Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Exhibit 26-03 Application
MLA21-00007 Q �� Jan 01 2021 wart o JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD ,4 x a' $ Y State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: P.O. Box 43158, Olympia, WA 98504-3158 • (360) 902-8300 • TDD (360) 902-2207 Office Location: 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA December 31, 2020 Jefferson County Department of Community Development 621 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 Re: WDFW Point Whitney Access Renovations To Whom It May Concern: The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing a project at the Point Whitney Water Access site in Jefferson County, Washington. The project proposal includes the installation of a new boat launch on top of the existing boat launch to provide a safe launching experience for users while reducing impacts to sediment transport, forage fish usage, shellfish, and eelgrass beds. I have provided a set of revised drawings and a revised DARPA that show a revised high tide line and mitigation information. An assessment of coastal processes was completed in 2018 and is included for consideration. A Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) survey was completed on the site (provided), but has not met Corps guidelines for completion. WDFW is in the process of having a contractor revise the memo and a new survey will be conducted during the required window, as the current survey is approaching 3 years since completion. The current SAV is included to justify eelgrass shown on the project plans. Mitigation for this project will be completed through an In Lieu Fee Program operated by the Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC). Ms. Patty Michak will be presenting the project to the HCCC Board in early 2021 and WDFW is hopeful that the HCCC will provide ILF options to mitigate for the boat launch at that time. All coordination with HCCC will be relayed to the Corps and Jefferson county to maintain open communication about needs and requirements for this project. As a summary of the changes to the site and the project impacts, please consider the table on the last page of this document. The table outlines the existing ramp and the additions, with dimensions. This is included to help simplify the impacts, as the JARPA does not have a convenient place for these comparisons. If you have any questions or comments on the materials provided, please do not hesitate to contact me at (360) 790-3118 or via email at Chris.Gourleyc@dfw.wa.gov. I look forward to working with you further on this project. Sincerely, Chris ourley Environmental Planner Permitting Lead Capital and Asset Management Program WA Department of Fish & Wildlife Additional Materials Submitted (6) Document Name Description Size 2020123 1 -JC-CountyMaster DCD Master Application 456 KB 2020123 1 -JC-ShorelineSup Shoreline Supplemental Application 667 KB 20201230-JARPA JARPA 352 KB 20201230-PmtDrawin s Permit Drawing Set 875 KB 20201231-EGSurvey Eelgrass survey, incomplete. Currently being revised and survey will be reinitiated in June 2021 1,292 KB 20201230-ApplicationDrift Coastal Processes Report 3,282 KB as pk z� N ON O .y k � vC,3i N 0000 O F o � o N �o Zo 0 yC ^0000 �C �C ZO A N (00 N iC ty0 00 �C w o o d cn o con 0 vi N o z Z 0000 N a 0 wA N 00 z z x x 3 o � > x o v ;a O o a � x o + o + r m cn Cd U U i x x ¢ ¢ zxzx W uko DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Tel: 360.379.4450 1 Fax:360.379.4451 Web: tvany.co.jeffcnrsn.wa.u.+IrranmuiiirydcvclnPmcnt 1: mail: dcdl'ico.icfferson.wa,u: Jan 01 2021D� SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION JEFFERSON COUI TIV DW SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT A completed application form is a requirement of submittal. Include "N/A" in spaces that do not MLA # Case # Application Type (select one): - Statement of Exemption - See Examples on back side of application F1 Variance* F-1 Conditional Use (administrative)* Substantial Development* Conditional Use (discretionary)* 1) Does your proposal require in water work and/or works below ordinary high water mark? Yes [ ] No [ 2) Does your pro —cal require 1n,000 sq/ft or more of impervious surface and/or non -single family structures of 5,000 sq/ft or more? Yes [ ] No [ ] * If either of the boxes for 1 or 2 above are checked yes or if the permit type above has an asterisk then a pre -application conference is required prior to submitting for a shoreline permit. Site Information Assessor Tax Parcel #: Property Owner Name(s): 601071002; 601071001 Name of Body of Water: Dabob WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Project Description Describe the existing property use and condition: Existing property has a public restroom facility, public parking area, and