Klamath Falls OR 97603 United States 5/12/2026
Cale Burbidge Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
toki dobson Shelton WA 98501 United States 5/12/2026
Amy Cooper Grapeview WA 98546 United States 5/12/2026
Kristen Smith Edgewood WA 98372 United States 5/12/2026
Katelyn smith Puyallup WA 98374 United States 5/12/2026
Sharron koidahl Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Rogene Kay Hoquiam WA 98550 United States 5/12/2026
Christopher Crowell Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Rhonda smith Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
DEBBIE HAFERKAMP Seattle WA 98125 United States 5/12/2026
Maddy spirtock Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Yesenia Hernandez Union WA 98592 United States 5/12/2026
Payden Dinsmore Grapeview WA 98546 United States 5/12/2026
Karen Whorton Seattle WA 98126 United States 5/12/2026
Ruby Whorton Portland OR 97212 United States 5/12/2026
Jill Kershaw Tenino WA 98589 United States 5/12/2026
Tami Clark Bellingham WA 98226 United States 5/12/2026
Shana Allen Seattle WA 98116 United States 5/12/2026
Maureen Viases Des Moines WA 98198 United States 5/12/2026
Nolan Whorton Seattle WA 98126 United States 5/12/2026
Jackie Koenig Saint Charles MO 63303 United States 5/12/2026
Valerie kuhn Olympia WA 98513 United States 5/12/2026
Maria Rodriguez Centralia WA 98531 United States 5/12/2026
Michelle Burbidge Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/12/2026
Christine Osness Tacoma WA 98404 United States 5/12/2026
Sarah Holt Seattle WA 98116 United States 5/12/2026
Leslie Morgan Renton WA 98055 United States 5/12/2026
Jen Cannard Seattle WA 98198 United States 5/12/2026
Annie Higgins Seattle WA 98178 United States 5/12/2026
Jilt Wine Naples FL 34110 United States 5/12/2026
Scott Wine Naples FL 34108 United States 5/12/2026
Heidi Russell Tenino WA 98589 United States 5/12/2026
Elizabeth Holm Aiken Sc 29803 United States 5/13/2026
Heather Macdougall Tacoma WA 98406 United States 5/13/2026
curt harmon shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
danyka squire Seattle WA 98102 United States 5/13/2026
Brian Reveal Olympia WA 98501 United States 5/13/2026
Theresa Elson Seattle WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Shaun Simmons Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Daniel Brinson Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Ryan Deoskey Centralia WA 98531 United States 5/13/2026
Melody olels Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Chad Trogstad Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Carty Trogstad Billings MT 59117 United States 5/13/2026
Spencer Jones Union WA 98592 United States 5/13/2026
Sheridan Hagerty Klamath Falls OR 97601 United States 5/13/2026
Staci witt Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
ELISABETH SANTIAGO East Brunswick NJ 08816 United States 5/13/2026
Troy smith Edgewood WA 98372 United States 5/13/2026
Jennifer Presley Olympia WA 98513 United States 5/13/2026
Tori Brinson Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Susan Friedlander Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Michael Wilkins Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Gerard Schaefer Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Dwain friedlander Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Allysha Potts Olympia WA 98513 United States 5/13/2026
Rhonda Rostad Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Kamie Sawtell Seattle WA 98102 United States 5/13/2026
Cartee faught Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Jordan dunnington Spokane WA 99207 United States 5/13/2026
Susan Hagen Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Elizabeth Wingert Hoodsport WA 98548 United States 5/13/2026
Lisa Anderson Snohomish WA 98290 United States 5/13/2026
Kegan Collins Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
gabrielle Meyer SNOHOMISH WA 98296 United States 5/13/2026
Kellen Anderson Bothell WA 98012 United States 5/13/2026
Jack fullerton Snohomish WA 98296 United States 5/13/2026
Trish Lord Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
David Rostad Seattle WA 98102 United States 5/13/2026
Skyler Anderson Snohomish WA 98926 United States 5/13/2026
Mikaela Rostad Shelton WA 76244 United States 5/13/2026
Nicole helser Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Susan christenson Seattle WA 98118 United States 5/13/2026
Elliya Shawn Vancouver WA 98661 United States 5/13/2026
Allie stevens Puyallup WA 98374 United States 5/13/2026
Shannon Alvarez Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
JaygerAnderson Seattle WA 98118 United States 5/13/2026
Ryan stevens Seattle WA 98198 United States 5/13/2026
Ally howe Shelton WA 98584 United states 5/13/2026
Breanna Salazar Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Taylor Toney Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Jacob Lutman Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Tanner Rhodes Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Carli Barnes Port Orchard WA 98366 United States 5/13/2026
Kaitlyn P. Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Jauna elliott Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Tristen bates Bothell WA 98012 United States 5/13/2026
Ashleigh Risley Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Ava Berg Ellensburg WA 98926 United States 5/13/2026
Shaylie Gordon Shelton WA 98103 United States 5/13/2026
Marilyn Adams Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Alyse plant Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Mary Wilkins Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
kristen pearson Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Jen Matson Belfair WA 98528 United States 5/13/2026
Evan Rhodes Seattle WA 98119 United States 5/13/2026
Tyler Giraldes Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/13/2026
Jesse lord Bonney lake WA 98391 United States 5/13/2026
Brandon Rodarmel Everett WA 98208 United States 5/13/2026
Curtis Simmons Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Jo Potts Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Carson Harmon Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
angel munoz Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Zane Scott Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Alicia Potts Montesano WA 98563 United States 5/14/2026
Taylor Wheaton Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Miles Olsen Olympia WA 98506 United States 5/14/2026
Kenneth Potts Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Bryan Clark Union WA 90060 United States 5/14/2026
Kylie Walker Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Sean Koenig Gravois Mills MO 65037 United States 5/14/2026
Kristi Morefield Olympia WA 98502 United States 5/14/2026
Tyler Dial Prosser WA 99350 United States 5/14/2026
Lisa Westby Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Beau Brown Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Madison Johnson Seattle WA 98119 United States 5/14/2026
Brian kerr Bellevue WA 98007 United States 5/14/2026
Scott Scrafford Snohomish WA 98296 United States 5/14/2026
Michael Parker Silverdale WA 98383 United States 5/14/2026
Karrie Parker Silverdale WA 98383 United States 5/14/2026
Jennifer Scrafford Meridian ID 83646 United States 5/14/2026
Lori Lillie Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Colby Dion Kennewick WA 99336 United States 5/14/2026
James East Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Daniel East Belfair WA 98528 United States 5/14/2026
Lauren Martinez Bremerton WA 98311 United States 5/14/2026
Dominic Bruno Washington WA 98528 United States 5/14/2026
Trista East Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
John Martinez Bremerton WA 98312 United States 5/14/2026
Renee Schaefer Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
John Nutt Graham WA 98338 United States 5/14/2026
David Cahill Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Jay East Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/14/2026
Pam parker Rochester WA 98579 United States 5/14/2026
Amy LaCroix Tumwater WA 95201 United States 5/15/2026
Jeff Osborn University Place WA 98466 United States 5/15/2026
shelley Smetzter Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/15/2026
Aimee Rowland Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/15/2026
Josiah Olels shelton WA 98584 United States 5/15/2026
Cheryl Barton Aberdeen WA 98520 United States 5/15/2026
Jo Clay Bonney Lake WA 98391 United States 5/16/2026
Nathan East Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/16/2026
Landra Skelly Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/16/2026
Bonnie Brown Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/16/2026
Julia Litret San Diego CA 92103 United States 5/16/2026
Joel East Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/16/2026
Serena Brown Snohomish WA 98296-804 United States 5/16/2026
Damien aquino Snohomish WA 98012 United States 5/16/2026
Brian Reynolds Tumwater WA 98501 United States 5/16/2026
Doug Wheeler Port Orchard WA 98367 United States 5/17/2026
LEVI BROWN Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/17/2026
Melody Simmons Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/17/2026
Ryan Nebenfuhr Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/17/2026
Darren lord Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/17/2026
Jordon smith Federal Way WA 98003 United States 5/17/2026
Danny Smith Edgewood WA 98372 United States 5/17/2026
Gwenyth Smith Shelton WA 98901 United States 5/17/2026
Corey McMillin Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/17/2026
Krystal Edwards Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/17/2026
Steve Yarnell Spokane Valley WA 99216 United States 5/17/2026
Kimberly McElliott shelton WA 98584 United States 5/17/2026
Kendall McEtliott Bellevue WA 98004 United States 5/17/2026
Karl Westby Shelton WA 98584 United States 5/18/2026
Log into CasePortal
f t'?':! ( (,�ti:'f7EI t 1 .-r CA E€i(�)t leaiv,ifti C.r3Ii,Ci r;fl
Sunday,May 17,2026
View Back issues COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE
Home Business Courts Economy Entertainment Op-Ed Politics Podcast Science Trials More
Oregon boaters challenge aloe surfing
ban at Ninth Circuit
In 2022,Oregon banned boats over 5,500 pounds from an approximately 3o-mile stretch of
the Willamette River.
MONIQUE MERRILL/March 9,2026
1: ;
ft
min
The Willamette River at Molalla State Park,Oregon,(Photo by M.O.Stevens via Wiklpedla)
PORTLAND,Ore.(CN)—Oregon boaters on Monday told the Ninth Circuit the
state violated their recreational boating rights by effectively banning wake
surfing and certain other water sports along a stretch of the Willamette River,
Jill Gibson,attorney for the Boaters Rights Association,told the three judge
panel that the lawsuit seeks to enforce rights under the Sports Fish Restoration
Act,
"This is the only case in the last 25 years where a plaintiff has sought to enforce
their rights tinder the Sport Fish Restoration Act,and the right that would be
created would be very narrow,"Gibson said.
The Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act is a 1950 law that provides
funding to states to restore and manage declining fish resources.
In 2022,Oregon enacted a law regulating boating activities on an approximately
3o-mile stretch of the Willamette River south of Portland called the Newberg
Pool,which has long been a popular place for water skiing,inner tubing and
wake surfing.The new rules set a maximum weight for boats that can be used
for towed watersports.
The Boaters Rights Association and two individual boaters sued members of the
Oregon State Marine Board in 2023,arguing they have a right to use a boat of
any weight to engage in watersports in the Newberg Pool,not just boats under
5,500 pounds.The individual plaintiffs said they bought a house on the river
with the express intention to take their children wake surfing.
A lower court sided with the Marine Board,with U.S.District Judge Mustafa
Kasubhai finding that nothing in the act suggested that the state law's specific
prohibitions are essential to recreational boating.
Before the Ninth Circuit,the boaters contended otherwise.
"Appellants in this case alleged that the Sport Fish Restoration Act creates rights
to recreational boating and that a state prohibition on certain types of
recreational boating violates these rights,"Gibson argued.
U.S.District Judge Sidney Fitzwater,a Ronald Reagan appointee sitting by
designation from the Northern District of Texas,questioned how the act created
a right for boaters.
"The act specifically refers to recreational boaters and it repeatedly refers to
recreational boaters,recreational boating,recreational boats and recreational
waters,"Gibson said.
The judges remained skeptical.
"I think,if you look at this statute,that Congress had an objective of making
rivers accessible to recreational boating,"U.S.Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest,a
Donald Trump appointee,said."But I'm not clear how it is that the language
that you're pointing to establishes that Congress intended to create an individual
right of action."
A state must allocate 15%of federal funds received under the Sport Fish
Restoration Act to benefit recreational boaters,as around half of the funding for
the act comes from taxes on motorboat fuel.
The boaters claimed Oregon took approximately$8 million in federal funds,
built recreational boating facilities on the Willamette River and then banned
wake surfing and other types of recreational boating in violation of the law.
Gibson pointed to a provision in the statute requiring states to conduct surveys
to determine the adequacy of facilities that provide access for all sizes of
recreational boats.
"The phrase`all sizes of boats'shows that the act is focused on individual rights,
not aggregate rights,because it doesn't just say most boats or the most common-
sized boats,"Gibson said."If there's one boat that's larger than all the others,
that boat also has to have access to waters."
The Oregon Marine Board argued that the boaters read too much into terms like
"all boats."
"The references to public access and to recreational boating are very general
expressions of the congressional purpose behind the act,which was to provide
funding to the states to provide public access,"said Carson Whitehead,attorney
representing the Oregon Marine Board.
The board also argued the boaters relied too heavily on the clause that states a
state must allocate 15%of funds for recreation.
"That's a sort of broad expression of congressional intent that I'm not aware of
any case that supports the creation of an enforceable right under Section 1983,"
Whitehead said.
The Marine Board argued the act doesn't limit a state's ability to regulate
activities on the water and that Congress didn't intend to override state
authority when a state accepts that federal funding.
"This law,it prohibits wake surfing,which isn't a restriction on a type of boat,
it's a specific activity you might use a boat for and it says if you have a boat and
you're engaging in towed water sports,that boat has to have a maximum loading
capacity of less than 5,500 pounds,"'Whitehead said.
The Ninth Circuit panel,which also included U.S.Circuit Judge Daniel Collins,a
Donald Trump appointee,did not indicate when it would rule.
Categories/ APPEALS,REGIONAL,SPORTS
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials,
major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S.and the world,while
the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,sports,Big
Tech and the arts.
Closing Arguments
By Courthouse News
Type your email...
By subscribing you agree to Substack's Terms of
se our Privacy oli and eec Information
eel1e ien_u tice
Under the Lights
By Courthouse News
Type your email...
t .__...._.
By subscribing you agree to Substack's Terms of
Else,p yacy P Lcy and oesirlofernuilen
co iectiensolice
u3 7 (;ii
About Us / Masthead / Subscriber Support / Connect with us on our social channels: O X
t-eel;.— ( iJ-,t•..... . ...........
ENVIRONMENT(HTTPS://WWW.THEINERTIA.COM/CATEGORY/ENVIRONMENT/)
akesurping Group Is Suing a Small Town in
Wisconsin ver a Ban on Wake Boats
TUESDAY MAY 5,2026
Evan Quarnstrom(bttps,//www.tGeinertia.ro»/author/evan-grmnutrom/)
Senior Writer
STAFF
(https://twitter.com/EvanQuarnstrom)@(https://www.instagram.com/evanquarnstrom/)
y ,
�f s
c s� irk , yp
r-
9 3r
r a * y
After Lake Elkhart,Wisconsin banned wakesurfing boats from the town's lake,a group of wakesurfers has punched back with a lawsuit,Photo:Benjamin
Kiaver//Unsplash
group of wakesurfers believes that the town of Elkhart Lake,
Wisconsin unc_onstitutk.n.ally ba_n..ned_w_akesurfi_ng boats from its 292-acre lake.They're
seeking to nullify the ordinance and $4 million for the loss of not being able to use their
boats, docking fees, and emotional damages.
The town passed an orcl_i_nen.ce in November 2025 that banned boats that"employ ballast
tanks, ballast bags or fins to cause a boat to operate in a bow-high manner, or which
increases or enhances a boat's wake." Ballast tanks, or bags, hold water and add weight to
the back of the boat, creating a bigger wave ideal for wakesurfers.
The town claimed that the larger wakes cause environmental damage by disrupting
sediment patterns that threaten aquatic life and can result in algae blooms. Offenders will
be slapped with a $500 fine for the first offense, and $1,000 for a second offense.
The president of the town's Board of Trustees, Lynn Shovan, doubled down on the
ordinance.
"We are confident in our ordinance.We do not believe the allegations have merit,"Sayan
told_TMJ4. "We are trying to protect the health of the lake."
The plaintiff, a group of 14 people who wake surf on Lake Elkhart, called the Elkhart
Watersports Alliance, Inc., claims that, while the town can restrict boating activities, they
do not have the right to outright ban them. The ordinance does not have sound scientific
backing, they assert, adding that it also does not accommodate people with disabilities.
They highlight a previous compromise proposed by wakesurfers on the lake that would
restrict the boats to operating at least 300 feet from shore in waters at least 20 feet deep.
The group's attorney,Anders Helquist, criticized the town's actions, saying that the
ordinance was excessive.
"Well,the village had repeated opportunities here to compromise and accommodate all
Lake users, but with these bans, which remain the most extreme in the country, the village
has shown it can't be trusted," Helquisttotd._TM_J4. "Elkhart Lake is Wisconsin's fourth
deepest lake, and our lawsuit became necessary to protect the rights to legally recreate on
a nearly 120-foot-deep Lake."
• Journal of Water Resource and Protection,2022,14,238.272
Scientific U wv i
,♦�, Research litt `•:// nv si. r),ui owndl w.0 i
•j�, Publishing ISSN Online:1945-3108
ISSN Print:1945-3094
Numerical Study of the Impact of Wake Surfing
on Inland Bodies of Water
Endicott M.Fay' ,Andrew Gunderson2,Arden Anderson2
'Cotty Fay Marine Design Inc.,Bainbridge Island,WA,USA
2Mercury Marine,Fond du Lac,WI,USA
Email:cotty@cottyfaymarine.com
How to cite this paper.Fay.E.M.,Gunder- Abstract
son,A.and Anderson,A.(2022)Numerical
Study of the impact of Wake Surfing on In many areas around the world, wake surfing has been cited as one of the
Inland Bodies of Water./oumal of Wafer major causes of lakeshore erosion and turbidity.This paper quantifies the im-
Resource and Prolccflon,14,238-272. pact related to turbidity and erosion with the use of computational fluid dy-
h�l�,._!:',liu_ui It
namics(CFD) of boat wakes in shallow water and the build-up of wind driven
Received:February 20,2022 waves.The energy, type and direction of the boat's wake are described quan-
Accepted:March 20,2022 titatively and a table for predicting wind driven waves over varying fetches,
Published:March 23,2022
depth and wind speeds is provided.The CFD simulation shows that if a wake
Copyright 0 2022 by author(s)and surf boat is operated 200 ft from shore and in at least 10 ft of water,the envi-
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. ronmental impact is minimal.
This work is licensed tinder the Creative
Commons Attribution International Keywords
License(CC BY 4.0).
,- ' ' ' CFD,Erosion,Waves,Wakes,Wind Driven Waves
1, Introduction
Wake surfing is a water sport in which a surfer rides a boat generated wake
without the need for a direct connection to the boat. This contrasts with water
skiing and wake boarding,which require the use of a tow rope to pull the rider.
Wake surfing has rapidly gained popularity over the last few decades, causing
the watercraft industry to introduce hulls specifically designed to optimize the
wake shape and size for surfing.Typically,this is done by adding ballast such as
water tanks to the back of the hull and utilizing special tabs to change the hull
orientation. Wake surf boat operation can be segregated into two modes: surf
mode and planning mode. Surf mode uses the ballast and/or tabs to create a
wake capable of pulling a surfer without need of a tow rope(sec Figure 1).Typ-
ical speeds range from 10- 13 mph. Planning mode,defined further in Section 2,
DOI:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 Mar.23,2022 238 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
is a more efficient mode of operation for travelling longer distances and is the
most widely used mode of operation for power boats. Typical planning speeds
for recreational craft range from 20 to 60 mph.
Due to the increased frequency of wake surf boat activity in recent years,users
and residents of inland bodies of water have raised the question of whether wake
surfing is detrimental to the shoreline and bottom. The purpose of this study is
to examine the actual impact of wake surf boats on the shoreline and water bot-
tom using computational fluid dynamics(CFD).
CFD utilizes high performance computing to numerically solve the equations
governing fluid flow.It has gained popularity in the marine industry for product
development over the last 20 years due to the increasing availability of reasona-
bly priced computing power.Many studies have been performed to validate CFD
results and prove their usefulness for predicting real world performance. A well-
known example for non-planning hulls such as large container ships is the 2016
Lloyd Register blind CFD workshop. Participants using various software pack-
ages were not allowed access to test results ahead of time, and all simulation re-
sults predicted speed within 4%of test data.The 2018 Multi Agency Craft Con-
ference(MACC) generic prismatic planning hull (GPPH) simulation grand chal-
lenge is another case specific to planning hulls with a similar match between
CFD and test data. Additionally, CFD has broad ranging applications in other
fields such as the aerospace,automotive,and process industries.
This study starts with a discussion of linear wave theory and the wave genera-
tion power of different boat types. Then, CFD simulations using the Open-
FOAM solver are performed on a popular wake surf boat to compare the impact
of vessel weight, vessel speed, water depth, and distance from shore on wake
propagation. Simulations are additionally performed using Siemens Star-CCM+
to solve for the interaction of wake surf boat propeller wash with various bottom
depths. Finally, waves generated by the wind for various lake sizes and wind
speeds are discussed and a CFD simulation is performed for validation. The
purpose of the research is to accurately model the wake behind a planning craft
and how it dissipates over time and distance.
!fit r"
Figure 1.Typical wake boat in surf mode.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 239 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
2. Boat Generated Waves
The wake behind a boat is a combination of a group of wave patterns that com-
bine into one train behind the craft.Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the typical
wake of a high-speed planning craft.The energy applied to the water includes a
viscous effect that generates heat through hull friction and an inertial effect that
generates the group of waves on the free surface of the water. The energy in the
water is proportional to the power provided to the propeller. The general di-
mensions of power into the water are the vessels'resistance times the speed.The
resistance components are frictional resistance and wave making resistance.The
frictional resistance is the viscous effect of the water running over the surface of
the boat. The drag generates a boundary layer that builds based on the length
and speed of the boat.The wave making resistance is the remainder of the resis-
tance that the propeller must overcome to allow the boat to travel at a particular
speed.
The type of boat has an impact based on the normal operating speed of the
boat. A small sailboat,kayak or canoe generates little or no wake because of the
size of the boat as well as speed.These small boats are running at their hull speed
or below depending on the wind speed or person paddling. The hull speed is
generally estimated as the square root of the waterline length of the craft in
nautical miles per hour. For statute miles per hour,we can multiply by 1.15. For
example, a twelve-foot canoe has a hull speed of 3.5 knots or 4 miles per hour
(mph).In the case of a 23-foot wake boat with a waterline length of 19.5 feet,the
hull speed is 5 miles per hour. In a displacement type of hull, the hull will sink
into the water as the speed increases. In the case of a large ship, the resistance
increases dramatically at this speed and makes it economically impossible to go
any faster than hull speed.
In the case of the motorboat,the hull has been designed as a planning craft that
is able to plane on the surface of the water much like a waterski on the surface of
the water.The boat has the power available to go beyond hull speed and begin to
f •r.
Figure 2.Typical wave pattern of a planning craft.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 240 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
Ii.M.Fay et al.
plane where the center of gravity will begin to rise. The term is generally noted
as semi-displacement speeds and finally planning speeds. The planning speed is
generally defined as the point where the center of gravity is finally passed above
the vertical center when the boat is at rest and the hull is supported by the hy-
drodynamic lift of the hull running over the surface of the water. The Froude
number for planning craft is generally taken as the following.
I'
(1)
�gV3
where:
V Speed in feet per second;
g.acceleration due to gravity=32.17 feet/sect;
V:Volumetric Displacement=cubic feet.
The transition to planning speeds is estimated at a volumetric Froude number
of 2.For a wake boat at a displacement of 7100 pounds,the full planning speed is
25 feet per second or 17 mph (27 kph). At speeds below 17 mph, the boat is
semi-planning and is partially supported by buoyancy.The normal wake surfing
speed is 12 mph (19.3 kph) which is midway between the displacement speed
and planning speed with a Froude number of 1.41. The total power applied to
the water is the engine power absorbed by the propeller.The wake of the propel-
ler generates the thrust needed to propel the boat and overcome the resistance
generated by the frictional and wave making components. The propeller effi-
ciency is proportional to the thrust times speed divided by the torque times en-
gine RPM. The thrust from the propeller is equal to the resistance of the boat
plus a thrust deduction to overcome the added resistance caused by the high ve-
locity water off the propeller that strikes the rudder and reduces the pressure
under the hull increasing the trim of the boat.The thrust deduction is generally
estimated at ten percent so the required propeller thrust can be estimated at ap-
proximately 110%of the estimated resistance of the boat.
The wave making resistance is proportional to the weight of the boat and the
running trim angle.The applied force to the surface of the water is estimated by
the following equation 111.
F,,, =Atan(r) (2)
where:
F,,:force applied to the free surface;
A:boats displacement in lbf;
r running trim angle at speed.
Figure 3 shows the boats' resistance curves in the free running and ballast
conditions.
The free running displacement is estimated at 5500 lbs and the ballast condi-
tions are estimated at 7100 lbs and 10,500 lbs. The data is assumed to represent
an average wake boat operating in North America. The condition of interest is
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 241 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
the wake surfing condition at 12 mph in the ballasted conditions to represent the
largest wake developed by this type of craft. The speed versus engine RPM is
shown in Figure 4 and the engine power is shown in Figure 5.The energy in the
wake is a combination of the kinetic and potential energy components.
The results of the ballasted condition at 7200 lbs(3264 kg)are:
Vessel Speed 12 mph(19.3 kph);
Total Resistance 1510 Ibf(6.72 kN);
Engine RPM 2410;
Engine Power 104 horsepower(77.6 kW);
Overall Efficiency 46.5%(Propeller is cavitating badly).
WAKE BOAT RESISTANCE ESTIMATE
FREE RUNNING AND BALLAST CONDITIONS
3000
WAKE-SURF SPEED-12 MPH
TOTAL RESISTANCE-1510 LBF-7200 LBF DISPLACEMENT w "
m 251x) TOTAL RESISTANCE 2030LBF-I0500LBF DISPLACEMENT
22000--------
a
1- I
Lyyis00--------- I
Iii I
O '
51)0 I
00 5 10 1 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
SPEED MPH
RESISTANCE-FREE RUNNING RESISTANCE-BALLAST RESISTANCE BALLAST-HVY
Figure 3.Wake boat resistance estimate.
WAKE BOAT SPEED VERSUS ENGINE RPM ESTIMATE
FREE RUNNING AND BALLAST CONDITIONS
50
45 WAKE-SURFING SPEED-12 MPH
40 ENGINE RPM-2410.7200 LBS DISPLACEMENT
ENGINE RPM=2950-10500 LBS DISPLACEMENT
x 35
1 I I
W zs I 1
20
15 I 1
--------- ----J---L---
IU
5 ' 1
I 1
V 1 1
0 1000 2000 I 3b00 4000 5000 6000
ENGINE RPM
SPEED-FREE RUNNING SPEED-BALLAST-72011 LBF SPEED BALLAST-IOSIHILBF
I•igure 4.Speed versus engine RPM for a typical wake boat.
001:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 242 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et ol.
WAKE BOAT POWER ESTIMATE
400 FREE RUNNING AND BALLAST CONDI'T'IONS
350 WAKE-SURFING SPEED,.12 MPII
ENGINE POWER-110 HP.I)ISPI.A('EMENI'-7200 L.1W
x 300 ENGINE POWER-14511P1)ISPLAC'EMENT-10500LIIP'
�1 250 .r u
3 O/
2200
(yl I o
50 t
0 t
0 5 lot 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
SPEED MPH
POWER-FREE RUNNING POWER-BALLAST POWER-BALLASTHVY
Figure 5.Engine power versus speed for a typical wake boat.
The wave making resistance can be estimated by subtracting the frictional re-
sistance,appendage and wind drag.We can assume the wind drag is small com-
pared to the overall resistance at 12 mph. The appendage drag is approximately
32 Ibf and the frictional resistance is estimated at 87 Ibf(387 N)with a frictional
coefficient of 2.625 (10-')and a wetted surface of 117 ft .The result is the wave
making resistance is 1391 lbf at 12 mph(17.62 ft/sec).
If we take the wave making resistance figure and multiply it by the speed of
the boat we can estimate the power input into the development of the wave field
following the boat. The wave making power in ft-lbflsec is 24,509 ft-lbf/sec or
33.23 kW or 33,230 joules per second.
The results of the ballasted condition at 10,500 lbs(4760 kg)are:
Vessel Speed 12 mph(17.3 kph);
Total Resistance 2030 lbf(9.03 kN);
Engine RPM 2950;
Engine Power 145 horsepower(108.2 kW);
Overall Efficiency 44.8%(Propeller is cavitating badly).
The wave train behind the boat is travelling at the same speed of boat assum-
ing the boat is travelling at a constant speed.The wave train shows an angle be-
hind the boat with a series of waves traveling at an angle of 19 degrees off the
line of travel or an included angle of 38 degrees. The waves are a group of dis-
turbances from the boat's disruption of the free surface.The waves are dispersive
meaning they are a series of waves emanating from a single source.
Figure 2 shows an aerial view of a planning craft running at approximately 30
mph.The waves are described as gravity waves and are travelling at the speed of
the boat appearing that they are attached to the boat.The appearance of the"V"
shaped angle is related to the phase velocity and group velocity of the waves fol-
lowing behind the boat. The "V" shape is described as the Kelvin Wedge. The
DOI:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 243 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et of.
angled layout is shown in Figure 6 with each leg at an angle of 19.4 degrees I21.
The wave crests are set at an angle to the line of travel at approximately 35.3 de-
grees.The velocity of the crest relative to the speed of the boat is:
c=1'cos(0) (3)
where
c.phase velocity,ft/sec;
0.Wave angle to line of travel=35.3 degrees;
V:Boat speed,ft/sec.
The phase velocity is the speed of the crest of the largest or dominant wave-
length and has a speed of 0.816(V).The wavelength of the gravity wave in deep
water is:
L, =2rtc (4)
g
where
wavelength of the dominant wave on the crest of the wake;
g.acceleration due to gravity.
The group velocity of the wave train because of the range of wavelengths that
make up the full wake is equal to one-half of the phase velocity in deep water.
The definition of deep water is dependent on speed.As the depth is reduced for
a particular wave train the group velocity will approach the phase velocity caus-
ing the waves to bunch up and begin to break at the crest.
The estimate for the group velocity in shallow water can be estimated based
on the following equation.The factor(n)will be used to determine the energy in
a wave train for comparison to typical waves generated by wind.
47 /1
U
= I I+ ( 4n1,
L.n= (5)
sink
` !�
where
WAVI oeun
BOAT TRAVEL —(•
Figure 6.Kelvin wave boundary.
D0I:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 244 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
ir.Velocity factor;
U Wave group velocity,ft/sec;
c. Phase velocity,ftlsec;
h:Water depth,feet.
The velocity factor with the boat wake surfing at 12 mph at different depths is
shown in Table 1.The phase velocity is the cosine of 35.4 degrees times the ves-
sel speed of 17.62 feet per second or 14.37 ft/sec.The group velocity in deep wa-
ter is 7.19 feet per second.
The wave energy can be estimated by the following equation for a standard
gravity wave.
E=Li, +E1, (6)
where:
Ex waves kinetic energy;
Er wave potential energy.
The wave running in deep water ignoring dissipation of the wave energy the ki-
netic energy equals the potential energy and can be estimated based on the fol-
lowing equation.
F.=EA +E� = ogH2Lc +PgH2L, =PgH2LL (7)
16 16 8
where:
H:mean wave height in the wave train in the Kelvin wedge.
The power in the wave can be derived from the following equation based on
the total energy represented by the dominant wave in the wave train.
P=Enc (8)
where:
P.Wave power in ft-lbf per second;
;z Group velocity factor;
E.Wave energy in lbf;
c.Phase Velocity.
If we equate the wave making effective power to the wave power,we can esti-
mate the height of the wave that would be recognized by the observer on the
shore. The total effective power for wave making is estimated at 1391 lbf times
Table 1.Group velocity at different depths at 12 mph(17.61 ft/sec).
Depth,h feet a Group Velocity, U
5 0.845 12.14
10 0.640 9.20
15 0.545 7.83
20 0.512 7.36
25 0.503 7.23
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 245 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
the speed of 17.61 feet per second or 24,509 ft-lbf per second.The wave train is
split in two with a wave train running on either side of the vessel. The single
dominant wave is assumed to be close to root mean square of the group of waves
travelling with the boat. The effective power for the dominant wave is the RMS
value of one half the total power or 8664 ft-lbf/sec.So the estimated wave height
can be determined from the effective wave making power of the power and the
above equation for the effective power of the wave.
z
8664=Enc=pg 8 L,.»c (9)
2
11900=Enc=pg L`uc (10)
The estimated wave height of the dominant wave is 1.85 feet(0.564 m)at 7200
lbs displacement and 2.26 feet(0.688 m)at 10,500 lbs displacement.
Figure 7 shows the wake height of the boat at 7200 lbs displacement at 12
mph in 15 feet of water.The second wave crest behind the boat is the dominant
wavelength running at the group velocity.The height of the wave from trough to
crest is approximately 0.50 m. It is also clear in the figure that the wave height
dissipates quickly as it expands outward and away from the boat.The height of
the dominant wave may not carry the RMS value of the energy in the wave train
and the figure may be closer to half than the RMS value of 70.7 percent.
Figure 8 shows a second view of the wave train behind the wake boat running
at 12 mph.The peak wave at the tip of the train has a height of 0.50 meters(1.64
feet).The center peak is the vertex of the surface disturbance.The figure shows
how the wave train is a series of waves with diverging and transverse waves.
For comparison, the wave power at a free running speed of 30 mph at a dis-
placement of 5500 lbf is estimated. The wave making resistance is estimated at
463 Ibf.The speed of 30 mph equals 44 feet per second.The effective wave mak-
ing power is the speed times the force applied to the water surface or 20,372
ft-lbf per second. The wave making power is higher at 30 mph at a lighter dis-
placement.The data is presented below.
-I
rL.
Figure 7.Wake Height of Wake boat 100 feet(30.5 m)from shore in 15 feet of water.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp,2022.143012 246 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
iwai or a or a T " w a an sar
Figure 8.Wake boat at 12 mph in 15 feet of water approximately 100 feet from shore.
Speed:30 mph=44 feet per second;
Displacement:5500 lb f;
Wave Making Resistance:463 lbf;
Effective Power R,V.20,372 ft-lbf/sec;
Wave Phase Velocity—c 35.9 ft second;
Group Wavelength L,:251 feet;
Group Velocity Factor—n:0.956(15 foot water depth);
Group Wave Energy:7203 ft-lbf/sec;
Estimated Wave Height:0.327 feet(0.1 m).
Although the wave height is significantly lower, the wave energy is only se-
venteen percent lower than the wake surfing condition. In addition, the longer
wavelength will allow the high-speed wave to travel further with less dispersion.
The higher energy is primarily a function of the higher velocity of the wake.The
wave loses a certain amount of energy during each period. The longer wave-
lengths are travelling faster and have a longer period. The period of the wake
surfing wave group is 2.81 seconds compared to 7.0 seconds for the wave group
in the free running condition at 30 mph. The higher speed craft running at the
same distance from shore will generate similar wave energy striking the shore-
line than the wake boat at a heavier displacement running at 12 mph. In each
case,the recommendation is to operate the boat 200 feet from shore and in water
depths greater than 10 feet.
3.Computational Fluid Dynamic Analysis of Wake Surf Boat
The purpose of this section is to evaluate the waves generated by a wake surf
type of boat.The initial development was untaken in Sections 1 and 2 to prepare
the reader for the application of CFD in predicting the height, period and dis-
tribution of the wave train generated by a passing wake surf boat. The difficulty
of developing a model is that only a single condition can be run at one time.The
wake is influenced by obvious factors including the vessel weight, running trim
and center of gravity. As discussed in Section 2, the running trim and displace-
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 247 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
ment are directly related to the resistance of the vessel.Other factors include the
water depth and distance from shore.To a lesser extent,the type of shoreline al-
so may have an influence on reflected waves.
Based on the speed of the wake surfing boats,a depth of ten feet or higher will
have little effect on shape,height,and period of the wave train 131.As the wave
train approaches a sloped beach the waves will tend to pile up.The range of CFD
analysis includes two operating ballast conditions. The ballast conditions are
outlined in Section 2 at displacements of 7200 lbf and 10,500 lbf. The heavier
load is an extreme case to define the heavier range of wake surfing boats. The
waterline length of the test boat is 19.63 feet at a displacement of 10,500 lbf is at
the limit for the boat.The wake surf boat market includes heavier boats,but they
have longer waterlines,and the expected running trim would be lower.
The boats were run at two basic speeds to represent wake surfing at 10- 12 mph
and 20-22 mph to represent wake boarding.The CFD domains are expanded to
provide the wave train well beyond and behind the boat to show the expected dis-
sipation of the wave train over time.The time range of the domain based on the
speed is about 40 seconds in the wake surfing mode and 25 seconds in the wake
boarding condition. The size of the domain for the study in shallow water is 47
million cells and 67 million cells for the deep-water domain.A third domain mod-
eling a channel with a shoreline on each side was developed to show the wave
impact with the shoreline and reflected wave shapes. The size of the channel
domain is 45 million cells.The channel model shows the boat approximately 100
feet from shore while the deep-water model shows the boat 200 feet from shore.
The shallow water model shows the boat 150 feet from shore. The depth of the
channel model is 16.4 feet(5 m),the depth of the deep-water model is 33 feet(10
in)and the shallow water model is 10 feet(3 m).All the models were run at the
Super Computing Center at Ohio State University(Mips://�•����,���r�im.��rg/).
3.1.CFD Model Domains
In general, for the CFD modeling of hulls, the domain is minimized to reduce
the computational time required to solve the equations.The purpose is normally
to estimate the resistance of the hull at a given speed, operating displacement,
and center of gravity. In the present case,the shape,extent and size of the wake
is the primary goal. To model the wave train, the domain needed to be refined
well beyond the normal resistance estimate.
The domain was extended side to side to capture the wave train as it devel-
oped behind the boat.The depth was set to determine impact of the water depth
on the shape, height and extent of the wave train. The largest impact on the
model was the refinement of the mesh that made up the body of water. The
mesh at the surface was critical to accurately define the wave surface and the
mesh below the surface was critical to determine the impact of the water depth.
The canal model was developed to show the effects of the beach on either side
and the impact of reflecting waves.The shallow water model depth was constant
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 248 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
to starboard and sloped to nothing on the port side to show the effects of waves
approaching a shoreline.
To develop a full wave profile over the whole domain the models were all run
for 2000 seconds with the boat fixed on the surface. The forces and moments
were evaluated, and the position of the boat was balanced based on the vessels
weight and center of gravity for each speed point.
The domain of the canal model is shown in Figure 9. The figure shows the
water mesh from the inlet to the domain with the boat 80 meters into the model.
The green boundary is the beach with a twenty-degree slope on each side. The
mesh around the boat is more refined by a factor of eight and a layered mesh of
three elements is added to the boat surface. An additional layer of two elements
is added to the beach surface to model viscous effects.
Figure 10 shows the domain of the shallow water model. The width of the
model has been extended to 45 meters(150 ft) to look at the increased distance
from shore.The water depth reduces to 0.45 m to port and is a constant 3 m (10
feet) to starboard.The boat and bottom have a layer of cells added to model the
viscous effects.
Figure 9.Channel model showing the water mesh.
Figure 10.Shallow water model showing water mesh.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 249 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
Figure 11 shows the refined mesh around the boat with the added mesh layers
on the boat hull.The red in the model is the water while the blue is the air with
the boat running at 11 mph.The white is the transition between the two liquids.
The fluids are immiscible and are split by cells.
Figure 12 shows the water mesh for the deep-water model.The water depth
goes to zero on the port side and remains at 10 m(30 feet)to starboard.
3.2.Computational Results
The iterative process of the position of the boat on the surface was made easier
using the simulation in Section 2 as a starting point. Figure 13 shows the con-
vergence of the forces and moments on the hull in shallow water model at 12
mph.