water access. Buildings are leased by o other parties. The bathroom tacility and parking area were upgraded in Inch on the-aite is OP faiP GOAdition, but is unusable d, in to bQiAg below the grade of the beach. Beach sediment accumulates up to 12" which does not allow for public use of the ramp. Proposed distance from ordinary high water mark to use/development: 0 feet Describe the proposed work that requires a shoreline permit or permit exemption: Building a new boat launch on top of the existing boat launch to meet the grade of the beach sediment, reducing accumulation on the launch. I his will allow the launch to —be used by the in a cafe manner. public By signing this application form, the owner/agent attests that the information provided herein, and in any attachments, is true and correct to the best of his or her knowledge. Any material falsehood or any omission of a material fact made by the owner/agent with respect to this application packet may result in making any issued permit null and void. Owner Signature: Christina Gourley Date: 12/30/2020 °a..w.v-amc•�i.a��.mr pon OowM.,mmr.�.mwmn. Christina L Gourley Print Name: Y �,�„b.•�.•,.,, �°"'�'="""ro' _ These activities require a formal statement of Exemption issued bV Jefferson County. Check 'Statement of Exemption' box on the front of this form and submit with Permit Application to apply for your Exemption Approval. 18.25.570 Statement of Exemptions (1) The administrator is hereby authorized to grant or deny requests for statements of exemption from the shoreline substantial development permit requirement for uses and developments within shorelines that are specifically listed above. Such statements shall be applied for on forms provided by the administrator. The statement shall be in writing and shall indicate the specific exemption of this program that is being applied to the development, and shall provide a summary of the administrator's analysis of the consistency of the project with this program and the Act. As appropriate, such statements of exemptions shall contain conditions and/or mitigating measures of approval to achieve consistency and compliance with the provisions of this program and Act. A denial of an exemption shall be in writing and shall identify the reason(s) for the denial. The administrator's actions on the issuance of a statement of exemption or a denial are subject to appeal pursuant to the appeal provisions in Article X of this chapter. 18.25.560 Exemptions listed —This is a summary from JCC18.25.560, please review the code section for detailed information regarding these exemptions. (1) Fair Market Value. (2) Maintenance and Repair. (3) Residential Bulkhead. (4) Emergency Construction. (5) Agriculture. (6) Drainage. (7) Navigation Aids. (8) Single -Family Residences. (9) Residential Docks. (10) Irrigation. (11) State Property. (12) Energy Facilities. (13) Site Exploration. (14) Noxious Weeds. (15) Watershed Restoration. (16) "Watershed restoration project" (17) "Watershed restoration plan" (18) A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage. SuPPlcmental Shoreline \pplieanon Page 2 of 2 M LA21-00007 Q US FM STATE ofEngiees� gg Seallle District Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (DARPA) Forml,2 [h.I USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. a� DOJan 01 2021 JEFFERSON COlIMY DO') Part 1—Project Identification -------------------------------------- AGENCY USE ONLY 1 Date received: 1 t i t Agency reference #: t Tax Parcel #(s): t _ .. _ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ .. -- 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Dock or Seabrook Lane Development) ftlot WDFW Point Whitney Access Renovations Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [I1eI 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Christina Gourley 2b. Organization (If applicable) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) 600 Capitol Way North 2d. City, State, Zip Olympia, WA. 98501-1091 2e. Phone (1) 2f. Phone (2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail Chris.Gourley@dfw.wa.gov (360) 902-8392 (360) 902-8300 (360) 902-8367 lAdditional forms may be required for the following permits: • If your project may qualify for Department of the Army authorization through a Regional General Permit (RGP), contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for application information (206) 764-3495. • If your project might affect species listed under the Endangered Species Act, you will need to fill out a Specific Project Information Form (SPIF) or prepare a Biological Evaluation. Forms can be found at httDJlwww_nws. usace_armv.m i1)Missions/CivilWorks/Rea u latorvlPe rm itGuidebook/Endangered S1)ecies.aspx. Not all cities and counties accept the JARPA for their local Shoreline permits. If you need a Shoreline