The different effects that were investigated include the distance from shore,
the depth of water and the type of beach. The Canal model shows the distance
from shore of approximately 100 feet with a 20-degree sloping beach.
Figure 11.Shallow water model showing the refined mesh.
Figure 12.Deep water model water mesh.
DOI:10.4236/)warp.2022.143012 250 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et at.
WAKE BOAT BALLASTED
DISPLACEMENT-SPEED= 12 MPH
55,000
z 50,000 DISPLACEMENT= 10500 LBF=46700 N
U
0 ------ ---- ------------------ --
45,000
40,000
g35.000
30,000
0 500 1000 1500
TIME-SECONDS
Figure 13.Convergence of vertical force.
The canal model is a good model to show the change in the wave train due to
boat speed. The runs were done at the same displacement of 7200 lbs at 11, 17
and 23 mph. Figures 14-16 show the change in the wave train shape based on
vessel speed in 5 m(16 feet)of water.
The figures show the wake stretching further behind the boat as the divergent
waves tend to turn towards shore as the speed increases.The shallow water be-
gins to have some impact at 23 mph with a larger series of reflected waves.
Figure 17 shows the canal model in perspective with the shore running be-
hind the boat. The distance of the beach is 28 meters (92 feet). Figure 18 shows
the shallow model at 45 meters(148 feet)off the beach and Figure 19 shows the
deep model that is 60 meters(197 feet)from the edge of the domain.The boat is
traveling at 11 mph in each example at a displacement of 10,500 lbf ballast for
wake surfing.
In each figure the number of waves striking the shore increases as the distance
increases.The number of waves striking the shore 28 meters in Figure 17 is five.
The number in Figure 18 at 45 meters is eight and the number at 60 meters in
Figure 19 is eleven. The group of waves tends to separate out into its compo-
nents centered around the group velocity.The wave train shape height and am-
plitude will be discussed further in Section 3.3.
Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the change in depth at the heavy displacement.
Figure 20 is run in deep water at 30 feet deep and Figure 21 is run in shallow
water at 10 feet(3 m)deep.
The shallow water runs in Figure 21 shows more wave peaks in view meaning
that the group of waves is separated quicker in shallow water.The wave train be-
gins as a single large wave at centerline and the wave group disperses outward
from the center at an included angle of 38.4 degrees.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 251 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
Figure 14.Canal model at 11 mph.
Figure 15.Canal model at 17 mph.
Figure 16.Canal model at 23 mph.
DOI:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 252 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al,
Figure 17.Canal model at 11 mph.
Figure 18.Shallow water model at Ii mph.
Figure 19.Deep water model at 11 mph.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 253 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay eta?.
Figure 20.Deep water runs at 12 mph at 10,500 lbs displacement.
Figure 21.Shallow water runs at 12 mph at 10,500 lbs displacement.
3.3.Wave Shape and Group Velocity
If we take cuts at different distances off centerline,the wave profile will begin as
a single major wave where the surfer is on the wave. Moving outboard from cen-
terline, the wave train breaks into smaller waves with periods and wavelengths
around the group wavelength based on the wave celerity. The wavelength Is the
longest in front or in the lead as the faster waves outpace the slower ones until
the group separates out into a group of around seven peaks.
The group of waves satisfies the simple dispersion equation 12) as follows.
c=(iAJ
l/2 (11)
where: `
c.wave speed(feet per second);
A:wavelength(feet).
If we simplify and rearrange the variables,we get the Froude number showing
the wave speed and wavelength are proportional to boat speed.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 254 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
T _ I' _ 22rc2 _ c (12)
g! gA gT
The wave trains from the deep-water model were cut at 5 m (16 feet), 10 m
(33 feet) and 20 in (65 feet) to show the shape of the wave train as It traveled
away from the boat.Figure 22 shows the section through the surface at 5 meters
(16 feet) off centerline. The wave is primarily a single large wave. Figure 23
shows a section at 10 m (33 feet) and Figure 24 shows the section at 20 m (65
feet).The sections are taken at 12 mph in the deep-water model.
WAKE SURF-WAVE HEIGHT
SPEED=12 MPH-DISTANCE=16 FEET
10
WAVE FU IGIIF- 1;t.ti 1NC!ii:S
s
rn
40.00 •30.00 •20.00 -10.00 0.00 0.0 20.0 ' 30.00
10
TIME-SECONDS
Figure 22.Surface section at 5 m off centerline in deep water at 12 mph.
WAKE SURF-WAVE HEIGHT
SPEED=12 MPH-DISTANCE=33 FEET OFF CENTERLINE
u
to
WAVE I IEIGFIT=16.6 INCHES
a
6
1
x
t7 -50.00
w
6
.0
.10
TIME-SECONDS
Figure 23.Surface section at 10 In off centerline in deep water at 12 mph.
DOI:10.4236/lwarp,2022.143012 255 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
WAKE SURF-WAVE HEIGHT
SPEED 12 MPH-DISTANCE=65 FEET OFF CENTERLINE
6.00
5.00
WAVE HEIGHT=7.81NCI IES
4.00
i• 00
*42000
-4.00
TIME-SECONDS
Figure 24.Surface section at 20 m off centerline in deep water at 12 mph.
The deep-water model is not affected by the depth and the group velocity will
be half of the wave velocity allowing the wavelength to disperse.The shape of the
wave profile in Figure 22 is most likely missing a bit of the top of the wave be-
cause the wave is breaking.The wake clearly shows a single disturbance.In Fig-
ure 23, the wave train has split in two at one period (2.8 seconds) behind the
first section at 5 meters.Figure 24 is about four wave cycles behind the boat and
the section clearly shows five wave peaks. The wave train has separated into a
group of waves as it travels away from the boat.The longer wavelengths lead the
group with the peak amplitude wave in the middle.The wave period at the front
of the group in Figure 24 is 3.73 seconds. The last wave has a period of 1.86
seconds.The peak wave or dominant wave has a period of 2.81 seconds.
The time plot is the longitudinal position from the transom divided by the
speed of the boat.The time zero is the boat passing at the transom and the nega-
tive time is the distance behind the boat. Positive time begins forward of the
transom and negative time behind the transom corresponds to the domain di-
mensions with the origin at the transom.
4. Experimental Field Data
There are numerous ways to estimate the height of waves on the water. In deep
water the wave disturbance from boats has been measured with submerged pres-
sure sensors. The pressure sensors needed to be calibrated and the distance be-
low the surface can be affected by current and the orbital velocities in the wave.
A common approach in the study of offshore waves is to measure the maximum
velocity at the surface using a high-speed GPS recorder.
Another approach has been to measure the wave height directly with sensors
that are in the water column and measure the running surface height.In general,
these units are floating and can be affected by the orbital velocity, background
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 256 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
waves and fundamental heave frequencies as the wave passes.The measurement
devices are generally floating and anchored to the bottom.
Reference 141 took a series of wake measurements in shallow and deep water
at various distances from shore.The boat used in the experiment was a wake surf
boat at a displacement of approximately 10,500 lbs.The wave heights were meas-
ured perpendicular to the shoreline,but the boat ran at an angle to the shoreline
to produce a wave train that travelled perpendicular to the shoreline.The angle
is assumed to be approximately 19 degrees based on a Kelvin wave.The data used
for comparison were taken using pressure sensors located below the surface.The
sensitivity and calibration of the sensors are difficult when trying to measure the
wave heights in shallow water.The limited depth reflects a pressure field off the
boat as it approaches and then quickly dissipates as the boat passes. The plots
shown are taken from data in relatively deep water with approximately ten feet
of water below the sensor. The shallow water wave height data was not consis-
tent and ignored for comparison.
The CFD analysis shows the initial wake is a disturbance that breaks up into
its component waves as it moves away from the boat. The wake sections taken
off centerline represent the travel time of the wave train away from the boat.The
plotted wave profiles from [5J show the wave profile of a boat in wake surfing
mode at different distances from the path of the boat. Each sensor represents
a distance and time from the path of the boat after it has passed. The time
represents wave cycles as they travel over the surface of the water. Figure 25
shows the field test wave train over time while it travels away from the boat.The
time is difficult to compare since the sensors are perpendicular to the shore and
at an unknown angle to the line of travel of the boat.The field data time plot is
roughly from the time the boat passed the line of sensors.The CFD data follows
50 I larrel 2 Run 24 Wave Amplitude using pressure data
40
3(1 ^^1^ ���` J��IVSf�M'vM�Mw-. n w.►w...
20
I
10 r'
-10
-200 10 2b 30 40 S0 60 70 80Seconds
90
-S I(convened pressure)-S2(cun cried pie are)-S3(convened pressure)-SJ -St
Figure 25.Data provided by 141 at 11 mph at a displacement of 10,500 Ibf.
DOI:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 257 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
the sign of the position of the boat from the transom. The CFD model had 67
million cells shown in Figure 12.The resolution near the boat is good but dete-
riorates at more than three boat lengths away from the boat making it impossible
to plot the expected wave height more than 100 feet from the track of the boat.
The CFD analysis data is taken at a point in time or picture of the wave train.
By taking cross sections through the CFD domain at positions off centerline pa-
rallel to the path of the boat, the shape of the waves can be estimated.The time
on the plot utilizes the speed of the domain and distance to estimate time. Fig-
ure 26 shows the CFD wave profile at 5 m(16 ft)off centerline.The disturbance is
very similar to the provided shown at the bottom of Figure 25 where the sensor
was close to the path of the boat. Figure 27 shows the CFD profile at 20 m (66
WAKE SURF-WAVE HEIGHT
SPEED=12 MPH-DISTANCE=16 FEET
as is
WAVE HEIGHT=20.5 INCHES
fo
0.1
fn
x
U
-ISQ00 2 00 150.0 1 50. CU S0.IXI
-4U
TIME-SECONDS
1Pigurc 2o.Wake profile 5 in off centerline at 11 mph at a displacement of 10,500 Ibf.
WAKE SURF-WAVE HEIGHT
SPEED=12 MPH-DISTANCE=66 FEET OFF CENTERLINE
ea
WAVE 111:1611 l'-=9.4 INCI IES 4.00
W zoo
U
x40.00 4a 2 .00 20.00
-2.00
x.00
-sA0
TIME-SECOND
Figure 27.Wave profile at 20 in off centerline.
DOI:10.4236/Jwarp,2022.143012 258 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
feet) off centerline. The figure represents the third profile from the bottom in
Figure 25.The CFD analysis captures the shape, height and distributions of the
wave train generated by the boat in the field test. Although the two boats are
different their basic configuration and weight are similar.
The wave generated by any planning craft will produce a disturbance on the
water surface. As the boat passes the wake breaks into a series of smaller waves.
The wake extends outward and breaks into its component parts. The measured
data and CFD data results show the wave disturbance at the transom and the
group of waves trailing behind the vessel.The wave heights,period,and shape of
the wave train match well.The wave height drops in half after about 15 cycles or
30 seconds. The field test data and CFD analysis show the same reduction in
wave height as the wave train moves away from the path of the boat.
A similar review of the wave profile of the boat at 20 mph in a wake boarding
condition at 10,500 lbf between the CFD analysis and the field data shows similar
results.The wave profiles show the same initial large disturbance,and the group
components separate into a range of individual waves of different wavelengths.
Figure 28 shows the wave height plot at the different sensors running in deep
water.The time starts as the boat passes the line of sensors.The boat passed at a
reported ten feet from the first sensor or about one wavelength based on the
plot.
Figure 29 and Figure 30 show the wave profile at 20 mph during wake board-
ing. The wave shape, height and period are all consistent between the field test
data and the CFD analysis. Figure 29 shows the wake near the transom at 5 m
off centerline and Figure 30 shows the wake profile 20 in off centerline. The
higher speed of the vessel puts the CFD plots at the first two plots from the bot-
tom in Figure 28 showing the wave profiles of the field test.
I I rre12 Run I S Wave Amplitude using pressure data
SO
a p 6
40
30 !\!�llf�ft lbvhr nw~ -M+�^^v"�
I
10
0
to
-2(J 0 20 0
Seconds
I(convorted ucsuuc)—St(crmaerted pnysure)--S3(con erredpressure— 54 —ti5
Figure 28.Wake boarding wave train profile test data 20 mph at a displacement of 10,500
lbf.
DOI: 10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 259 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
F,M,Fay et ol.
WAKE SURF-WAVE HEIGHT
SPEED=20 MPH-DISTANCE=16 FEET OFF CENTERLINE
WA E HEIGHT=20.5 INCI IES •O
-00.00 •2i -5, 0. .00 10.00 15,00
4 �
Figure 29.CFD results at 20 mph at 5 in off centerline at a displacement of 10,500 Ibf.
AVE HEIGHT
SPEED=20 MPH-DISTANCE=66 FEET
e.00
t
7WAVGHT= Ii INCI I I:S e.0o
4.00
AFT FORWi\RI)
u 00
W 2.
U
I~ 0.
-250 13 1C -50 100
-2.00
-4.00
6.00
DISTANCE METERS
Figure 30.CFD results at 20 mph at 20 111 off Centerline at a displacement of 10,5001bf.
S.Wave Energy Attenuation
The wave train behind the boat is a group of waves following the boat with a
range of periods and wavelengths centered around the group velocity.The wave
train expands into the individual waves as it travels away from the boat and its
energy will dissipate as it travels.
The primary loss in energy as the wave train travels in shallow water generally
found in confined bodies of water is through bottom friction [2J. The bottom
friction is a result of the orbital motion of the wave interacting with the bottom
as the wave travels. The amount of energy lost per cycle can be significant de-
DOI:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 260 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
pending on the depth of the water and the average wavelength.
The average wavelength is proportional to the vessels'speed.For example,the
average wavelength from a wake surfing boat running at 12 miles per hour is
approximately 40 feet while the average wavelength from the same boat at a
wake boarding speed of 20 miles per hour is 112 feet.
The loss of energy is a function of the viscosity, frequency, and depth of the
water.The following formula is provided (21.The square brackets are the visc-
ous components,and the curling brackets provide a factor for the wave number
and water depth.
Loss per Cycle= 2><`2a1) 2kh (13)
h lsinh(2O)}
where tr kinematic viscosity(ft2/sect)
a.t wave frequency(radians per second);
h:water depth-feet;
z
k.wave number: k= 4TZ
g
7:wave period—seconds.
The second term provides the factor based on wavelength and depth.Table 2
and Table 3 show the wavelength, L,,.and water depth, h ratio comparing the
wake surfing and wake boarding conditions.
Figure 31 shows a plot of the data in Table 2 and Table 3. A cycle is equiva-
lent to one period or one wavelength in distance. The longer wavelength of the
PERCENTAGE ENERGY LOSS PER WAVE PERIO
WAKE SURFING VS WAKE BOARDING
120%
w
U 100%
g0%
O 60%
F40%
20%
o..
0%
0 T251
t,
WATER DEPTH-FEET
-•-WAKE SURFING WAKE BOARDING
Figure 31.Percentage energy loss per wave period.
001:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 261 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
Table 2.Wave surfing.
VESSEL SPEED=12 MPH(19.3 KPH) WAVE,C=14.38 FT/SEC(4.38 M/S)
WAVELENGTH=40.33 FT(12.3 M) WAVE PERIOD-2.81 SECONDS
WAVE NUMBER,K=0.156 CYCLE TIME=2.81 SECONDS
DEPTH RATIO ENERGY
h Llh LOSS
2 20.17 93.81%
4 10.08 78.14%
6 6.72 59.06%
8 5.04 41.51%
10 4.03 27.69%
12 3.36 17.79%
14 2.88 11.13%
16 2.52 6.82%
18 2.24 4.11%
20 2.02 2.45%
22 1.83 1.45%
24 1.68 0.85%
26 1.55 0.49%
28 1.44 0.28%
30 1.34 0.16%
Table 3.Wake boarding.
VESSEL SPEED=20 MPH(32.2 KPH) WAVE,C=23.96 FT/SEC(7.30 M/S)
WAVELENGTH=112 FT(34.1 M) WAVE PERIOD=4.68 SECONDS
WAVE NUMBER,K=0.0561 CYCLE TIME=4.68 SECONDS
DEPTH RATIO ENERGY
h 4,/h LOSS
2 56.02 99.17%
4 28.01 96.72%
6 19.67 92.83%
8 I.10(1 87.74%
10 I I.).0 81.75%
12 9.11 75.16%
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 262 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
Continued
14 8.00 68.27%
16 7.00 61.34%
18 6.22 54.58%
20 5.60 48.15%
22 5.09. 42.15%
24 4.67 36.64%
26 4.31 31.67%
28 4.00 27.22%
30 3.73 23.29%
wake boarding wave will interact with the bottom in deeper water than the wake
surfing waves. The observer would see the larger waves impacting the shore
from the wake surfing boat due to the shorter wavelengths and lack of interac-
tion with the bottom.
In terms of the shape of wave for wake surfing,the depth i'roude Number and
its impact on the shape of the wave train are shown in Equation(14).'l'he critical
depth Froude number is defined as follows 161.
U
F�}, =- =r (14)
where:
Frh:Depth Froude Number;
U.Vessel Speed in meters per sec;
g.Acceleration due to gravity 9.81 m/s';
A Water Depth in meters.
The critical depth at 11 mph is 8.1 feet and the depth to minimize bottom ef-
fects is at a Frh of 0.75 resulting in a depth of 14.4 feet.Anecdotally,the depth of
16 feet has been noted by wake surf enthusiast as the minimum depth for the
best wave.In the case of wake boarding,the critical depth is 26.8 feet. Assuming
a speed of 20 mph, the Froude depth number is 1.33 at a depth of 15 feet. Refer-
ence 161 discusses Frh numbers above one as super critical where the wave train
produces no transverse waves only divergent long crested waves. The shape of
the divergent waves in the absence of the transverse waves would provide an op-
timum experience for the wake boarder providing clean water between the di-
vergent waves.
6.Turbidity
The power boat is driven through the water by the thrust from the propeller.The
propeller generates the thrust required to overcome the hull resistance that in-
cludes the power to generate the wave train travelling on the boat.The thrust is
generated by a change in momentum of water running through the propeller
disk.The added momentum generates a high velocity column of water travelling
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 263 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et a/.
through the propeller and behind the boat.The change in momentum generates
the thrust needed to propel the boat. The following equation idealizes the esti-
mate of the thrust.
T=PAI P�VP—V') (15)
where:
T.Thrust in lbf;
A:Area of the Propeller Disc(ft2);
p water density;
V;Water Velocity in propeller stream(nP/12) (ft/sec);
n=propeller speed in revs/sec;
A=propeller pitch in inches;
V:Boat Speed(ftlsec).
In Section 2 the performance at 12 mph was estimated, providing an engine
RPM and required thrust. The resistance of the hull was estimated at 1056 lbf
(4697 N). A thrust deduction is added based on the interaction of the propeller
induced velocities on the hull. The estimated total thrust required is 1290 lbf
(5737 N)based on a thrust deduction of about 20 percent based on the shaft an-
gle and rudder position. The propeller RPM is 1680 with a reduction ratio of
1.57:1 based on the engine RPM of 2636.The required power is estimated at 91
horsepower(67.9 kW).
The propeller pitch is 16 inches and a shaft RPM of 1680 VP is 37.3 feet per
second (25 mph) and Vo is 17.61 feet per second (12 mph). The stern gear ar-
rangement is shown in Figure 32 with a shaft angle of 18 degrees. Figure 33
shows the CFD model with a thrust disc to represent the propeller with the boat
operating at 12 mph. The resulting ideal thrust based on the thrust equation is
1746 lbf(7775 N). The actual thrust based on the propeller performance inte-
grated with the shaft line and rudder is 1290 lbf(5740 N).
Seconds. There will be some continued mixing near the surface generated by
the wake and the turbulence in the boundary layer of the boat. Figure 34 pro-
vides some insight into a rotating propeller and the vertical movement of water
from the surface to the propeller under the boat.The domain has a depth of 5 m
(16 ft) at a displacement of 7200 lbs.
The flow is shown in the streamlines through the propeller with the boat hull
over the top.The oxygenation of the water through power boat activity has been
monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency 17) to show that the body of
water sees a general increase in oxygen content during boating activity.
The illustrations of the flow of the propeller in Figures 33-35 show that the
wash does not travel toward the bottom with the movement of the boat through
the water.In Figure 35 the wash reaches approximately seven and a half feet be-
low the surface with the propeller at approximately three feet below the surface.
This is further seen in Figure 36 which depicts velocity on planes located at
various depths below the water surface.Note that this simulation was performed
with infinite depth(no bottom).
DOI:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 264 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
N
1 �
Figure 32.Propeller shaft and rudder arrangement.
II
Veloc M hods(mph)
1. Ie re :1 ri n
: = =' I
____ - . 'I ito •J
n,o
Figure 33.Propeller wash velocity(25 mph=36.7 ft/sec).
Figure 34.Propeller streamlines showing vertical mixing.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 265 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay etal.
WL ' j
Mapnlni.� (mph) f t
Figure 35.Water velocity below the surface.
Velocity('lanes Parallel to Water Surface
—.
1,2 12.1 13 1),8 14,7 15.6 16,5 17.4 18.2 191 211
Figure 36.Velocity profiles at different depths.
The inclusion of a bottom could serve to increase propwash penetration depth
by as much as 0.5 ft,depending on the proximity of the propeller to the bottom.
Additionally,a vessel with larger displacement such as 10,500 lbs from Section 3
could place the propeller slightly lower than 3 ft (1 m)below the surface and re-
quire higher thrust to overcome increased drag. For these reasons, the recom-
mended depth for wake surf operation is conservatively set at 10 ft(3 m).
7, Wind and Waves
The wind level around the lake depends on the fetch and buffer zones around
the lake. Most lakes experience a significant number of days per year with a
steady wave train breaking on the shores generated by seasonal prevailing winds
and weather systems. The wind generated waves help mix the water column to
distribute nutrients and oxygen rich water. The wind generated waves disturb
the shoreline causing widespread turbidity in combination with well oxygenated
water. The wind generated waves can cause minor erosion early in the season
where the shoreline has been impacted by ice pushing or loading.
Wind generated waves on lakes and small bodies of water are unique that they
are generally small but develop very quickly. For a wind speed of 25 miles per
DOI:10.4236/lwarp.2022.143012 266 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay eta!,
hour, the wave train is fully developed in approximately twelve minutes over a
fetch of 800 yards.The significant wave height is ten inches with a wave period
of 1.6 seconds and a wavelength of 8.4 feet.
The wind and wave data were developed from Army Corps, Coastal Engi-
neering Manual (2015). The equations were extrapolated to accept shorter
fetches and were checked based on observation and computational fluid dynam-
ics.The equations are split into a wave height equation and a wave period equa-
tion and include a function for water depth.
The wave height equation:
i F, o.a_
(Id 41.75 0.01251 g2 JU =0.283tanh 0.5782,J x tanh `U S (16)
Utanh 0.5781 gd J
The wave period equation:
r 025
0.0771 SF 1
rr 10;75 l 2 J
2 T =1.20tanh 0.520(U2 I x tanh r Ur l��j751 (17)
ll J tanh 10.5201 �= I
where
H Wave height—feet;
U Wind speed—feet per second;
g:Acceleration due to gravity 32.2 ft/sect;
F.Fetch distance in feet;
Water depth in feet;
7?Wave period in seconds.
The significant wavelength,L,,:
'f 2 2
L,,, =Za Ltanh(! )
dl (18)
1 S
The equation has been analyzed to include smaller fetches and checked using
computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Table 4 shows the results of the equation
at a wind speed of 35 mph (15 m/s) and at a depth of 16 feet (5 m). The line in
the table is highlighted (fetch of 800 yards) that shows the details of the CFD
model.
The table takes the fetch, wind speed and water depth and provides the wave
height, wave period and time in minutes for the wave state to become fully de-
veloped. In the case of a fetch of 800 yards, the waves will become fully devel-
oped after a period of ten minutes. The wave height is 1.11 feet (0.338 m), the
wavelength is 9.5 feet(2.9 m)and the wave period is 1.86 seconds.The impact of
the wind event would have a 1.16 foot (0.354 meter) high wave impacted the
shoreline every 1.86 seconds or approximately 1940 times per hour. Another in-
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 267 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et Ol.
teresting observation factor is that the sea state only takes ten minutes to become
fully developed at a wind speed of 35 miles per hour.Figure 37 shows a photo-
graph of the wave spectra on a lake with a fetch of about one mile in 15-20 mph
(24-32 kph)of wind.
Figure 38 shows the results of the CFD analysis of the wave train over the
800-foot fetch.The CFD model uses 32 million cells and a long eddy simulation
to model the wind to water interface.The elevation shows a wave height of 0.32
meters which corelates to the wind-wave model shown above.
Figure 37.Image of wind driven waves at 25-35 mph.
Table 4.Wave height estimate.
FETCH FETCH WIND DEPTH WAVE WAVE WAVELENGTH TIME WAVESPEED
YARDS FEET FT/SEC FEET HEIGHT PERIOD FEET MINUTES PT/SEC
100 300 51.4 16 0.267 0.941 4.82 2.71 2.13
200 600 30 16 0.357 1.101 5.64 4.59 2.49
300 900 30 16 0.422 1.205 6.17 6.23 2.73
400 1200 30 16 0.475 1.282 6.57 7.75 2.90
500 1500 30 16 0.521 1.344 6.89 9.18 3.04
600 1800 30 16 0.561 1.396 7.15 10.54 3.16
700 2100 30 16 0.598 1.440 7.38 11.85 3.26
800 2400 30 16 0.631 1.480 7.58 13.12 3.35
900 2700 30 16 0.662 1.515 7.76 14.34 3.43
1000 3000 30 16 0.691 1.547 7.93 15.54 3.50
1200 3600 30 16 0.743 1.602 8.21 17.85 3.63
1400 4200 30 16 0.791 1.649 8.45 20.06 3.73
1600 4800 30 16 0.834 1.691 8.67 22.21 3.83
1800 5400 30 16 0.873 1.728 8.85 24.29 3.91
2000 6000 30 16 0.910 1.761 9.02 26.31 3.99
DO!:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 268 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M,Fay eta/.
Figure 38.Wave height elevation at 35 mph over a fetch of 800 yards.
Figure 39 shows the wind velocity profile over the water surface. The wind
speed is set at the top of the domain at an elevation of 30 meters which is defined
as the standard for the measurement of wind velocity overland.The level of tur-
bulence over the water is an indication of the wind and water interaction as the
sea state develops.
8.Conclusions
The report has shown that the operation of wake boats on a lake has a minor
impact on the environmental health of the body of water.
In an Australian study 181, the goal was to develop a decision support tool
(DST) to objectively access the vulnerability of a particular shoreline to erosion.
The study references a range of papers that describe the wave energy threshold
for erosion.The range of wave heights noted by the author does not include any
reference to wind waves and the author states, "Importantly, the previously
proposed wave management criteria do not take into account the natural back-
ground wave energy, nor the condition of the bank."The quote from the author
is true,but the studies cited were all done for a specific body of water.The wave
heights noted generally agree on a maximum wave height of 28 cm (11 inches)
as it approaches the shore. A broader definition (9) uses the following equation
to define a maximum wave height.
//,, ≤0.5 5 (19)
n
where:
H,,:Maximum wave height(meters);
TM Mean Wave period(seconds).
The higher speed wake at 20 mph will cause turbidity through bottom friction
while producing a smaller series of waves at the shoreline. The impact of rain
events and modest wind events also tend to raise the level of turbidity and arc
the primary cause of erosion on shorelines and the introduction of sediment into
the lake.
001:10.4236/Jwarp.2022.143012 269 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
(
E.M.Fayetol,
Figure 39.Wind profile over the water surface- 15 m/s at 30 m above the water surface.
In Section 2 the predicted wave heights based on the wave energy equation
assume the wake is a single wave. The equation is accurate close to the boat
where the initial disturbance generates the wake. The predicted height of the
wave by calculation matches closely with the measured wave height in Figure 25
and the CFD results shown in Figure 26. As shown in the CFD analysis and in
field test data, the initial disturbance of the water surface breaks into a group of
waves as the wave train moves away from the boat and cycles over the surface of
the water. The total energy of the wave train remains relatively constant while
dissipating with every cycle, but the initial large wave breaks apart into smaller
and smaller waves as the group travels away from the boat.The wave train ener-
gy that reaches the shore is reduced as the initial large surfing wave breaks into
several smaller waves that will have little or no impact on the shoreline.
Based on both the field data and CFD data, the key to reducing the impact of
wake surfing is to operate the boat far enough offshore to allow the wake neat
the boat to dissipate into its component parts where the individual wave heights
of the group are reduced to a height less than 28 cm (11 inches). The field test
data 1] found 200 feet to be adequate to reduce the wave heights to under 28 cm
(11 inches). In comparison to wind generated waves,the wave height of 28 cm is
common in a modest wind event on lakes with a fetch of a half mile(0.8 km)at a
wind speed of 20 mph (9.0 m/s). The full wave spectrum would be fully devel-
oped in less than 20 minutes and the average wave period would be 1.5 seconds.
The turbidity question is answered in the CFD analysis where motor craft
should not operate at planning speeds in water depths under ten feet. At this
depth, the turbidity levels would remain well above the bottom and the wash
from the propeller(s) would not endanger any native water plants or disturb
small fry. In lakes that are relatively shallow and have large ranges of shallow
water,further restrictions may be necessary to reduce the bottom friction gener-
ated by turbidity caused by wakes of passing motor craft.
In a study,it has been observed that a wake-surf boat wake will dissipate com-
pletely in 300 meters from the boat path while operating in deep water 181. Op-
001: 10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 270 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et al.
crating a boat that far off a shoreline may not be possible due to the size of the
lake. The testing I.11 1 8 1 suggests a distance of 200 feet allows the wave train to
dissipate enough to cause little or no impact on the shoreline.The commonsense
approach includes a few operating guidelines for wake surfing. Always operate
the boat at least 200 feet from shore and in a water depth greater than ten feet. If
possible, run parallel to shore and make only lateral runs without turning at
speed to reduce the large wake produced during a turn. If the lake is large
enough,relocate within the lake to reduce the time in a particular area.
9. Epilogue
While operating any motorboat on a small body of water,the depth of water and
the proximity to shore should be considered for the people on shore as well as
the health of the lake. On large lakes in Ontario,a speed limit is imposed within
100 m (330 ft) from shore of 10 kph (6.3 mph) and 70 kph (44 mph) over the
remainder of the lake. In New Hampshire there is a no-wake zone within 150
feet of the shore.Many states'focuses are on enforcement of existing laws on the
books which state that the boat operator is responsible for their wake and any
damage it may cause. The price of a ticket for a wake that causes damage or in-
jury can be as high as$720.The law in Oregon reads if a skipper operates a boat
in a way that damages or is likely to damage private property or cause injury,
ORS 830.305 clearly states it as a citable offense. At this time many states are
opting for the Play Away approach that everyone has a right to be on the water,
but anyone that endangers others will be cited.
In some states, they are looking at imposing restrictions on lakes with an av-
erage water depth under fifteen feet. Wake surf boats should operate 200 feet
offshore to minimize the wave impact on shore to allow the wave to break into
their group components to an average height lower than the suggested limit of
11 inches in height.The rules going forward will include all power boats,but the
wake surfing community needs to embrace their responsibility as operators to
minimize the confrontations with other boats and people on shore.The conspi-
cuous nature of wake surfing by generating a larger wake at a slower speed and
staying in the area tends to draw attention to the activity.Sometimes the effected
shoreline needs a break from the action,and they could move to a new location.
The wake-surfers need to be sensitive to people on shore as everyone has a right
to enjoy the water.
Acknowledgements
The development of this paper was supported financially by the National Marine
Manufacturers Association (NMMA) in cooperation with its members. The
computational fluid dynamic analysis was accomplished at Ohio State Universi-
ty's Supercomputer Center using OpenFOAM Version 8 1101.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
DOI:10.4236/jwarp.2022.143012 271 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
E.M.Fay et ol.
References
(1) Savitsky, D. (1964) Hydrodynamic Design of Planning Hulls, Marine Technology.
Marine Technology and SNAMENews,71-95.
https://doi.org/10.5957/mt 1.1964.1.4.71
[2) Lighthill, J. (1978) Waves in Fluids,Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge
University Press,New York.
(3) Elmore, W.C. and Heald, M.A. (1969) Physics of Waves. General Publishing Co.,
Toronto,Ontario,Canada.
(4) Clifford, A.G. and Girod, L.G. (2015) Characterisation of Wake-Sport Wakes and
Their Potential Impact on Shorelines.Water Sports Industry Association,Orlando,
FL.
(51 Bllkovic,D.,Mitchell,M.,Davis,J.,Andrews,E.,King,A.,Mason, P., Herman,J.,
Tahvildarl,N.and Davis,J. (2017)Review of Boat Wake Wave Impacts on Shore-
line Erosion and Potential Solutions for the Chesapeake Bay. STAC Publication
Number 17-002, Chesapeake Bay Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC),Edgewater,MD,68 P.
(6) MacFarlane,G.(August,2018)Wave Wake Study-HB4099.Report 18WW01,Uni-
versity of Tasmania,Newnham,TAS,Australia.
[7) Yousef, A. (1974) Assessing Effects of Water Quality by Boating Activity. Florida
Technical University,Melbourne,FL.
181 Glamore,W.C. (January,2008) A Decision Support Tool for Assessing the Impact
of Boat Wake Waves on Inland Waterways.
(9) Parnell, K.(2001) Wakes from Large High-Speed Ferries in Confined Coastal Wa-
ters: Management Approaches with Examples from New Zealand and Denmark.
Coastal Management,29,217-237.https://dol.org/10.1080/08920750152102044
(10) Greenshields,C.J. (June, 2020) OpenFoam Users Guide, Version 7.1. OpenFOAM
Foundation Ltd.
001:10.4236/)warp.2022.143012 272 Journal of Water Resource and Protection
PETITION TO THE MASON COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
In Su1,por•t c.f'Strong. En or'ceable .Res frictions on Wa/ce Boats on Mason County'
Lakes
To the ilurtnrable Mason County Co issAonersa
We,the undersigned residents,property owners, and recreational users of lakes in Mason County,
respectfully petition the Board to adopt and enforce strong restrictions on wake boats and
wake enhanced boating on Mason County lakes.
This petition is submitted because the impacts of these vessels are not theoretical.They are visible,
repeated, and damaging to Mason County lakes, shorelines, property,wildlife habitat,and public
safety.
1, Wake boats are designed to create 1 ar er and more forceful wakes than conventional recreational
boats.Through hull design, ballast,mechanical add-ons, and operating profile,these vessels can
generate unusually disruptive wave energy even when wakemenhancing devices are not actively
engaged.
2.Those wakes contribute to shoreline erosion and repeated damage to docks,retaining walls,
bulkheads,walkways,pilings,lifts,and boats moored near shore. Petitioners have observed docks
loosened, structures undermined, and smaller vessels battered,swamped,or sunk.
3. Wake®enhanced boating also endanger swimmers and create serious hazards for users of canoes,
kayaks, paddle boards, paddle boats, inflatables,and small fishing boats that cannot safely absorb
repeated heavy wave action.
4 These activities also disturb lake ecology by churning sediment, degrading near-shore habitat,
and increasing the risk of transporting invasive weeds and other aquatic material from one lake to
another through ballast systems and related equipment.
5.Existing state laws addressing unsafe or reckless operation are too general and too difficult to
enforce consistently on small and medium-sized lakes. Clear local rules are therefore necessary.
REQUESTED ACTION
Adopt the proposed wake boat restrictions without delay before 2026 boating season.
o Ensure the final ordinance regulates the actual wake-producing effects of these vessels,not merely
whether optional wake-enhancing devices are switched on or off.
b Adopt rules that are clear enough to be meaningfully enforced in order to protect shoreline property,
public safety,lake habitat,and water quality.
By signing below, each person affirms that they are a resident,property owner, or recreational user of'a
Mason County rake and support adoption of these resfr icfiOns.
Make Boat Restrictions on Mason County Lakes
By signing bolow,I support adop ion of he proposed Mason County 1@0810io a retricthg wif e
Was on county tukcs,
E
'-,v
I /6T3a0Y /
Gd
`mil 1 I. �& I,O IeV
.1udMeJ .q
-I( ► �. . tJLJ I
c
Lt0O7,
L
PETITION SIGNATURE SHEET
Wake.Boat Restrictions on Mason County Lakes
By signing below, I support adoption of the proposed Mason County legislation restricting wake
boats on county lakes,
nteii N k-lie i Addy ess i phone/ Date
:/ vi,4 It;ith F / Z
\kj 1,. f 1 _
( C f-h ' t IJ! ? ( 2If,. i
//()f' '$1≤ Jo4ci
o\ vt 1 ,J/os�� n �(T ,� /
) c M€ I L' / bt 4 ij ,4 'k ' )
k l t, 4 ! la s y :_
i� t �� ., a � � c,�t c i /eft
1
x '��d ! R P C� ® 911 ;° ate o �c 9 f :,r• � � 51,D 4t;A ✓ I'
V' /°y o ` y
C F/i ' x=r_._._. 1..-_ f�' ._f O , tV�' .`i9' I .//._I) 'f C'' ( f��' �1_..J 1 ?'' 's'7'
d 'S5
III
s �f�
(J
Ci3�A •fir' n V/V�f ? b ��1 ,A' �2 d"... . .� A_(' r �i H h 9 yo J ,�!'•
� r mod_
' .- ,,, !
• o
PETITION SIGNATURE SHEET
Wake Boat Restrictions on Mason Cunty Lakes
By signing below, I support adoption of the proposed Mason County legislation restricting wake
boats on county lakes,
'Pm muted karma' Address iltonie t Emnafliaatmmre Kato'
g
C d�] n� R lf,J[lt� r�£7
f aaJ �1 � �"U 4�'� J `�f� � 1 _._. s h 7�'I l /±: t1 A,4n._
I �
a f �
Lako the use al any mttM1 that p � �.° wako, MoLt
Iy ove ing a boat wf ,I of Af :
tanks or bladders and Wako/
r: eatc that amed @ rtj
� iflnawntal darnana ng in horelinjomndon and
h'aa,d for noHnoturkzud W5Se $ Canoes,)
� . wzrnrnO, .3 'Mon y pE
s9fMO8O of Wshngtonto y caters Mana
anon shall c �
fftint for safety of persons or propet "
JK{ jT' : fJj3j
II
I" „�
}
óIji
r
' 1 ) T
1 r ' �
{
t_
,a eta uu 8 aa gg ss
Pa a= I
j shifna�, !'h"et� ro��I�ii
1 t ^" 1 c t{1 di a 1fj
G '`"nth ,r
2
loot, 1 a
{
I Jv H
4 �
II
ON
® es two
T±J ;\\ E U
c s( ;-
/'
f$ 2$
ss °
rfit
L
I \
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in
Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.
Get Adobe Reader Now!
May 4, 2026
Mason County Commissioners Office
411 North 5th St
Shelton,WA 98584
Attention: Commissioners
Reference: Ordinance Regulating Wake-Enhanced Motorboat Operation
Commissioners,
I would like to address the proposed ban on all lakes except Mason and Cushman lakes.