permit, contact the appropriate city or county government to make sure they accept the JARPA. ZTo access an online JARPA form with [help] screens, go to http://www.epermitting.wa. ov/site/alias resourcecenterfa a jarpa form19984far a form.as x. For other help, contact the Governors Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or lie 1paoria.wa.aov. ORIA-16-011 Page 1 of 15 Part 3-Authorized Agent or Contact Person authorized to represent the applicant about the project. (Note: Authorized agent(s) must sign 11 b of this application.) [!Iepr 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) 3b. Organization (If applicable) 3c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) 3d. City, State, Zip 3e. Phone (1) 3f. Phone (2) 3g. Fax 31h. E-mail Part 4-Property Owner(s) Contact information for people or organizations owning the property(ies) where the project will occur. Consider both upland and aquatic ownership because the upland owners may not own the adjacent aquatic land. [ham] ® Same as applicant. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ Repair or maintenance activities on existing rights -of -way or easements. (Skip to Part 5.) ❑ There are multiple upland property owners. Complete the section below and fill out JARPA Attachment A for each additional property owner. ❑ Your project is on Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-managed aquatic lands. If you don't know, contact the DNR at (360) 902-1100 to determine aquatic land ownership. If yes, complete JARPA Attachment E to apply for the Aquatic Use Authorization. 4a. Name (Last, First, Middle) 41b. Organization (If applicable) 4c. Mailina Address (Street or Po Box) 4d. City, State, Zip 1 4e. Phone (1) 4f. Phone (2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail ORIA-16-011 Page 2 of 15 Part 5—Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. of elpl ❑ There are multiple project locations (e.g. linear projects). Complete the section below and use JARPA Attachment B for each additional project location. 5a. Indicate the type of ownership of the property. (check all that apply.) [h!PI ❑ Private ❑ Federal E Publicly owned (state, county, city, special districts like schools, ports, etc.) ❑ Tribal ❑ Department of Natural Resources (DNR) — managed aquatic lands (Complete JARPA Attachment E) 5b. Street Address (Cannot be a PO Box. If there is no address, provide other location information in 5p.) heI Point Whitney Road 5c. City, State, Zip (If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [hell l Brinnon, WA 98320 5d. County [1tel Jefferson 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. h[ el j '/4 Section I Section I Township Range NE'/4- 7 T _ ' 26N — 1W 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. h[ gAl ■ Example: 47.03922 N lat. /-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees - NAD 83) 47.761791,-122.851412 5g. List the tax parcel number(s) for the project location. [I)ei • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. 601071001 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (if you need more space, use DARPA Attachment C.) hf e3o1 Name Mailing Address Walter Dickerman 2230 Bee Mill Rd, Brinnon, WA 98320 Reed C Gunstone Gift Trust PO Box 4118 Sequim, WA 98382 Tax Parcel # (if known) 601074014 601074001 ORIA-16-011 Page 3 of 15 51. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [fleipj The beach is listed on NWI as Estuarine intertidal aquatic bed unconsolidated shore, regularly flooded. 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. n[� The project is adjacent to Quilcene and Dabob Bays within Hood Canal 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? [neM © Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know Zone A — Panel 5300690865B 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [re€pl Low -growing vegetation is present at the site. The parking area is graveled and has no vegetation. The parking area is not suitable habitat, though the beach and lagoon offer a variety of habitats for shorebirds, shellfish, forage fish, juvenile fish, and many other species. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. [hei The parking area is a state-owned access area for the public. There is a boat launch on the east side of the parking area that is used when sediment does not cover it and make it unusable. There is a bathroom on -site (flush toilets and sinks) that was recently renovated (2019) for continued public access. Users access the parking area to support recreational opportunities of this site including shellfish harvest, boating, and fishing. Other buildings and facilities on -site are leased and are not used by WDFW. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [hefo Adjacent properties are primarily residential, including full-time and vacation homes. 5o. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s) and current condition. (tei Public restroom and interpretive center are in good condition and were renovated in 2019. A kiosk is in good condition and is available to alert users of points of interest, safety, and other concerns. It was replaced in 2019 as well. Formal office and lab buildings are in fair condition and currently used to provide office work areas for leasees. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [ofe_ipi Take US highway 101 north through the town of Brinnon. Approximately 3 miles north of Brinnon, turn right onto Bee Mill Road. Continue on Bee Mill Road (turns into Point Whitney Road) for 2.2 miles. The access is at the end of the road. ORIA-16-011 Page 4 of 15 Part 6—Project Description 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. (I)elo This project focuses on improvements of the boat launch. The current launch will be left in place and new planks will be placed on top of the launch with steel bars/rails. This will raise the elevation of the ramp, keeping it in the same footprint, so the ramp will not be above the average beach grade. The ramp footprint will be slightly expanded (12 feet side instead of the existing 10 feet wide) with the use of DFW's typical ramp planks. Articulated concrete mat will be placed along the sides of the new launch at an elevation that may meet but not exceed the beach elevation. The ramp is being raised to improve safety and reduce impacts on beach substrates in the area. Mitigation for the work includes the previously -completed grading to the west end of the "point" to match the grade of the beach. This is a slight reduction in parking area, though no parking area is currently delineated. Additional mitigation needs will be met through Hood Canal Coordinating Council (HCCC) In Lieu Fee program credits purchased by WDFW. 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help] Sediments move rapidly within the area, especially with storm events. Because the launch was placed below grade, it is constantly covered in beach sediment and does not provide a safe launching area for users. By raising the elevation to just below or at grade of the current beach, sediment will not be hand removed by users to access waters and there is a lower potential impact on forage fish and shellfishing areas. It also provides users a tool to launch boats without getting tires, trailers, and vehicles stuck in beach sediments. This will also limit driving of vehicles on the beach where users try to find a better boat launching location, impacting additional beach area. Sediments will still be able to drift over the top of the ramp and this is an improvement over the existing conditions for users, while eliminating the need for sediment removal (not done by the owner/applicant) that we believe is occurring. 6c. Indicate the project category. (check all that apply) [hell ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ® Recreational ❑ Maintenance ❑ Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (check all that apply) [help] ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Boat House ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Bridge ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Buoy ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Other: ❑ Culvert ❑ Dam / Weir ❑ Dike / Levee / Jetty ❑ Ditch ❑ Dock / Pier ❑ Dredging ❑ Fence ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Fishway ❑ Float ❑ Floating Home ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Land Clearing ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Mining ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Raft ❑ Retaining Wall (upland) ❑ Road ❑ Scientific Measurement Device ❑ Stairs ❑ Stormwater facility ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Utility Line ORIA-16-011 Page 5 of 15 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. Iheipl • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. A current boat launch exists at the site. Steel rails will be placed on top of the current launch and gaps between the rails will be filled with gravel. The new pre -cast concrete planks (28 planks, 4'x12'x6") will be placed on top of the rails and slid into place to approximately elevation -2.0. The planks are secured together with metal plates. Articulated concrete mats will line either side of the launch and the 4 foot wide mats (110 feet long) will be keyed into the substrate to help alert users when they have left the designated ramp and to aid in erosion of the launch. The mats are cabled together. 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (MonthNear) [helw If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attadhnient ❑ to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start Date: July 2021 End Date: February 2022 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [b@ipj $400, 000 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [hesi j ■ If yes, list each agency providing funds. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know Part 7—Wetlands: Impacts and Mitigation ❑ Check here if there are wetlands or wetland buffers on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 8.) [neio 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. hf�l ❑ Not applicable 71b. Will the project impact wetlands? Ines ] ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [ eip] ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know ORIA-16-011 Page 6 of 15 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [neipj • If Yes, submit the report, including data sheets, with the JARPA package ❑ Yes ❑ No 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? [reI • If Yes, submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know [771f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 7g. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ Don't know _ ...-_a ate_ impact, and the type and amount of mitigation proposed. Or if you are submitting a mitigation plan with a similar table, you can state (below) where we can find this information in the plan. inei❑ ORIA-16-011 Page 7 of 15 711. For all filling activities identified in 7h, describe the source and nature of the fill material, the amount in cubic yards that will be used, and how and where it will be placed into the wetland. hl e! 7j. For all excavating activities identified in 7h, describe the excavation method, type and amount of material in cubic yards you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. Lbeipl Part 8—Waterbodies (other than wetlands): Impacts and Mitigation In Part 8, "waterbodies" refers to non -wetland waterbodies. (See Part 7 for information related to wetlands.) [tit. ® Check here if there are waterbodies on or adjacent to the project area. (If there are none, skip to Part 9.) 8a. Describe how the project is designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to the aquatic environment. [helol ❑ Not applicable All project work is in and adjacent to the aquatic environment. All work will be done within the smallest extent possible for maintaining assets. No equipment will drive on the beach and will stay within the footprint of the current boat launch. The current launch is covered with sediment due to its elevation. By raising the elevation, fewer sediments will be disturbed as users attempt to use the popular launch. Eelgrass beds at the terminus of the ramp will also be impacted less due to the availability of the launch. Currently, users often drive off the launch area, potentially impacting fish life, aquatic plant life, and risking vehicle and human safety. This proposed activity will reduce those risks. 81b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [heioj ® Yes ❑ No ORIA-16-011 Page 8 of 15 8c. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for the project's adverse impacts to non -wetland waterbodies? [help] • If Yes, submit the plan with the JARPA package and answer 8d. • If No, or Not applicable, explain below why a mitigation plan should not be required. ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know Mitigation for this project includes 900 square feet of mitigation of removal of a graveled area, sometimes used for parking. This area has been regraded to meet the vegetation line at the west point to allow for increased plant growth and sediment movement. The HCCC will work with USACE, WDFW, and Jefferson County to determine the number of credits WDFW needs to purchase to offset the impacts of the addition of new planks (2 feet wider than existing ramp) and articulated concrete mats (increase in footprint over existing). The use report generated by HCCC will act as the mitigation plan, as it outlines the credits required and the impacts to be mitigated for. 8d. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish. Describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. ■ If you already completed 7g you do not need to restate your answer here. [help The increase of the footprint by adding articulated concrete matting (696 SF) and new standard boat planks (increase of 174 SF) will be approximately 870 square feet below HTL. Above HTL, addition of articulated concrete mat (200 SF) and wider ramp planks (50 SF), is a net increase of 250 square feet. The removal of the angular gravel from the west point was an acceptable mitigation for Habitat Biologists to consider issuing a Hydraulic Project Approval under RCW 77.55. Currently, the boat launch is covered in sediment and is often found "cleared" of sediment by users. Some users attempt to launch their boats without knowing where the launch is, potentially disturbing forage fish and shellfish, as well as power -loading near eelgrass beds. Given the limited amount of space at the site and the minimal square foot impact of the proposed activities, HCCC was asked to provide in lieu fee (ILF) options to WDFW. The US Army Corps of Engineers and Jefferson County prefer the use of ILF programs over applicant -initiated mitigation. The HCCC will provide a short- range plan that supports a long-range plan of improved habitat and shoreline processes throughout Hood Canal. 