I have had a house on Lost lake for 15 plus years. There are several residents that have this
style of motorboat and have respectfully used them for many years. I personally do not have a
wake-enhanced motorboat but have zero issues with the neighbors that do. I have not Incurred
any additional damage to my dock or shoreline because of the use of these boats.
I have not had a neighbor or any resident around the lake mention anything to me regarding
damage from this type of motorboat In fact, I have not heard a complaint from anyone
regarding wake-enhanced boats
I will say if there are any issues on the lake with regular motorboats or wake-enhanced
motorboats, It is typically a person that has launched their motorboat from the public launch and
does not show the same respect and restraint as the residence.
I am curious about the number of complaints Mason County has received from each lake In the
county.
Is there a spreadsheet available with this data?
I would not want names,Just the number of different people that have lodged a complaint from
each lake. (Not how many complaints are from an Individual person).
I personally feel it is not wise to make a blanket ban on wake-enhanced motorboats.
Thank you,
RitAanL NlacdoacpU
Richard Macdougall
Mason County Board of County Commissioners
Public Hearing
May 26, 2026
Good Morning,
My name is Robert A. Pastore and I reside at 292 Vineyard Crest Road 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:
o 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.
Second, 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.
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.
There is aiso no requirenrent 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.
The isronosed Mason C .c ., _ct, 6.6.4.0 OTT) Aq4t icei.b i i should serve as the
s € air s ,' '' ,c ?
This chapter applies to new and expanding Group 8 water systems and
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?
is the apparent lack of citizen participation in
the development of this ordinance
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:
_ . .,,� �x r ��_ ry .. ., w.. ..::+. .`a t..,, �£ . _ Viz„" t _ >�., „�•'"_
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.
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
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Stella Scott
To: McKenzie Smith; Randy Neatherlin; ptarzwell(cbmasoncounntvwa.aov; 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
May 26, 2026
To: Mason County Commissioners
Mason County, Washington
Subject: Closing all Mason County Lakes to Wake Surfing Boats, except Mason Lake and Lake
Cushman.
I have been a permanent resident of Mason County since 2012, living on Mason Lake in
Grapeview, WA. I have watched the number of Wake Surfing Boats operating on Mason Lake
increase dramatically over these 14 years. I have also watched the size of those Wake Surfing
Boats increase significantly. Those increased numbers of boats and boat size increases have
created more and larger waves rolling into our shoreline eroding the beaches, damaging docks.
The wake surf boats are clearly the largest wave makers and cause the most destruction.
There are many boats on lifts and docks around the lake of all sizes. In spring, summer and fall
many boaters and PWC (personal water craft) travel to Mason lake and launch at the public
launch to fish, cruise and pull tubes and pull wake boards and pull wake surfers. The wake surf
boats are designed to make waves similar to waves in the ocean so the rider can surf on the
wave behind the boat, LIKE IN THE OCEAN. Those wakes off the surf boats disrupt every other
water activity on the lake such as kayaking, paddle boarding, swimming, slow cruising, water
skiing and fishing.
The last issue is an important one for safety reasons. When the wake surf boats go by the
waves they create travel all the way to the shore. Children, including small children enjoying the
shallow shoreline water can be knocked over by the big waves. That is a critical safety issue for
swimmers and children playing in shallow shoreline water. The wake surf boats waves rise up
on the sloping beach then break and crash onto the beach.
You are passing an ordinance in Mason County lakes because you deemed those smaller lakes
unsafe due to wake surfing. The same safety concerns apply to Mason lake: Shoreline and dock
damage, safety challenges to swimmers, paddle boarders, kayaks and other people along the
shoreline. Leaving Mason Lake as the only Mason County water available (many people will
choose Mason Lake over towing all the way up to Cushman)for wake surf boats because of
close access. This will invite Mason Lake to wake surf boats from Kitsap, Pierce and Thurston
counties. There will be massive traffic of wake surf boats onto Mason Lake.
My suggestion is to ban the wakesurf boats from Mason Lake also.
R pectfully,
Tom Anderson
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
ter .
18m Wliing as areSldanl ml o5l uWa W Mawr CAN1¢'bYl®eaur RarnedNa regprwng wnmmsuboutvaleaflhgard lspot r &
FaraurbWlWmI lalnman rmpnwm ptdate In iv gybesadestamv9xuov:espeM msznc gfnlSmn byuue.nvspennreowr
3 enpyUnneLrelemFmrvmntramnfmvmnlob Sreh
W,underelendihelthawebfGllooraabwlcrostuobl00bblake 5uTImm.HOCaeer,bawd onaurdlrect,baglamepabnos,wet.
NU Wte.anmeafffiIe is Sm yswpo od la aleet.mgeetwwllier.wave,and mawnal wvhgons.
Gvx Me 22naswe here I,edhero.arawr4ne Esram3lnedstabte.While high evearvWbwUt oc 3Zonaflybdng In tle ds a4G
has notepeloncedmryiewes lele6dthv cnmm,
Given oarbotionuoiMdwation of cure d nc4.v:'n uavwaur p p;ib Ww,v,a mnanngnderapbdWtwoke Butg neap)
regubgonsageotlngl keuse.
Tunkyae MYoaglre arA foryuurseMmbwrmmmtvdly. -
Tmyw,y,
Ti
Wake Boat rtecjulalion A Science f ased Asso.>u )roi William I�anlaolier, I)W Madison
1
ExecuUve Summary
This white paper presents a comprehensive, science-based evaluation of the environmental impacts of
recreational wake boats,with a focus on shoreline erosion,wave energy, sediment resuspension, aquatic
invasive species (AIS), safety, and enforceability. The analysis integrates peer-reviewed literature,
original statistical analysis, and fundamental hydrodynamic principles to assess whether wake boats pose
a unique or disproportionate threat to inland lakes when operated responsibly.
I! ° _______________
No Unique Erosion More than 40 years of research show that shoreline erosion is driven
Risk primarily by natural forces—wind-generated waves, ice action,
water-level fluctuations, runoff, and shoreline development. Boat
wakes, except for large commercial vessels in confined waterways,
are a minor contributor. Wake energy decays rapidly, with more than
70% dissipated within 200 feet.
Comparable at 200 Wave-height data from six independent studies, analyzed with
Feet Welch's t-tests, show that wake boats surfing at 200 feet produce
wave heights statistically indistinguishable from fishing/ski boats at
100 feet, wake boats without ballast at higher speeds at 100 feet,
and other large recreational boats. Cross-validation with all six
studies directly addresses any claim of cherry-picking.
Wave Energy Wave energy (proportional to H2T2) at 200 feet is statistically
Confirms Height equivalent to fishing/ski boat energy at 100 feet (p = 0.82). By 300
feet,wake surf energy equals or falls below that of wakeboard boats.
Trendline extrapolations suggesting 400-500 ft setbacks overstate
the raw data.
Hawed 500-700 ft Studies citing large setbacks compare wake boats at—11 mph to ski
Benchmarks boats at high planing speeds (24-30 mph)—fundamentally different
hydrodynamic regimes. When compared using appropriate
benchmarks and volumetric Froude numbers, wake boats are
indistinguishable from other heavy recreational boats already
permitted near shore.
Page 1
Wake Bo it Requlation:A Sa;iearoe [3a.7r;d As',r_ssanont I I' of, William 13ranl olrt:r UW Madison
a a
Wind Dominates Even the highest estimates place boat-wake contributions at no
Shoreline Energy more than 10% of annual wave energy—only in narrow basins with
heavy traffic and minimal fetch. On typical Wisconsin lakes the
contribution is far lower. Wind energy is not merely larger—it is
orders of magnitude more persistent.
No Lake Bed The most rigorous experimental study (Daeger et al., 2022) shows
Disturbance >15 ft no reproducible sediment disturbance beyond 10-15 ft. No peer-
reviewed study documents repeatable resuspension beyond 14-15
ft. A 20-ft threshold is an excessive precautionary policy, not an
evidence-based finding.
Scouring Claims Frequently cited reports rely on speculative modeling, uncalibrated
Unsupported video, or indirect proxies. These studies lack replication, calibration,
statistical analysis, or peer review—and their conclusions conflict
with higher-quality experimental work.
AIS Risk Not Fishing boats, runabouts, and pontoons pose a substantially higher
Unique to Wake aggregate AIS risk. Wake boats are typically used on a single home
Boats lake. Fishing boats carry an 11-fold higher risk; sterndrives trap 85%
more residual water than ballast tanks. Singling out wake boats is
arbitrary and unsupported by data.
Depth Rules Lakebed contours shift, depth maps carry accuracy disclaimers, and
Difficult to Enforce onboard sounders lack foot-level precision—making depth-based
rules difficult to enforce and vulnerable to legal challenge. Distance-
based rules achieve the same protective outcome without these
vulnerabilities.
Conclusion: The scientific evidence does not support claims
that a w. r t d
ms that wake boats,when operated
I at least 200 feet from shore and in water deeper than 10-15 feet, pose a unique or
disproportionate threat to shorelines, lake beds,or water quality. Policies calling for 500-700-
foot setbacks are built on a flawed benchmark: comparing wake boats at semi-displacement
speeds to ski boats at full planing speed—a scientifically invalid comparison. When boats are
compared correctly, the case for extraordinary restrictions collapses. A consistent, statewide,
science-based regulation—such as a 200-foot setback applicable to all wake-producing
boats—offers a balanced approach, consistent with other states, that protects natural
resources while preserving fair and reasonable recreational access.
Pogo;2
V/dke Boat r;etai1lratioa .A Sdencc r1asr;d d ;sfiaeaat Niof Will�taa1a 13nniaoliea, t)W fvtadisroaa
Benefits k Boating
Wake surfing significantly broadens access to water sports in Wisconsin, particularly for seniors and
individuals with physical limitations. It provides a valuable alternative for those unable to participate in
activities like water skiing. Unlike traditional water skiing or wakeboarding, wake surfing does not require
towing, making it well-suited for individuals with shoulder or upper body injuries. Operating at slower
speeds and without bindings minimizes the risk of injury while improving balance and flexibility. This
inclusivity not only enhances access to water sports but also serves as a unique attraction for visitors to
Wisconsin.
Efforts to ban or severely restrict wake surfing—such as requiring a 700-foot setback, limiting the activity
to lakes larger than 1,500 acres, or mandating a minimum depth of 30 feet—would constitute the most
extreme regulations in the country. No state has adopted a 700-foot restriction. Only Vermont has
enacted a 500-foot setback, and Maine stipulates a 300-foot distance. Of the 48 continental U.S. states,
46 either have no specific statewide regulations or adhere to the widely accepted 200-foot standard,
particularly in southern states where wake surfing is common (see Appendix, Table 1).
States like Tennessee,Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia—where wake surfing takes place
year-round on large, environmentally sensitive reservoir systems—have embraced balanced, statewide
rules. Even other Midwestern states with ecosystems similar to Wisconsin, such as Minnesota, Michigan,
and Indiana, have not adopted the type of onerous restrictions proposed by certain interests.
No peer-reviewed study documents unique or disproportionate harm from wake boats operated at 200
feet and in water deeper than 10-15 feet. Proposals for larger setbacks rely on studies that compare
incompatible hydrodynamic regimes or extrapolate far beyond what the underlying data supports. Due to
misleading claims, some towns in Wisconsin have enacted local ordinances banning wake surfing while
neighboring towns with similar lake conditions have not. This inconsistency creates confusion, unfairly
targets water sports enthusiasts, and conveys a message that Wisconsin is unwelcoming to recreational
boating.
A statewide law establishing clear, science-based regulations is essential to resolve these
inconsistencies. Expanding the current 100 foot no-wake zone to 200 feet is a balanced and effective
measure that will protect natural resources while ensuring fair and responsible regulation of recreational
water sports.
1. �gc 3
Wake Boitl lteguli0uin A Science Based/V ',C s silent I I rof. William 13Siel olier, t1W Madison '...
What Wave Height is 'e
17 in 171n
LUllG'
IllIl 12 in
1 (15"
tIll'It57inj
l t-SJ ir5 at
100')
rM
Salem Water Skiing Wake Surfing Tubing with Kids,
Cruising, Knee boarding
Ski ,Nautique Ave Wake Surf ki , autiuue
30 mph, 100' 1012 mph 200' 10 mph, 100'
Data from Macfarlane,G.J.(2025).Vbakesuding,wakeboarding,and waterskiing:A comparison of wake charactedslics.River Research and Applications,t-18.
httpsJldoi.oroi1010021rra.4438
Figure 1: Visual coitlparison of wave heights at shore from three common activities. Slalom water skiing at 30 mph at
100 ft produces 5—/inch waves (widely accepted). Wake surfing at 10 1?_mph at 200 fl produces 12-Mch waves
(proposed for banning) i ruing/cruising with a Ski Nautique at 10 mph at 100 ft produces 17-inch waves (widely
accepted). Data from MacFarlane arlane (2025).
Cams hre Erosion Ar Unfounded
Shoreline erosion has been extensively studied for over 40 years. Research consistently shows that the
primary drivers are natural and environmental factors—ice movement, runoff, fluctuating lake levels,
natural wave action, and shoreline development—rather than boat wakes, except for large vessels like
ferries operating on narrow rivers (WDNR, MDNR).
Water naturally seeks equilibrium, and the energy from a boat's wake dissipates quickly through gravity
and wave physics. As the wake travels outward, it breaks into smaller, less energetic waves. Research
shows that after 100 feet, maximum wave heights are similar regardless of whether a boat uses ballast
(MacFarlane 2018, Marr 2022). Shore erosion assessments focus on wave energy, which depends on
wave height and period, with wave period being the more significant factor (Cox and MacFarlane 2019).
Over 70% of a wake's energy dissipates within 200 feet (Goudey and Girod 2015). At that distance,
measured wave heights are comparable to those produced by moderate winds—the same natural
conditions shorelines are already adapted to withstand.
Page 4
Wake Ror�I equlation• A ienc /Assessment I Prof. William Brinf oW,'r,t)Vrl Madison
At slow speeds, all boats operate near their maximum displacement. MacFarlane (2025)found that a Ski
Nautique 200 traveling at 10 mph produces a 17 inch wave 100 feet from shore, reducing to 14.5 inches
at 200 feet. Similarly, a 4,000-pound fishing boat operating at tubing speeds generates a 12.5-inch wave.
These findings confirm that any common heavy boat traveling at slow speeds produces significant waves.
Notably, at 200 feet, wake boat waves diminish to levels comparable to those of other heavy boats at
100 feet.
4
Maintaining a distance of 200 feet from shore ensures that wake energy decays sufficiently so that waves
do not differ significantly from natural conditions.At 200 feet, the minimum wave height measured across
six studies was 6.7 inches and the maximum was 17 inches (Marr et al. 2022). The average wave height
at 200 feet from all six studies was 11 inches—the size of a small iPad—with a 2-second period. This is
similar to waves produced by a 20 mph wind over a mile (-8 inches) and smaller than wind waves on
large lakes, which can exceed 12 inches with periods over 2.4 seconds.
Cox and MacFarlane (2019)conclude: "Wave wake studies are inevitably a study of orders of magnitude
and not small percentages." While smaller fetches result in lower energy waves, wake boat wakes are
not orders of magnitude different from those generated by other boats 100 feet from shore—the current
state regulation.
While the wave period for wake boats and wind-driven waves are similar, the total energy a shoreline
receives from wind is dramatically higher. On Wisconsin lakes, winds exceeding 20 mph occur on more
than 20% of spring days—each such event generating wave action that lasts for hours, not the 45-60
seconds of a single boat pass. To match the energy of a 20 mph wind, a wake boat would need to pass
200 feet from shore every minute—an unrealistic scenario. Long-term studies have shown that boat
wakes contribute less than 5% of the total wave energy impacting shores (Knutson et al. (1990)).
The <5% figure above comes from a two-year US Army Corps of Engineers field study at Swansboro,
North Carolina (Knutson, Allen, and Webb 1990), one of the most heavily trafficked recreational boat
corridors on the Atlantic coast, with approximately 25,000 vessel passages per year at distances of 100-
200 meters from shore. Researchers recorded every wave by height category for two full years and
compared wind-generated wave frequency to boat-generated wave frequency. The results were
unambiguous: in every wave height category, wind-generated waves were at least 10 times more
frequent than boat-generated waves. Boat wakes accounted for less than 5% of the total wave energy
reaching shore.
0-6 inches(small) 9,780 197 f 50:1
6-9.5 inches(moderate) 6,840 216 32:1
i
9.5-12 inches(large) 1,430 98 15:1
1 Over 12 inches(very 890 70 13:1
large)
All categories combined 18,940 approx.581 approximately 32:1 average;
minimum 10:1
fade: i
Wake Boat Rec uiatuan: A Science 13aased Assessment I 'a)t, William I;,a aholicr, UW Mad Call
This 10:1 floor is not a theoretical estimate —it is measured field data from a site with far heavier boat
traffic density than typical Wisconsin lakes. On Wisconsin lakes, which have lower annual boat passage
counts and comparable or greater wind fetch, the wind-to-boat ratio would be expected to be higher still.
Knutson also developed an empirical site classification based on open water fetch —the distance over
which wind can generate waves unobstructed. This classification, derived from 110 study sites across 12
states, defines the natural wave energy environment that shoreline soils and geology must already
withstand:
Low wave energy Less than 1 km Sheltered coves,narrow bays, wind energy is lowest here.Even so,
(0.6 mi) arms with limited open water Knutson found boat wakes remain
below 5%of shore energy.
Moderate wave 1-5 km(0.6-3 ml) j Most named Wisconsin lakes Shorelines are already adapted to
energy with 100-500 acres of open I sustained natural wave action.Boat
surface—the majority of wakes are a small increment on an
( regulated lakes established energetic baseline.
i i f
High wave energy Greater than 5 km Lakes Winnebago,Geneva, Wind dominates entirely.Boat wakes
(3 mi) Mendota,Monona,Pepin are negligible relative to sustained
• natural wave forcing across the full
fetch.
I E I
Most Wisconsin lakes that are subject to wake boat regulations fall in the Moderate class. This means
their shorelines have been continuously shaped by natural wave energy at levels energetic enough to
require engineering-level shoreline protection measures. Adding a boat wake at 200 feet is an increment
on top of this already-active natural baseline, not a unique threat to a pristine shore.
The site classification also clarifies why extraordinary setbacks —500 to 700 feet— cannot be justified
by shoreline protection arguments on these lakes. A setback removes the boat wake increment. It has
no effect on the wind wave baseline that already governs the erosion budget. If the shore is already
adapted to Moderate-class natural wave energy, and statistical analysis shows that wake boat waves at
200 feet are indistinguishable from other accepted boats at 100 feet (p=0.82), then the additional 300-
500 feet of setback provides no demonstrable erosion protection beyond what the natural environment
already delivers continuously.
Nanson et al. (1994) determined erosion conditions on the Gordon River in Tasmania, establishing
thresholds of 9.8-inch wave height and a 2.7-second period for protected shorelines.Wake surfing boats
at 200 feet produce wakes below these thresholds(1.8-2 seconds). Notably,the Nanson thresholds were
derived from protected Tasmanian riverbanks—among the most erosion-sensitive environments studied.
If wake boats fall below even those conservative standards, the safety margin on typical Wisconsin
lakeshores is wider still.
Large recreational boats--deck boats, cruisers, pontoons pulling tubers—operate in the same semi-
displacement regime and produce comparable wakes. Singling out wake boats while exempting these
activities is not a science-based distinction.
i t n l i . t and lti- to r it ti ro
Page(3
Wake Bolt f�oc3ral�aflo /A.7cac;ncO 13dO d A t I Prof. Will/arm ftaltholiea UW Madison
The Austrian Maritime College (AMC)has conducted over 30 years of rigorous research on boat wakes,
producing the most comprehensive and internally consistent dataset. Their studies compare the wakes
of four wake boats, a fishing boat, and a ski boat, with notably low variability in results. Because every
measurement was taken on the same lake, with the same instruments, under controlled conditions, the
AMC data eliminates confounders that plague cross-study comparisons—different hull forms, ballast
loads, bathymetry, and sensor placement. It is the cleanest scientific comparison available, producing
within-group standard deviations of approximately 1.5 inches.
Three Valid Benchmarks for Comparison
The following benchmarks are especially relevant because family-friendly activities like tubing or cruising
at 8-12 mph within 100 feet of shore are widely accepted. National organizations and manufacturers
often recommend tubing speeds of 8-12 mph for small children.
• Wake boats operating without ballast or wave-enhancing devices at 10-12 mph
• Wake boats traveling at higher speeds (20-24 mph)
• Fishing or ski boats operating slowly (10-12 mph), such as when tubing, teaching someone to
water ski, or kneeboarding
Figure 2 presents the AMC data for these four comparison groups. The results are compelling: wave
heights in all scenarios are comparable, providing no scientific basis for singling out wake boats as a
unique threat.
AMC Data Wave Height
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0 lIT
}
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0 Benchmarks
2.0
0.0 lI Wake Boat no ballast 100ft 10-12 mph
Wake Boat 100 feet, 20-24 mph
lI Fishing or Ski Boat 100 , 10412 mph
Wake Boat- ballast 200' 10-12 mph
f=igure 2: Pox Plot of/Vv/C wave height data (Nachos) for(1)a wake boat with no ballast at 100 feet, 10 /2 mph; (2) a
wake boat at 20 24 graph at 100 feet; (3) a fishrrrp or ski boat at 10 12 ropfr at 100 feet; and(4) a wake boat surfing with
ballast at 200 feet. the AMC dataset is the Sinelie most internally consisizant source, with within-group standard
deviations of approximately 1.5 inches. M/ake boats at 200 feet are no different than lire herachnaark activities.
Table 1; Pairwise Welch's t-Tests AMC Data Only
i�a o 7
Wake Boat Re0ralation: A Scionce E3.o od A,.ie�sinerit I Prof VVilliarn [3anhol,el, UVV Madison
Wake Boat 10-12 mph (100 ft, no ballast) 0.012 Significantly different—unballasted boat
vs. Wake Boats 200 ft(with ballast) at 100 ft is LARGER
Wake Boat 20-24 mph (100 ft)vs. Wake 0.817 Not significant—similar wave heights
Boats 200 ft(with ballast)
Fishing/Ski Boats (100 ft)vs, Wake Boats 0.359 Not significant—no meaningful
200 ft (with ballast) difference
Interpretation: Wake boats surfing with ballast 200 feet from shore produce waves no
different from fishing/ski boats at 10-12 mph, are equivalent to a wake boat without ballast at
100 feet going 20-24 mph, and are statistically smaller than a wake boat without ballast at
100 feet going 10-12 mph. The data leave no scientific basis for singling out wake boats as
uniquely threatening—a conclusion that holds whether one uses the most rigorous dataset
alone or pools every available study.
Some may claim that focusing on the AMC data constitutes cherry-picking.That criticism misunderstands
the purpose of using the AMC dataset as a primary analysis tool.AMC's wave height data for wake boats
operating at 200 feet has a standard deviation of just 1.b inches, remarkably tight and reliable.
To address the cherry-picking concern directly, the analysis was repeated using data pooled from all six
available studies. Pooling all six studies increases standard deviations to approximately 3.2 inches. This
wider spread actually makes the finding more conservative, not less. Even with that added uncertainty,
wake boats at 200 feet remain statistically indistinguishable from other accepted boating activities. The
conclusion is robust across both the tightest and most inclusive analyses.
Wave Weight 4
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
Benchmarks
2.0
0.0
1
Wake boat nobaltast 100 Wake Boat 1.00'@ 20-24 mph
Fishing and Sk 100', 10-12 mph Wake boat 200', 10-12 mph
1Tigure 3: Box 1'lot of wave height data from all 6 studies (belies) for(1) wake boat ru0 ballast at 100 feet, 10 12 nrph;
(2) wake boat at 20__2d nrph at 100 feet; (3) fishing or ski boat at 10 mph at 100 feet; and(1) wake boat surfing at 200
feet. Variability is higher than F=igure 2 dire, to diffe/ent boats and conditions across studies, but the conclusion is
unchanejed: wake boats at 200 feet are no different than the benchmarks.
Page i3
VVake F3ostt i egi.ilafion.i kJeiicc, (3 ;cd ns.;c<sment I Prof. Vvillia n R3 rllliolzel, ON fvladisoll
Table 2; Pairwise Welch's t-Tests All 6 Studies
Wake Boat 10-12 mph (100 ft, no ballast) 0.545 Not significant
vs. Wake Boats 200 ft(with ballast)
Wake Boat 20-24 mph (100 ft, no ballast) 0.051 Borderline—wakes are similar
vs. Wake Boats 200 ft(with ballast)
Fishing/Ski Boats (100 ft)vs. Wake Boats 0.645 Not significant— no difference
200 ft (with ballast)
These results confirm what the AMC-only analysis showed: wake surfing at 200 feet does not pose a
unique or disproportionate threat to shorelines compared to other common boating practices. The
increased variability from pooling six heterogeneous studies widens confidence intervals but cannot
overcome the absence of a statistically meaningful difference.
The MacFarlane (2025) full-scale trials dataset—the most comprehensive available—directly
demonstrates the equivalence. Figure 4 from MacFarlane plots wave height vs. lateral distance for all
boat types and speeds. The annotated convergence point shows that wake surfing at 200 feet produces
the same average wave height as a ski or fishing boat at 10-12 mph at 100 feet (both approximately 11
inches).
Match Ave Fishing/Ski
MacFarlane 2025 ..
rullScaleTrialsData-ThreeStudiesCombined ; D HL' p, h '., <' t.(+ I L,, r t?2+14i
O
rt s s „ i Et U iri)I
asL. r it i fp, ar_,(u,,,r l.o ill
D
O
10
Aa
o SO loo i56 Rtti 2;0 ;00 i4Q Sao QSI} ,6i
l-a e 9
W Ice Boat Regulation: A Scm mcc Basr;d Acc,;sstmnt I'm of. Willuurr 13an1101/em IJW Msrdisoi,
Figure 4: MacFarlane (2025) iull-scale trial data aahowing wave height(inches) vs. lateral distance(feet) for all boat
types and speeds. I/me red bracket at 200 feet for wake boats and the blue bracket at 100 feel for ski/fishing boats at
?0 12 mph a converge at ffte same average wave height( 1 l inches). this direcily refutes fhe rlrrhaa that wake boats
require greater setbacks than other recreational watercrraft. Source:MacFarlane, (--.J. (2025), Fiver Izesearch and
Applications.
Wave Energy nlyi : H&ght FincHnqs Confirmed
Critics have argued that wave height alone is insufficient to evaluate shoreline impact and that wave
energy—which incorporates both height and period—should be used. This is a fair theoretical point, and
the analysis has been extended to address it directly.
Wave energy per unit crest length scales as E a HIT' (proportional to the square of wave height times
the square of wave period). Using period and height data from MacFarlane (2025) and AMC
measurements:
• At 200 feet, wake surf boat wave energy is statistically equivalent to fishing/ski boat energy at 100
feet (p = 0.82)
• By 300 feet, wake surf wave energy equals or falls below that of wake boat energy at 20-24 mph
at 100 feet (p = 0.79)
• At 200 feet, wake surf energy is statistically higher than wakeboarding energy at 100 feet (p v
0.029), but this difference disappears by 300 feet
Key Point: Critics who argue wave height is insufficient have actually strengthened the case:
when energy—the more comprehensive metric—is analyzed, wake surf boats at 200 feet are
statistically equivalent to fishing and ski boats at 100 feet (p = 0.82). The energy metric,
introduced as a challenge to the analysis, ends up confirming it. Trendline extrapolations
suggesting 400-500 foot setbacks overstate what the underlying data actually supports
(MacFarlane letter, 2025).
It is accurate that wake surf boats generate waves with longer periods than some other recreational
vessels at the same height. Longer-period waves carry more energy per wave and decay more slowly
with distance. This physical reality is acknowledged. However, at 200 feet—the distance already required
under standard setback rules—the measured energy equivalence holds. The theoretical concern about
period does not translate into a measurable difference at the relevant regulatory distance.
Rawed Benchmarks th Froude r
Groups advocating for 500-700 foot setbacks for wake boats often compare them to boats operating at
high speeds (24-30 mph)—conditions that minimize wave production. This comparison is flawed: it
ignores other common boating activities and mixes fundamentally different hydrodynamic regimes.
A boat at 10-12 mph is in displacement or semi-displacement mode (volumetric Froude number Fr,
<2). A boat at 20-24 mph is transitioning toward planing. A boat at more than 30 mph is fully planing.
Comparing a wake surf boat at 10-12 mph to a ski boat at 30+ mph is scientifically invalid—it mixes
fundamentally different flow regimes with qualitatively different wake structures, energy distributions, and
wave characteristics.
I'acjr} 10
Wake Boot Retiulation A Sdeni.r 11,asc.d A.;sessnu.rrt 11'rr>f William {',<anholiur, UW Madison
The proper way to compare different boats is by matching their volumetric Froude number (Fry), which
normalizes speed to the cube root of the vessel's displacement volume: Fr, = V / 'i(g • V"(1/3)). This
ensures that comparisons account for differences in hull size, weight, and displacement—all of which
strongly affect how a boat interacts with the water.
To date, no study has directly compared boats within the same operating regime when recommending
setback distances. Yet tubing—one of the most popular water sports—typically occurs at 8-12 mph,
placing most boats squarely in the semi-displacement regime. Regulations that prohibit semi-
displacement operation while explicitly exempting tubing are internally inconsistent. Boats towing tubers
at 10-12 mph operate in the same hydrodynamic regime as wake boats and produce comparable
waves—yet face no restriction. This is not science-based policy; it is arbitrary distinction dressed in
scientific language.
Data QuaUty and Methodoogcal Rigor
Research on boat wakes is not uniformly reliable. Alongside a few peer-reviewed studies, there is a large
amount of self-published reports, advocacy documents, and technically flawed analyses. In the public
debate, these varied sources are often given equal weight—blurring the line between solid evidence and
speculation. Further complicating matters, even the best peer-reviewed papers often fail to complete
comprehensive statistical analysis. Simply comparing averages without variance analysis is insufficient,
yet most current studies rely only on mean values.
Table 3: Comparison of Methodological Rigor in Boat Wake Studies
0 J 0 0 9 0
0. 0 0 , 0 . 00 0
MacFarlane 8 4 ,/ ± J(AMC ✓- X X Notable
2025 only)
MacFarlane 5 2 ,/ ✓ J J X X Notable
AMC 2018
Goudey& 1 0 ,/ J X X X X Moderate
Girod 2015
Ruprecht 3 0 ,/ .1 J X X X Low
2015'
Marr 2022 2 2 J ± X X X X Low
(SAFL)2
WEC 2021 1 0 _ ± X X X X Low
Terra Vigilis 2 2 X X X X X X Very Low
2024
Terra Vigilis 1 2 X X X X X X Very Low
2022
Terra Vigilis 1 — X X X X X X Very Low
2021
Ray(Payette Uncontrolled 0 X X X X X Very Low
Lake)
Notes: ✓= Yes, ✓ =rn';atcbed speed but not Fronde rturober, /1 _l'io, pcitGal/lncottsisient or'not rrlaarled. ` cornpieted 0
rigorvu.,peel rcvievd. Soul to revieWOrs but did nct follow t/ue standard process requiring all r,evievver cotnrnunts be
addressed before.publication.
Pat≤je 11
V/nke[ )at I ecp.ilsation:/e rl/ ssessnwnt I riot Willi im 13inholrer IV v1drun
EXPLANATION OF TABLE COLUMNS
Repeat Measurements refer to repetitive measurements performed under the same conditions to
evaluate measurement variation.
Sensor Calibration refers to calibrating the sensor to assess its accuracy.
Varied Speed refers to study measurements made at several speeds within the same regime (e.g., 10
& 12 mph,which are both in semi-displacement mode.
Semi Displacement Mode-non-ballasted boat data refer to whether the report measured any non-
wake boats in semi-displacement mode.As noted above, the proper comparison is between boats at
equivalent Froude numbers.
Statistical Rigor refers to whether authors use variance to determine whether differences in means
are statistically significant.
Benchmark Uses Similar Froude# refers to whether the authors used a benchmark that compared
wake boats to non-wake boats when both were operated at the same Froude number. To date, no
study has directly compared boats within the same operating regime when recommending setback
distances. Instead, some authors justify their benchmarks by referencing activities such as cruising or
water skiing. Yet, tubing—one of the most popular water sports—typically occurs at speeds of 8-12
mph (with a maximum of 15 mph), placing most boats in the semi-displacement regime(Fr= 0.5-0.7).
Despite this, no paper has explicitly recognized tubing as a benchmark case.
The lack of statistical rigor creates inconsistency in policy discussions. Some proposed ordinances
prohibit operation in the transition or semi-displacement regime yet explicitly exempt tubing or teaching
children to ski—activities that generate similar wake characteristics. Such selective exemptions are
scientifically indefensible: boats towing tubers at 10-12 mph operate in the same semi-displacement
regime as wake boats, producing comparable waves, yet face no restriction.
Patcx 2
\fVI ke Bent Roc)I Ir0ivlr.A S(.ience flrssl,d/t.y,( sIrient 1 )lof. VVilliwn r1,)nhol/OI 11W Madison _. '....
Water Turbidityand iResuspenson
i
The Indiana Academy of Science published the most conclusive experimental study measuring lake bed
disturbance in 2022 (Daeger et al., 2022). This work examined sediment resuspension from several
different boat types, including a ballasted wake boat, at multiple sites with varying substrates including
fine silt. The results showed that all boat types can disturb lake beds in 3 to 5 feet of water; however,
once wake boats operate at depths of 10 to 15 feet, lake sediment does not resuspend.
Sediment Resuspension
Nutrient resuspension was observed
after the wake boat in 5 ft of water, and
//��
I%iI'M IS OA\GTR►►:A"E AND sEDI II:AT RIMSPI:ASIO\11% no resuspension by any watercraft in 10
V'.Akit)GS N%%ITatt R\► 1 U R( SS.A►I 1:111'LI:St 1tSI Ii'1I S. 15 ft of water
DI:Ir1IiS,AND oPI:RAI►\G sI'I:L:DS IN I\DIANA S I 'RGF I
N I I RA►.1.:1KI.
Ballasted Wake Boat
.41 I na Il, \Ylt,,,',.11 fig' d Id,a,1#,xon I dk l.^na"t I,,1 a1d.�k
„ ,.:,I,I..1.Ii",, p
d 1 d,,amt „r i jl,,a , _,!l' , L,. .,,I a.,,,a,a 11e,r ,.,
F t , tl l i t•0 , <:l L I.1...
10'
Pre Post
f=igure B. Daeger et al. (2022), Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, the highlighted abstract conclusion
states: "Nutrient resuspensioo was obscr ve d alter thrc wake boat in 5 if of water, and no resuspension by any watercraft
in 10-15 ft of Evater " The diagram(right) shows the measurement layout. I his is the most methodologically rigorous
study of its kind on sediment distorbarrce.
Sediment disturbance from boat wakes does not stop abruptly at a single depth. The available evidence
describes a continuum: effects are strongest in very shallow water, diminish continuously with increasing
depth,and become undetectable beyond a threshold the data consistently places in the 10-15 foot range.
Pace 13
Wake Boat kefjulation: A Brienco tasud n ssessrneiit I Prof Willi iin na iihol/er, t1W Madisom
Table 4: Summary of Literature Measured Depth Impact
≤5 ft Measurable resuspension, all craft types Daeger et al. 2022
5-10 ft Detectable resuspension, wake boats elevated Daeger 2022, SAFL 2025
10-12 ft Weak, inconsistent signals; some studies show no Daeger 2022, Raymond &
effect Galvez 2015
12-14 ft Near or below detection limit in most studies SAFL 2025, Beachler& Hill
2003
>14-15 ft No reproducible evidence of disturbance in any All studies reviewed
published study
Critical Point: No peer-reviewed study documents repeatable, statistically significant
sediment resuspension beyond 14-15 feet. The SAFL (2025) report recommends a 20-foot
threshold as a precautionary measure—not supported by direct field evidence of disturbance
I at 16-20 feet in any published study. It is a policy judgment, not an empirical finding.
Regulations requiring operations in water deeper than 15 feet go beyond what the science
actually supports.
Raymond and Galvez-Cloutier measured water velocities of approximately 10 cm/s (0.2 mph) near 10
feet—too slow to move sand but near the threshold to mobilize small silt—yet the diver present did not
observe any material suspended as a result of boat passage. Beachler and Hill reported water velocity
at depths of 4, 5, and 6 feet from a 150 horsepower boat at various speeds. Maximum water velocities
occurred at boat speeds of 6-8 mph (significantly below wake surfing speeds of-11 mph), and velocity
dropped sharply between 4 and 5 feet.
The water velocity required to displace small silt particles (50 microns) is 12 cm/sec (0.28 mph), while
moving larger sand particles (0.3 mm) requires 25 cm/sec (0.56 mph). At 11 mph, Beachler and Hill
recorded water velocities of approximately 16 cm/sec at a depth of 5 feet. Beyond 10 feet, viscous
dissipation confirms that propeller wash does not disturb sediment.
There are potentially two sources of water disturbance that could impact lake beds: propeller wash and
the waves from wind or boat wakes. Water waves transfer energy rather than mass, with water particles
moving in nearly circular orbits beneath the wave. These orbital motions decay rapidly with depth. When
orbital velocity near the lakebed exceeds the threshold for sediment motion, particles can be
resuspended.
A wave is considered in deep water when the water depth d is greater than half the wavelength: d > A/2.
MacFarlane (2025)measured periods for wake boats of 1.8-2.2 seconds. Typical wake boat waves have
a wavelength of approximately 20 feet. The wave is practically in deep water at 20/2 = 10 feet. Beyond
10 feet, the bulk of wave energy does not interact with the lakebed. This physical principle explains why
the 10-15 foot depth threshold has scientific grounding rather than being an arbitrary regulatory choice.
Anthony and Downing (2003) conducted one of the most detailed field investigations of sediment
resuspension in a shallow Midwestern lake and found that wind-driven waves—not recreational boating—
are the dominant driver. Moderate wind events exceeding approximately 22 mph can mobilize nearly half
14
Woke 3oat Re j at A Sejencx,-ftasaat NisessinI.nt I Prof. Willi alit t3at olzat, l3W Madison
of the lake bottom, while stronger winds exceeding approximately 45 mph can disturb almost the entire
bed. The correlation between boat traffic and turbidity was weak (r = 0.23), meaning boat activity played
a minor role compared to natural wind mixing.
Why Anthony and Downing Applies to All Lakes
A common objection is that Clear Lake, Iowa, has up to 4 miles of fetch—supposedly making the findings
inapplicable to smaller Wisconsin lakes. This argument is scientifically incomplete:
® The Physical Mechanism Is Universal. Wave orbital motion and sediment transport thresholds
apply to any water body—not just Clear Lake. The study quantifies and confirms what the physics
predicts.
® Baseline Context Is the Key Contribution. Natural wind-driven forcing routinely delivers far more
sediment disturbance energy than recreational boat traffic. In Wisconsin, winds exceeding 25 mph
occur several times per year.