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. Inei Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material _ Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location of impactt3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or removed waterbody from waterbody directly affected Concrete planks Dabob Bay Above HTL Permanent 6 CY 300 SF FILL) Concrete planks Dabob Bay Below HTL Permanent 21 CY 1044 SF FILL Gravel (CUT) Dabob Bay Above HTL Permanent 4 CY 200 SF Gravel (CUT) Dabob Bay Below HTL Permanent 13 CY 696 SF Gravel (FILL) Dabob Bay Above HTL Permanent 11 CY 300 SF Gravel (FILL) Dabob Bay Below HTL Permanent 32 CY 1044 SF Articulated Permanent Concrete Mats Dabob Bay Above HTL 4 CY 200 SF FILL Articulated Permanent Concrete Mats Dabob Bay Below HTL 13 CY 696 SF FILL ORIA-16-011 Page 9 of 15 If no official name for the waterbody exists, create a unique name (such as "Stream 1") The name should be consistent with other documents provided. 2 Indicate whether the impact will occur in or adjacent to the waterbody. If adjacent, provide the distance between the impact and the waterbody and indicate whether the impact will occur within the 100-year flood plain. ' Indicate the days, months or years the waterbodv will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter "permanent" if aonlicable_ 8f. For all activities identified in 8e, describe the source and nature of the fill material, amount (in cubic yards) you will use, and how and where it will be placed into the waterbody. hel Boat launch planks are precast in the WDFW Lacey Shop and cured before being brought on site. Rails will be placed and gravels will backfill the spaces. All gravels will be placed between the rails, between the existing boat launch and the new launch planks. New planks will be slid into place with an excavator working within the current launch footprint: Articulated concrete mat is a product that is precast and assembled before being brought on site. It is placed with a spreader bar on an excavator and is placed from the ramp footprint after the ramp is placed. 8g. For all excavating or dredging activities identified in 8e, describe the method for excavating or dredging, type and amount of material you will remove, and where the material will be disposed. [help] Gravels will be excavated from the beach for the placement of the articulated concrete mats. No materials will be hauled off site. WDFW Habitat has instructed that the sediment be placed to the west of the new launch and sediment will transport as necessary and as it naturally would. Part 9—Additional Information Any additional information you can provide helps the reviewer(s) understand your project. Complete as much of this section as you can. It is ok if you cannot answer a question. 9a. If you have already worked with any government agencies on this project, list them below. [hem] Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact WDFW 1 Chris Waldbillig HCCC Patty Michak USACE Daisy Douglass 360-874-7258 1 12/30/2020 360-265-9440 1 12/10/2020 206-764-6903 12/23/2020 91b. Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies identified in Part 7 or Part 8 of this JARPA on the Washington Department of Ecology's 303(d) List? [helg] • If Yes, list the parameter(s) below. • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: httos:/lecology.wa.gov/Water- ShcrelinesNVater- uaiit NUater-rm rovement/Assessment-of-s ate-wafers-303d. © Yes ❑ No ORIA-16-011 Page 10 of 15 Listing 40303: Category 5 for bacteria (parameter) in water (media) for Dabob Bay. 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help] • Go to http:llcfoui .epa.00vlsurfflocatelindex_cfm to help identify the HUC. 17110018 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number (WRIA #) is the project in? [hel ■ Go to h s:llecolo wa. ovlWater-ShorelineslWater-su 1 nNater-availabilit (Watershed-took-u to find the WRIA #. 