® Smaller Lakes Have Proportionally More Shallow Area. On a lake 0.3 miles across, —33% of the
lake lies within a 150400t disturbance-prone shallow zone; on a 1.25Lmile lake, only -9% does.
Reduced fetch decreases wave height but proportionally more shallow area increases
susceptibility.
® Prop Wash vs. Continuous Wind. Boat propeller wash is localized, brief, and depth-limited. Wind-
driven orbital motion acts simultaneously across the entire shallow portion of a lake for hours
during wind events.
The Anthony and Downing (2003) finding that wind governs sediment resuspension is independently
corroborated by the Knutson et al. (1990)field study on a heavily trafficked recreational waterway. Over
two years of direct wave measurement, Knutson found that wind-generated waves outnumbered boat
generated waves at every height category by a factor of at least 10:1 and boats accounted for less
than 5% of the total wave energy reaching shore. This was at a site with 25,000 boat passages per year,
a traffic density far exceeding any Wisconsin lake.
Knutson's fetch-based site classification reinforces this conclusion. Wisconsin's regulated lakes fall
predominantly in his Moderate energy class (1-5 km fetch), where shorelines are already adapted to
sustained natural wave action at levels requiring engineering®level protection. In this energy regime, boat
wakes at any reasonable setback are an increment on a wind dominated baseline —not a change in the
governing erosion variable.
The SAFL Phase 2 study presents detailed acoustic measurements of wake-boat hydrodynamics. It
documents clear sediment disruption below approximately 10 feet and a weaker, highly variable signal
extending to approximately 14 feet,with propeller-wash velocities decaying to near zero by approximately
15 feet.
These findings are broadly consistent with the literature. However,the recommendation of 20 feet reflects
a conservative, precautionary endpoint (near-zero velocities) rather than a demonstrated threshold for
ecologically meaningful lakebed disturbance. The evidence presents a continuum tapering from clear
disturbance below 10 feet to marginal signals at 12-14 feet to nothing reproducible beyond 15 feet. The
20-foot recommendation goes beyond what the measured data robustly supports.
The SAFL. study's ADCP echogram analysis relies on a subjectively chosen 10 dB threshold and
aggressive percentile filtering, detects sediment only approximately 1.5 feet off the bed, and reports
plume height rather than sediment concentration or mass flux. Fay's 2025 technical review concluded
P (J 15
V*ike 13ortt(let ial tion:A don((-13s1 As',ses,nn;nt I Prof. Willirrni 13 hove , t)VV Mddisson
that turbidity spikes observed during wake-boat tests were actually caused by preceding wind and rain
events—nearly 2 inches of precipitation and sustained winds of 15 mph with gusts to 24 mph in the three
days prior—making the data inconclusive.
The presence of aquatic vegetation significantly enhances the attenuation of propeller wash. All studies
referenced above were conducted in vegetation-free water—meaning their estimates of disturbance
depth are likely conservative upper bounds for vegetated conditions.
Claims that wake boats are degrading water quality are not supported by Wisconsin's own long-term
water quality data. Over a decade after wake boats became common on Wisconsin lakes, the state's
water quality remains excellent, with no measurable decline in clarity or rise in turbidity.
r'r3 t e 16
Wake Boat ko(/I tioiI A Sc:k;iice l9•i.>cd A..ses..,isuet I I'iof. Willieiir Itaiil el/ui, UW ivladison
Spread of AquaUc hivashie Species
The spread of invasive species is a real concern—but empirical risk assessments consistently show that
fishing boats, pontoons, and runabouts, which move between lakes far more frequently, pose a
substantially greater aggregate AIS risk than wake boats, which are typically used on a single home lake.
Targeting wake boats for AIS regulation while leaving higher-risk craft unrestricted inverts the logic of
evidence-based policy.
Modern wake boats are designed to expel nearly all of their ballast water, retaining only about 0.1%—
approximately 2 quarts. By comparison, sterndrive boats (inboard/outboards) can retain up to twice as
much water, and their systems are also difficult to inspect (Doll, 2018). Unlike fishing boats, which often
travel between multiple lakes, wake boats are primarily used on their owner's home lake, significantly
reducing AIS risk.
"Increase Risk of AIS" Wrong
lA
¢§ • • I • E sf
_ Q a
cu-znrt�.
Ojrance and Swvnai of Zidxa Maasai{b s 'aa lym )Vahger
a Rnddnd Waw Tranpndad by Raaaabnnai Waianraft MamDO,
Ucninn 7tr is 2018
Figure r3: volt(20/8). University of Minnesota. Loft panel: l?osidual water volume by boat type (ballast, outboard,
sterndrive). Sterndrivos retain 85%more residual water chair ballast tanks. Right panel: l otal zebra mussel vel gers
found, by cornpaiiinent type. Storndrivcs contained the highest concentrations--not wake boats, Wake boats also
operate in deeper water where no/foil is loss prevalent. Source: Lull, A. (2018), M.S. thesis, University of Minnesota.
Doll's 2018 study analyzed over 11,000 boats on a typical lake, showing that wake boats account for just
3-5% of watercraft,while fishing boats, runabouts, and pontoons exceed 90%. Using risk value analysis,
fishing boats emerge with an 11-fold higher risk than wake boats, while runabouts are 4.5 times higher.
When adjusted for the fact that fishing boats often move between lakes on the same day, fishing boats
pose 17 times more risk than wake boats. A Minnesota study found that sterndrives—not wake boats--
Pail, t./
V�4lke aodt(:ecjulatioir A cic;nc€. (3,wied Asse.>.�rnont i Prof.William l3anhol/m UW [Madraon
had the highest concentrations of zebra mussels. Milfoil, often found in shallow water, is not commonly
ingested by wake boats, which typically operate in deeper areas.
Safety
The U.S. Coast Guard has approved wake boats as safe. Wake boats have operated safely in Wisconsin
for over 10 years with no reports of accidents or citations attributable to wake boat operation, in contrast
to many reports involving fishing boats, personal watercraft, and pontoon boats.
Wake from any boat can cause damage. All wake boats are certified by the NMMA, a third-party
organization ensuring boats meet safety standards, including visibility. Wisconsin already has laws
holding boaters responsible for any damage caused by their wake. The bow-up operating attitude that
some cite as a safety risk affects all boats operating at low speeds; there is no record of safety incidents
specific to wake boats. Inattentive driving is an issue with any boat.
Enforceability
The Vilas County and Oneida County Sheriffs have explicitly stated they will not enforce local ordinances
unless the town has a specific contract with them to do so. The DNR will also not enforce an ordinance,
leaving the Town responsible. If a Town enacts an ordinance it does not enforce, it creates a liability in
the event of an incident.
Depth-based regulations face serious, practical enforcement barriers. Lakebed contours shift over time.
The DNR states that its depth maps cannot be used in court proceedings. Onboard depth sounders lack
the precision required for legal enforcement. Without court-admissible depth data, violations cannot be
prosecuted. Distance-based rules—measurable, observable, and already enforced in analogous
contexts—achieve the same protective purpose without these vulnerabilities. Choosing depth over
distance as the regulatory trigger is not a more protective choice; it is a less enforceable one.
l a(lc> 113
VV�ike t3odt I tciduhation A Sdencc (3,vs(,d As nt I Pros Willidni I 11l holier, UW M odiyon
Protecting i rit Rights in the ReguaUon of Pubhc Waters
Local input can play a constructive role in managing lakes. But local control only works when decisions
are grounded in objective evidence and policymakers are willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.
When regulations restrict lawful access to public waters—resources held in trust for all citizens—those
decisions must be based on demonstrable scientific evidence, not on political pressure or the preferences
of the loudest voices in the room.
In the debate over wake surfing, activists often cite surveys or claim that "dozens" or even "over 100
organizations oppose wake surfing." Such statements may give the appearance of consensus, but they
are not a valid reason to restrict lawful activity on public waters. Public policy should not be based on
counting organizations or collecting petitions. As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10, one of the
main dangers in democratic governance is the "tyranny of the majority."
A simple example illustrates the principle. If shoreline residents were surveyed about closing a public
boat landing to reduce AIS risk and boat traffic, the vast majority would likely support it--yet we would
never accept such a policy because it would deny citizens lawful access to public waters. Public lakes
are not private amenities for shoreline residents; they are resources held in trust for everyone.
The experience in Manitowish Waters demonstrates why local decisions that limit access to public waters
should undergo objective review. The town board chairman publicly cited preventing AIS spread as a
primary reason for banning wake surfing. However, the Wisconsin DNR—the agency responsible for
protecting Wisconsin's waters clearly stated that AIS has been spreading for decades across all types
of watercraft and that science does not show wake boats pose a unique AIS risk. The situation is further
troubling when open-records emails reveal that the two supervisors who voted for the ordinance
coordinated with advocacy groups early in the process to push for a ban—suggesting policy outcomes
were set in advance and justified afterward.
Abuse of local authority does occur. As personal watercraft gained popularity, complaints arose that they
were loud and posed safety concerns. While it was illegal to ban a specific watercraft type outright, the
Town of Summit adopted an ordinance on Lake Lower Nashota restricting personal watercraft operation
to only 5-7 PM on Fridays—effectively a two�hour window per week. Wake boats face similar dynamics
today.
These examples highlight a structural problem: most local governments simply do not have the technical
expertise, time, or resources required to evaluate complex hydrodynamic research. When lakes with
similar physical characteristics are regulated in completely different ways depending on the political
dynamics of a particular town, the determining factor is not environmental science but local sentiment.
This is precisely why minority rights must be protected in the regulation of public waters. Wisconsin's
Constitution and longstanding public trust doctrine make clear that navigable waters are held in trust for
all citizens of the state—not just for shoreline property owners or the most vocal participants in a town
hall meeting.
Protecting minority rights does not mean ignoring environmental concerns. It means ensuring that
regulations are proportional to demonstrated impacts and based on rigorous, peer reviewed science.
Restrictions that effectively eliminate a lawful activity should only be imposed when there is clear
evidence of substantial environmental harm that cannot be addressed through less restrictive measures.
When regulation is driven by evidence, it protects both the environment and the rights of citizens. When
it is driven by surveys, petitions, or the pressure of advocacy groups, it risks undermining both.
I'l(JC 14)
Vt/nke Boat Ret"lcalation:A Sniet ice. I3nccii A,cc,>sinelit I I'iof. VviIIi"11II Eta holrut, UVV madicon
Common Cams vs. ScientificFacts
MacFarlane's 2025 paper MacFarlane's setback statement is based on data from high-speed
suggests setbacks of 250-550 boat operation (>20 mph)as a reference—fundamentally different
feet. from wake surfing at-11 mph. This is a flawed comparison of two
distinct hydrodynamic regimes. When using appropriate
benchmarks—fishing boat data and slow-speed ski boat
measurements at 10 mph—the evidence supports a 200-foot
setback. MacFarlane's data,while the most rigorous available,
reports lower wave heights than other studies and is the only source
to include slow-speed data. High-speed benchmarks misrepresent
the actual risk. His trendline extrapolations to 400-500 feet overstate
what the raw measured data supports.
Wake boats cause shoreline Shoreline erosion research over 40 years consistently shows it is
erosion. primarily caused by ice, runoff, changes in lake levels, natural wave
action, and development—not by boat wakes. At 200 feet the waves
impacting a shore have the same energy as a fishing boat or ski boat
at 100 feet operating at the same speed and less than the total
energy from a 20 mph wind blowing over a mile.
Wake boat waves destabilize 200 feet from a wake boat, the waves are very similar to what the
shorelines, shoreline experiences naturally. The average wave height for wake
boats at 200 feet is -11 inches vs. -8 inches on a small lake and
-12 inches on a large lake for a 20 mph wind. The periods for both
boat and wind waves are-2 seconds. Destabilization of shorelines
requires waves with dramatically longer periods (e.g., 2.7 seconds)
and significantly greater height—conditions wake boats at 200 feet
do not produce.
Wake boats generate a 16- This statement lacks context. A ski boat going 10 mph produces a
inch wave 200 feet from the 17-inch wave 100 feet from shore and a 14-inch wave 200 feet from
boat. ("The industry's own data shore—yet this is never mentioned. The 16-inch figure represents an
show at 200 feet the wave is extreme case: an overloaded boat with more ballast than factory
16 inches tall.") configuration in deep water. The same study found only a 9-inch
wave in shallower water. Six independent studies measured wave
heights of 6 to 17 inches at 200 feet; across 20 measurements, the
average was 11 inches-40% lower than the cited outlier.
Wake boats generate waves This energy comparison applies at the boat.Wake energy degrades
3-9 times the energy of other rapidly as it breaks into multiple smaller waves—the larger the initial
boats, wave, the faster it attenuates since taller waves break or curl.At 200
feet,wake boat wave energy is statistically equivalent to fishing or
ski boats at similar speeds. The SAFL study claims 3-9x more
energy at 100 feet, but its energy calculations are 2-8 times higher
than those of more experienced researchers, and its data has
massive variability(9-inch and 17.5-inch readings from the same
boat at 200 feet).
You cannot compare wind Wind and recreational boat wakes are similar in form. Statements
waves to wake boat waves, about incomparable energy forms refer to large commercial ferries—
The form of the energy is not recreational boats. A 20 mph wind over a mile creates an -8-inch
different. wave with a-2-second period. A wake boat 200 feet from shore
generates 45-60 seconds of waves averaging 11 inches with a µ2-
second period. These waves have similar energy. The total energy
from wind is orders of magnitude greater because wind waves
Noe20
Wake Boat Regtalation:A c.ienee-Bnso;d A. ssme t ] I toi M116111 Banttol,ei, UW Madison
impact every 2 seconds continuously vs. a 40-60 second packet
from a single boat pass.
Cox and MacFarlane say This was meant to address attempts to compare the wake from large
comparing annualized boat ferries to wind—not recreational boats. On Wisconsin lakes,wind
and wind wave energy is and boat wakes ARE similar in form, so energy comparison is
meaningless. reasonable. Cox and MacFarlane (2019)themselves conclude:
"Wave wake studies are inevitably a study of orders of magnitude
and not small percentages"—supporting the conclusion that boat
wakes are not orders of magnitude different from wind waves.
The Houser study in Canada This study is inconsistent with the extensive prior literature showing
showed more than 60% of boat wakes contribute less than 5% of the energy a shoreline
wave energy was from boats. experiences. The study's own authors admit their findings are not
consistent with prior work and offer no explanation for the
discrepancy.
Adding ballast makes large Adding ballast increases the size of the initial wave at the boat, but
waves that cause shore larger waves decrease faster. By 100 feet, the wave produced by a
erosion. boat with and without ballast are the same (SAFL, MacFarlane). The
effect of ballast is not detectable at 200 feet.
The St.Anthony Falls Study The SAFL study was severely flawed and criticized by its own
showed wake boats need to be reviewers. Its data has massive variability—wave heights of 9 and 18
700 feet from shore, inches from the same boat at 200 feet. There should not be more
than 10-20% variance for data to be considered acceptable.The
700-foot recommendation uses an inappropriate benchmark of a ski
boat at high speed; slow-speed (10-15 mph)operation of other
watercraft types was not measured. The paper did not follow
standard peer review protocol. At 200 feet a wake boat produces an
average 11-inch wave—equivalent to fishing or ski boats at 100 feet
at similar speeds.
Wake boats scour lake Daeger et al. (2022) in the Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of
bottoms, resuspending Science is the most conclusive experimental evidence. Direct
sediment and destroying measurement of suspended solids, phosphorus, silica, and nitrates
plants. showed that after 10 feet, a ballasted wake boat does not create any
measurable disturbance of the lake bed even for fine sediment. In
shallow water (3-5 ft), all boat types can resuspend sediment. No
published peer-reviewed study documents reproducible
resuspension beyond 14-15 feet.
Terra Vigilis, Ray(2020), and Daeger et al. (2022)is the definitive experimental test. Raymond and
Raymond & Galvez speculate Galvez used acoustic probes to measure water speed down to 0.1
prop wash impacts lake beds m/s at 15 feet and speculated this would be sufficient to disturb lake
down to 33 feet. beds—but the diver present did not notice any material suspended.
Ray(2020)was not peer reviewed, performed no actual
measurements, has no credentials in fluid mechanics, and uses
simplified models inconsistent with rigorous finite element modeling.
Terra Vigilis stated a 25% increase in phosphorus 30 minutes after a
boat passed, but their own reported normal variation was 50%—
making that increase statistically insignificant. The authors even
acknowledged"sediment deposition could not be solely attributed to
only wake boats."
The 2024 Terra Vigilis study at The Terra Vigilis Lake Waramaug report is self-published with no
Lake Waramaug (CT)says it peer review, no quality control, and no adherence to accepted
takes 500 feet for waves to research standards. It relies on drone video footage to estimate
dissipate and props can impact wave height—a method with zero validation against standard
lake beds down to 26 feet. measurement too►s. Its wave height results contradict its own prior
P<rde 21
Wake Boat Rertulation A S;k nce•t3 ).ar,d&,ie.srnr;nt 1 Prof. Willitin) ft nn1)olier, UW Madi5o7
findings: it reports 12-inch waves at 300 feet while an earlier Terra
Vigilis study reported 8 inches at 200 feet, an unexplained
contradiction. Six peer-reviewed studies show the average wake
height at 300 feet is -9 inches. The comparison baseline uses a 26-
year-old ski boat at high speed. Prop wash conclusions are based on
subjective video of streamer movement without measuring actual
water velocity. No reputable journal would publish this report. Citing it
to guide policy is irresponsible.
Press coverage of Terra Vigilis This sensation is not scientifically significant. Divers feel water
study on Lake Beulah reports velocity at levels far below what is required to suspend sediment.
divers feeling a large push People can sense currents as low as -2-5 cm/s; at 10 cm/s the
when a wake boat went by. sensation is unmistakable. However, 12 cm/s is the minimum
needed to mobilize sediment. Divers feeling motion at 20 feet is fully
compatible with measurements showing -10 cm/s at 10-14 feet and
no sediment resuspension at 20 feet.
Anthony and Downing is This argument confuses the magnitude of an effect with its
irrelevant because Clear Lake mechanism. Anthony and Downing identified universal physical
has 4 miles of fetch. processes—wave orbital motion and sediment transport thresholds—
that apply to any lake. It establishes the critical baseline: natural wind
forces routinely disturb far more lakebed over far larger areas than
boat traffic. Furthermore, smaller lakes have proportionally more
shallow area, partially offsetting their reduced fetch. The mechanism
is valid across all lake sizes;what changes is magnitude, not the
physics.
Not being able to inspect wake Wake boats are not unique. The residual water in any sterndrive
boat ballast tanks will cause cannot be inspected, and sterndrives have been shown to trap 85%
the spread of invasive species. more water than ballast tanks. Bilges, pumps, and lines of livewells
also cannot be inspected. Fishing boats pose a higher risk since they
are more prevalent and frequently transfer between lakes—up to
30% visit multiple lakes on the same day. A Minnesota study found
sterndrives, not wake boats, had the highest concentrations of zebra
mussels.
The bow-up boat attitude All boats operating at low speed experience some rise in the bow.
impairs vision and is a safety There are no records of safety incidents for wake boats, but there
risk, are many for personal watercraft, fishing, and pontoon boats. The
U.S. Coast Guard has certified wake boats as safe to operate.
Inattentive driving is an issue with any boat.
Wake boats hog the lake and Wake boats operate at-11 mph vs. ski boats that travel in excess of
everyone else has to get off. 30 mph. Ski boats cover 3 times the distance of a wake boat in the
same time. Even pontoons towing tubers travel twice as far. At 200
feet, the waves of a wake boat are the same as a water ski boat at
100 feet—but the ski boat will travel 3 times the distance, affecting a
much larger portion of the lake.
Wake boats are the only issue. Any large, heavy boat will generate similar waves. Pontoon and
other watercraft manufacturers have or are developing products that
incorporate wake surfing capabilities. Deck boats, cruisers, and
pontoons towing tubers at 10-12 mph operate in the same semi-
displacement regime and produce comparable wakes. Singling out
wake boats while exempting these activities is not a science-based
distinction.
Nye 22
Wake Boat F:egulatlolr A fxa ice laced A,,se.ssntelii I Prof. Wiille nl ltai holvel, lJW Madison
Supplementaryt . Wave Heght Measurements
The following tables present the underlying wave height data used in the statistical analyses in Figures
2 and 3. Table 5 shows wake boat measurements at 200 feet from AMC and SAF studies. Table 6 shows
fishing/ski boat measurements at 100 feet from AMC studies. These raw data points make clear that
wake boats at 200 feet fall squarely within the range of other accepted boating activities at 100 feet.
10-12 mph
WAKE S®ATS SURFING
MacFarlane 2025 AMC Ski 2025 17.1
100 200 AMC Ski 2025 13.4
AMC 17.7 13.4
AMC 15.9 13.1 AMC Ski 2025 12.5
AMC 14.1 11.1
AMC 14.6 10.9 AMC Fishing 2018 12.3
AMC 13.6 10.7
AMC 13.0 10.2
AMC 12.6 Ave 9.6 Ave AMC Ski 2025 12.0
AMC 124' 13.2 9.0' 10.5 �r �
AMC 12.2 8.7 st dev AMC Ski 2025 10.6
AMC 12.0 8.0 L6 AMC Ski 2025 9.8
AMC 1.1.7
AMC 11.3 AMC Fishing 2018 9.5
AMC 11.2
SAF 20.2 17.5 AMC Ski 2025 8.5
SAF 19.8 13.7
SAF 18,5 Ave 12.7 Ave AMC Fishing 2018 8.5
SAF 17.5 w 16.9 12.0' 11,6
SAF 13.5 12.0 it dev Average 11.4
SAF 12.1 9.0' 3.4
SAF 8.9 1 gable 6:Fishing/Ski Boats at 100 ft, 10--'12 mph(AMC rave
SAF 6.7 11.4')
Goudey Dee{ 20.8 18.9
Goudey Deel 19.9 Ave 16.3 Ave
Goudey Deel 19.0' 19.3 16.2' 16.5
Goudey Deer 18.3 15.9
Goudey Deel 18.3 15.1
Goudey Shal 12.0 10.9
Goudey Shallow Ave 9.5 Ave
Goudey Shallow 12 9.6 10.0
Goudey Shallow
is
flay 9
Tera Vigils 2 14
Tera Vigllls 2021 8
WEC
AVERAGE 15.0 11.8
StDev 3.4 r3.2
7"able 0:Wake Boat.';at 200 ft(5MB ave== 10.5", SAF we
= 116', Combined ave=- 11')
Pajo 23
Wake Boat Recjulation. ncr. ,ed It,,essnu,mmt I I'roi William iol w UVV Mndison
Key Takeaway: The combined average wave height for wake boats at 200 feet is 10.4 inches
(Table 5), while the average for fishing/ski boats at 100 feet is 11.4 inches (Table 6). These
figures are nearly identical—supporting the statistical conclusion that wake boats at 200 feet
produce waves no different from other accepted boating activities at 100 feet. Note:SAF Pads
show systematically higher values than AMC and other SAF measurements; AMC 2018
MacFarlane 2018; AMC 2025 = MacFarlane 2025.
Page:24
Mike I3o t Re( ulsition: A Scie ice fla�yc;d A !iessment i C'iof. VVilliarii 13anl of of UVV Madison
References
Anthony, James L., and John A. Downing. "Physical Impacts of Wind and Boat Traffic on Clear Lake, Iowa, USA."
Lake and Reservoir Management, vol. 19, no. 1, 2003, pp. 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07438140309353984
Beachler, M. M., and D. F. Hill. "Stirring up Trouble? Resuspension of Bottom Sediments by Recreational
Watercraft." Lake and Reservoir Management, vol. 19, no. 1, 2003, pp. 15-25.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07438140309353985
Cox, G., and Gregor MacFarlane. The Effects of Boat Waves on Sheltered Waterways—Thirty Years of
Continuous Study. University of Tasmania, 2019. https://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/522918
Daeger,Adrienne, Nathan Bosch, and Ryan Johnson. "Impacts on Nutrient and Sediment Resuspension by
Various Watercraft across Multiple Substrates, Depths, and Operating Speeds in Indiana's Largest
Natural Lake." Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science,vol. 130, no. 2, 2022, pp. 112-22.
Doll,Adam. Wake Impacts of Recreational Watercraft. M.S. Thesis, University of Minnesota, Dec. 2018.
Goudey, Clifford, and Lewis Girod. "Characterization of Wake Sport Wakes and Their Potential Impact on
Shorelines."WSIA, 2015. https://www.wsla.net/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/WS IA_draft_report_Rev_I 1.pdf
Holthuijsen, L. H. Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Knutson, P. L., H. H. Allen, and J. W. Webb. Guidelines for Vegetative Erosion Control on Wave-Impacted
Coastal Dredged Material Sites. Technical Report D 90-13, U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment
Station, 1990.
MacFarlane, Gregor. Wave Wake Study—HB4099 Motorboat Working Group Technical Report. Australian
Maritime College, 2018.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a0ba0f9e5dd5bce46ef4ed2/t/5c01 dec34d7a9cb0b6f25937/15436
26456377/AMC+Wave+Wake+Study_H B4099+Motorboat+Working+Group+REPORT.pdf
MacFarlane, Gregor. "Wakesurfing, Wakeboarding, and Waterskiing:A Comparison of Wake Characteristics."
River Research and Applications, 18 Mar. 2025. Wiley Open Access.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1 0.1002/rra.4438
MacFarlane, Gregor. [Letter to author re: wave energy analysis and 500-ft setback interpretation]. Australian
Maritime College, 2025.
Marr, J., A. Riesgraf, W. Herb, M. Lueker, J. Kozarek, and K. Hill.A Field Study of Maximum Wave Height, Total
Wave Energy, and Maximum Wave Power Produced by Four Recreational Boats on a Freshwater Lake
(SAFL Project Report No. 600). University of Minnesota, St.Anthony Falls Laboratory, 2022.
https://hdl.handle.net/1 1 299/2261 9
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Ice Damage to Shorelines.
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/pwpermits/ice_ridges.html
Nanson, G. C., A. Von Krusenstierna, E. A. Bryant, and M. R. Renilson. "Experimental Measurements of River
Bank Erosion Caused by Boat-Generated Waves on the Gordon River, Tasmania." Regulated Rivers:
Research and Management,vol. 9, 1994, pp. 1-14.
Raymond, S., and R. Galvez-Cloutier. Impact of Lake Navigation: Sediment Suspension Study—Lake Masson
and Sand Lake Cases. Laval University, 2015.
Riesgraf, A., et al. Field Study of Recreational Powerboat Hydrodynamics and Their Impacts on the Water
Column and Lakebed. SAFL Project Report No. 611, University of Minnesota, St. Anthony Falls
Laboratory, 2025.
Zabawa, C., and C. Ostrom. The Role of Boat Wakes in Shoreline Erosion in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, 1980.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Shoreline Erosion: Causes, Prevention, and Control Options.
https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Waterways/shoreline/info-erosion.html
r'�c c25
vii ke Boat IZe tion.A i cu f3a,ed A ,e sinent Prof William 13millolzol, UW Madison
Pti n ?(3
Wake I-teat Rerjt lation•A,c ieee It ased A,.e assent Prof. William Itanhol/eI, UW Mtadisoll
iAppendx: Tabile I Summary of StateLaws n
Vermont 500 ft 20 ft 50 acres "Home Lake Rule"; decontamination
(VT) before switching lakes
Maine(ME) 300 ft 15 ft Lakes may opt Civil fine up to$100; may escalate to
out Class E crime
Oregon (OR) Prohibited in N/A N/A Wake boats over 5,500 lbs restricted
Newberg
Pool
Pennsylvania 200 ft None None No-wake speed within 200 ft
(PA)
New Jersey 200 ft None None Treated like water skiing
(NJ)
Alabama 200 ft None Lakes <50 Applies to certain named reservoirs
(AL) acres banned
Georgia (GA) 200 ft None None Night surfing prohibited; only in
specified areas
Tennessee 200 ft None Lakes <50 Based on WSIA model law; life jackets
(TN) acres banned required
South 200 ft None Lakes <50 No night surfing;WSIA model law
Carolina acres banned
(SC)
Virginia (VA) Advisory: None None Civic associations advocate
200 ft restrictions
Connecticut 100 ft (as None None Treated like water skiing
(CT) water skiing)
Indiana (IN) Proposed: None Lakes>300 Includes definition of wake surfing and
200 ft acres(pending) night bans
Mississippi None None Pending for Senate considering partial ban
(MS) statewide part of MS
River
Minnesota None None None Boater education required; only a
(MN) statewide recommendation of 200 ft, no state law
Michigan None None None HB 5532 never got out of committee
(MI)
New None active None None Proposed 20 ft depth and 500 ft
Hampshire distance bills both failed
(NH)
Illinois (IL) None None None No statewide rules; local rules vary
statewide
Ohio (OH) None None None No dedicated state law
statewide
Page 21
Wnke Boat IZe(julation:/e Science eased/\ ,nnent I Prof Willisjinn I3;3nlrol/el IJW Uldi son
b
i
Iowa (IA) None None None Local lake rules may apply
statewide
Wisconsin 100 ft None Lakes<50 30+local ordinances creating
(WI) (statewide) acres confusion and inconsistency
'age 213
Wake Boat FZegi.ilatioii A Sraeiice Itocod As; ssment I Prof. William 13rariio117c;r, UW Mracliscm
About the Author
Professor William Banhozer
Professor Banholzer is a distinguished chemical engineer with over 30 years of industry
experience, including leadership roles at GE and Dow Chemical. Following his retirement, he
joined the University of Wisconsin—Madison, where he holds the unique title of Professor of
Practice—reserved for individuals with a significant track record of engineering
accomplishments complementing their academic contributions.
Professor Banholzer's achievements include election to the National Academy of Engineering,
a distinction shared by only three chemical engineers in Wisconsin and 250 nationwide. He has
expertise in fluid mechanics grounded in the same Navier-Stokes equations used by marine
engineers, has conducted fluid flow analysis, computational modeling, and an innovative study
using CT scanning to investigate flow dynamics in fluidized beds—principles analogous to
sediment and sand movement in aquatic environments. He is also a certified Master Black Belt
in Six Sigma with expertise in statistical analysis and robust design.
Disclosure: Professor Banholzer owns a multiuse boat capable of wake surfing activities. His
family, with six generations rooted in Northern Wisconsin, engages in wake surfing activities
sparingly (fewer than 10 hours annually). His primary concern remains the preservation of his
lake's ecological quality. He is unaffiliated with any boat manufacturers or industry groups.
1i9(1 29
iWakeEnhancngReference
This sheet summarizes key research findings related to wake-enhancing boats, based on compiled
studies available through the Last Wilderness Alliance and other research institutions.
Key arch Hndüngs
1 Wake-surfing activity can disturb bottom sediment at depths of 20-30 feet.
2 Sediment disturbance can release phosphorus and nutrients into the water column.
3 Increased nutrient availability can contribute to algae growth and reduced water quality.
4 Wake boats produce larger, more energetic waves than traditional recreational boats.
5 Recommended mitigation includes operating at least 500 feet from shore and in deeper water (20+
feet).
S&ected References
1 Last Wilderness Alliance—Wakesurfing Research Summary:
https://Iastwildernessalliance.org/wakesurfiing
2 University of Minnesota St.Anthony Falls Laboratory—Boat Wake Studies
3 Terra Vigilis (2024)—Lake Waramaug Wave Impact Study
4 Connecticut DEEP—Wake Boat Environmental Impact Research
Summary
Research across multiple lakes and institutions consistently shows that wake-enhancing activity can
have measurable environmental impacts, particularly on smaller and shallower lakes. These findings
support the need for thoughtful consideration of how such activities are managed.
Prepared by: William Crabtree, Island Lake Resident
wcwi j 0 a O t s 4_ ::111
c o
Q N � ac -o a •� C
N
o � m oo `oO a � a a3 O
.nog, m a ® Q 0- O-00 j h O- E
E
m u
a O rn
° - rn>
mD o c ,c_ c v o o 0
N . C y p
it
0 a-co ' Ole; o
. ! n
u m ' < ;;a II
O m a �
�
C 5 e
om3 Iii
aac � � "" = 3� ) mm� i
U c .- O
O O E
rya c as
0o0
O
3 ,1
f j11
�v� a ,uilLL 1 !!
_ 2 i stç m a Q-O rn
7 y a
a G m
-0oouE 2t q °m > omn`
1-IHI:
/ (// ( ( ' 'u o c il p
oro , gym"
`
Ira m C I a ""
!Y a u
0 lw
I„ ' I' � � � � E 4. F _
o i op O I E
'
m �• \� a tlJ I o a a crn
o
t1000 a E 00
FU/ JO° rn r v CL m m E
ado w3rnrn( �o� I oy u 0 o
] m a m a oro + +a
a u
-O ro r°t a 'fL 'n
fd� n m a j I h h h 2
® I n u u u u
u
Attention: County Commissioners O SZY/aoL6
My family has owned property on the north end of Lost Lake for over 60
years, with approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline. We regularly enjoy
camping there during the summer months.Throughout our ownership, we
have not seen any erosion or damage to our shoreline resulting from the use
of wake boats on the lake.
Pi�ceLS 5" f ¢O1 - 13-dvoov
III
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.mo4
image001.anna
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 1 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.
jt'P9�N COU�rA
1854
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:
From: Lucinda Wiita
To: McKenzie Smith
Subject: Wakeboard vote
Date: Thursday,June 4,2026 10:58:57 AM
Hello
We live on Spencer Lake in Shelton. We understand their is a hearing and vote concerning
wakeboard boats on lakes.
We struggle with wakeboards on our lake. They damage our dock(had to have repair team
out) and damage the shoreline with the enormous waves they put out.
Our lake is small. When just one wakeboard is out, it ruins it for other boaters and fisherman.
Not to mention the loud music they put out.
We would be so delighted to know they have been excluded from small lakes such as ours.
Ruins property, the lake shore and the overall lake experience.
Thank you for considering our perspective,
Dave and Lucinda Wiita
Thoughts on the Proposed Wave Surfing Ordinance
After submitting written thoughts regarding the ordinance and attending the first public
hearing I felt compelled to offer some follow-up:
Congratulations
First let me commend you for your running of the public hearing. Your willingness to hear all
sides of the issue, alternating opposing testimony, and protecting your staff was wonderful.
Individual vs. Societal Rights
Tough issue, and you are right to recognize you are trying to balance individual rights with
society's rights. Never easy.
I would encourage you to go back and consider how the County came to terms with that
balance when it created non-motor lakes.
Enforcement
With respect to the enforcement issue, it is important to remember we have lots of laws
that are hard to enforce but we don't avoid making them.The laws illustrate issues that
society is concerned about and hope that members of the public will follow with or without
intense enforcement.An example might be alcohol limits for driving. Hard to enforce in
every case but a believe that society is safer with the laws in place.
Compromise
Always one to search for a compromise such as time-of-day use, or time of year use but
those don't seem to address the environmental and property damage issues. They might
help with the public safety issue.
Other water bodies for surfing
Finally, Mason County has lots of public access to Puget Sound and that body of water
would seem to allowwave surfing without the issues found on freshwater lakes.
So, it is important to remember that the ordinance would not eliminate the sport but direct
it to a more appropriate water body.
Thanks again for listening please don't hesitate to reach out if you would like to discuss
further.
Edwin Valbert
September 21, 2026
Mason County Board of County Commissioners
Sent via email: msniith(a)masoncountywa.gov
Re: Proposed Restrictions or Ban on Wake Boats on Small Lakes
Dear Mason County Commissioners:
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed restrictions or
potential ban on wake boats on smaller lakes within Mason County.
My family owns a wake boat,and we spend much of our sunmier on Lost Lake. I
understand and respect the County's responsibility to protect our lakes,
shorelines, property owners, and natural resources. However, I also believe that
regulations should be based on documented, lake-specific impacts and should be
reasonable, enforceable, and proportionate to the actual problem they are
intended to address.
From our experience on Lost Lake, there are fewer than ten wake boats regularly
using the lake. Those boats are primarily used on warm, pleasant summer days.
Realistically, we are talking about wake boat activity occurring fewer than 30
days per year—or less than 10% of the year.
As a wake boat owner, I recognize that operating a boat with full ballast creates a
larger wake. For that reason,we make a conscious effort to stay well away from
the shoreline when our ballast is full. Responsible operation and consideration
for neighboring property owners should absolutely be expected of everyone
using the lake.
My concern is that a broad ban treats responsible wake boat owners the same as
irresponsible operators without first establishing that wake boats, at the actual
frequency and manner in which they are used on Lost Lake, are causing
measurable shoreline damage.
Before adopting a prohibition, I respectfully ask the County to identify the
scientific evidence demonstrating that the limited amount of wake boat activity
occurring on Lost Lake—potentially fewer than 30 days per year—is causing
meaningful shoreline erosion or environmental damage. Research based on
significantly heavier boat traffic, different lake characteristics, or substantially
greater usage should not automatically be assumed to represent the conditions on
Lost Lake.
I ani also very concerned about enforcement. Any regulation should have a
realistic and objective method of enforcement. How would law enforcement
determine whether a boat is using ballast? How would officers determine the
amount of ballast being used? How would distance from shore be accurately
established on the water? And does Mason County have the resources to
consistently enforce such a regulation? Does Mason County even have the
resources to field the potential complaints?
Creating a rule that is extremely difficult to enforce could have unintended
consequences. Rather than solving a demonstrated problem, it could create
additional conflict between neighbors, increase complaints to law enforcement
and County staff, and encourage residents to police one another's recreational
activities.
I also ask the Commissioners to consider where this activity will go if wake boats
are prohibited on smaller lakes. A ban does not necessarily eliminate wake
boating; it may simply relocate it. Families who currently use lakes such as Lost
Lake may instead travel to larger nearby lakes such as Mason Lake, Lake
Cushman or Summit Lake. Concentrating additional wake boats and recreational
traffic on those lakes could create an entirely new set of concerns involving
congestion, boating safety, shoreline impacts, and conflicts among lake users. The
County could then find itself hearing the same concerns from a different group
of property owners only now because recreational activity has been
concentrated onto fewer lakes.
Before adopting a ban, I believe it is important to consider the countywide effect
of the policy, not simply its effect on an individual lake. If the ultimate result is to
move boats from several smaller lakes onto a handful of larger lakes, the County
should evaluate whether that actually improves safety and protects shorelines
overall or simply transfers the issue somewhere else.
I respectfully ask the Commissioners not to adopt a blanket ban based primarily
on what might happen. Before restricting an activity enjoyed responsibly by
Mason County families, please establish what is actually happening on these
lakes:
How many wake boats are actually being used? How frequently are they being
used? What measurable damage is occurring? What is causing that damage? Can
the proposed regulation realistically be enforced? And what will be the impact on
the lakes where this activity is likely to relocate?
If the evidence demonstrates a specific problem,then I support a thoughtful
discussion about reasonable solutions. But if actual use is minimal and
measurable harm has not been established, I do not believe an outright ban is a
proportionate response.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the perspective of residents and boat
owners who use these lakes responsibly. I hope the County will pursue a
balanced, evidence based approach that protects our shorelines and promotes
boating safety while preserving reasonable recreational access for everyone.
Sincerely,
LE�u "�c�JaIC�,ca.� j
Katie nodgrass
Wake Boat Owner