17 9e. Will the in -water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? hel • Go to https:/lecolog v.wa.govlWater-Share IinesMater-quality/Freshwater!Surface-water-guality-stanclards/Crite ria for the standards. ❑x Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? heI • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information, go to: htt s:llecoto .wa. ov/Water-Shorelines/Shorelin -coastal-mans ementtShoreIine-coastat- p l a n n i n o1S ho re l i ne- laws -rules -and -cases . ❑ Urban ❑ Natural ❑ Aquatic ® Conservancy ❑ Other: 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? [heI • Go to ham://www.dnr.wa.gov/forest-oractioes-water-typing for the Forest Practices Water Typing System ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non -Fish Perennial ❑ Non -Fish Seasonal 91h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? hei • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. ® Yes ❑ No Name of manual 91. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? • If Yes, please describe below. ❑ Yes ® No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. ink] ORIA-16-011 Page 11 of 15 The dikes on the site were built in 1953 to contain the lagoons for shellfish rearing. The boat launch has been available for public access for a number of years and the Navy owned the property before WDFW. A pier was removed within the last 10 years at the site as well. 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? Ind • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No Please work with Adam Rorabaugh for Cultural Resources ORIA-16-011 Page 12 of 15 91. Name each species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act that occurs in the vicinity of the project area or might be affected by the proposed work. Lbgiw Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) — Threatened Streaked horned lark (Eremophila alpestris strigata) — Threatened Yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) — Threatened Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) — Threatened Hood Canal Summer run Chum (Oncorhynchus keta) — Threatened Puget Sound Chinook (O. tshawytscha) — Threatened Puget Sound Steelhead (O. mykiss) — Threatened 9m. Name each species or habitat on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Priority Habitats and Species List that might be affected by the proposed work. [heini Gammon Name Sdenllll[ 7iame f�isp[a•� Priariri FrBa Rewvdon Feature Type Full Record Pacific sand Lance Ammodvtes Srtedmg Area AS MAPPED line shorn FLEI �042Q hexavterus P�cord Pacific Sand Lance Ammodxtes &eed,og Area AS HAPPEO Line 5iwN M rsko��1 hexapterus Pic rSrdd Northern Spotted OrA ,7� ZZ] Strix ocddentalis Management & fer TOWNSHIP Area Show F611 Estuarine and Marine Null Aauat:c Habitat AS FUPPED Area Wedand Ishua R• ord Northern SPattad Owl Strix Management &AFer 70Ylfi5H1P Area Shore Full ah.gylj occidentalis Mfx-3 Part 10—SEPA Compliance and Permits Use the resources and checklist below to identify the permits you are applying for. • Online Project Questionnaire at http:llapps.oria.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help[cvoria.wa.Aov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on aalencv addresses for completed JARPA. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (check all that apply.) Ine—1 For more information about SEPA, go to https:llecologv.wa.govlregulations-permits/SEPA-environmental-review. ® A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ❑ A SEPA determination is pending with is ❑ I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 1ob.) [I2el2l (lead agency). The expected decision date ❑ This project is exempt (choose type of exemption below). ❑ Categorical Exemption. Under what section of the SEPA administrative code (WAC) is it exempt? ❑ Other: ❑ SEPA is pre-empted by federal law. ORIA-16-011 Page 13 of 15 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) hel LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ® Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): Other City/County permits: ❑ Variance ❑ Floodplain Development Permit ® Critical Areas Ordinance STATE GOVERNMENT Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: ® Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) ❑ Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption —Attach Exemption Form Washington Department of Natural Resources: ® Aquatic Use Authorization Complete JARPA Attachment E and submit a check for $25 payable to the Washington Department of Natural Resources. Do not send cash. Washington Department of Ecology- 0 Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): ® Section 404 (discharges into waters of the U.S.) ® Section 10 (work in navigable waters) United States Coast Guard: ❑ General Bridge Act Permit ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non -bridge projects) United States Environmental Protection Agency: ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) on tribal lands where tribes do not have treatment as a state (TAS) Tribal Permits: (Check with the tribe to see if there are other tribal permits, e.g., Tribal Environmental Protection Act, Shoreline Permits, Hydraulic Project Permits, or other in addition to CWA Section 401 WQC) ❑ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (discharges into waters of the U.S.) where the tribe has treatment as a state (TAS). ORIA-16-011 Page 14 of 15 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. Ihepj 11a. Applicant Signature (required) heti I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities, and I agree to start work only after I have received all necessary permits. I hereby authorize the agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. M (initial) By initialing here, I state that I have the authority to grant access to the property. I also give my consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work related to the project. a (initial) Christina L Gourley OA%441'a Applicant Printed Name Appli—cafTignature 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature iheinl 12/30/2020 Date I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information provided in this application is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify that I have the authority to carry out the proposed activities and I agree to start work only after all necessary permits have been issued. Authorized Agent Printed Name Authorized Agent Signature Date 11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) Lt,eI i Not required if project is on existing rights -of -way or easements (provide copy of easement with JARPA). I consent to the permitting agencies entering the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work. These inspections shall occur at reasonable times and, if practical, with prior notice to the landowner. Property Owner Printed Name Property Owner Signature Date 18 U.S.0 §1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both. If you require this document in another format, contact the Governors Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) at (800) 917-0043. People with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. People with a speech disability can call (877) 833- 6341. ORIA publication number: ORIA-16-011 rev. 08/2018 ORIA-16-011 Page 15 of 15 N1 A ENG. PROJECT NO. JN:A633:18_-1............. REFERENCE NUMBER: APPLICANT: WASHINGTON DEPT. of FISH & WILDLIFE 600 CAPITOL WAY N. OLYMPIA, WA 98501-1091 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER: 1. REED C GUNSTONE 2 WALTER L DICKERMAN MLA21-00007 PROJ LOCA VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE PORTION OF: _T26N,R1.W,S7 PROJECT LOCATION (ADDRESS): POINT WHITNEY 1000 POINT WHITNEY ROAD BRINNON, WA 98320 LAT/LONG: 47.45' 42.03W/ 122.51 '04.33W DATUM: TIDAL DATUM SHEET 1 OF 8 DATE: 12/28/2020 ,j Jan 01 2021 JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD SaTAaTE MAP NSCALE ONS FROM OUILCFNE, HEAD SOUTHWEST ON US-I01 TOWARD 8EE MILL ROAD. TURN LEFT ONTO BEE MILL ROAD. CONTINUE ON BEE MILL ROAD TO POINT WHITNEY ROAD. FOLLOW POINT WHITNEY ROAD TO SITE. DRAWN By: _D,HENNING.......... ..... PROPOSED PROJECT: POINT WHITNEY ACCESS REDEVELOPMENT IN: DABOB BAY NEAR/AT: POINT WHITNEY COUNTY: JEFFERSON STATE: WA N ! �- VFRTICAL P1LLNG BATTERED PIL7 AT OTTOM APPROX. LOCAT .. G EDGE PNT# 2019 FOUND 2 1/2" ALUMINUM CAP MARKED "GPS MLLW 0.00- --� PT WHIT 2 2000"• • . -� N: 284468.60 E: 1143659.78 ELEV = 14.24 (TIDAL DATUM) - t0 — DABOB BAY: FIRE PIT HTL = 12.00 MHHW = 11.55 PICNIC TABLE _ PNT# 1500 FOUND 1/2• REBAR CONTROL POINT WHIT 3 5 112' LONG CONCRETE 1 NANO CAP (NO GRAVEL MARKINGS) REBAR W/ ALUM. CAP BOAT RAMP (1120 SF) N: 284467.44 E: 1143671.53 N: 284418.48 E: 1144109.84` \ �` ELEV = 14.90 (TIDAL DATUM) ELEV = 15.13 (TIDAL DATUM) _ APPROX. 13.2' VEGETATION LINE VEGETATION LINE EDGE OF y _ �h EDGE OF MLLW 0.00 PARKING LOT GVARO ASPHALT GRAVEL ` — POSTS PAVEMENT LOG WHFFiSTOP PILES 25 LAGOON ^ EDGE ....... JS I , r t0 6' CHAINLINK 45 FENCE J EXISTING $ITE PLAN sCALE: 1• 100=•, o s0 100 25 75 ISO SCALE: 1" = 100' LENG. PROJECT NO. JN:A633:1 DRAWN BY: D. HENNING �-_SEE MITIGATION PLAN SHEET 7 I l - MLLW 0-00 EDGE OF onov�nir_ i nT VEPFCAL PYLING 1 DABOB BAY °ILING )CATION ifs 3 EDGE 1 �A GRAVEL 0UAF POAP POS] 0 Zy- LAGOON EDGE \ I I I I � �I I PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1' = 100' ❑ so roc -25 7S IS0 SCALE: 1 " = 100' ENG. PROJECT NO. JN'A633' 18— 1 DRAWN BY: D. HENNING MLLW 0.00 ++ INSTALL (28)- "F%-'- 4'Xl2'X6" RAMP PLANKS TO APPROX. ELEVATION 1.6 - (1344 SF) ON . TOP OF EXISTING RAMP (1120 SF) b N ' �CONCRETE BOAT RAMP TO REMAIN \ _ ARTICULATED ' CONCRETE MAT A AND PLANKS TOTAL (2240 SF) ARTICULATED CONCRETE MAT (896 SF) 0 - HTL 12.00 -_ \ APPROX. 13, 2' VEGETATION LINE � l NAVY OEAARTMENT MONUMENT CORNER NUMBER U.S.N- �S #5 BELOW GRAVEL SURFACE 0 0 0 1 SC & 3 q ❑ 10 PO 30 5 15 25 45 SCALE: 1" = 30' RFF� FRFN(;F ENG. PROJECT NO. JN'A633:18-1 DRAWN eY: D. HENNING N o_ n N N �, N O I I I - + N f-9- N tE V- + Lu DY- o /- � U NOTE: 1. WATTLES TO BE PLACED AROUND WORK AREA AS NEEDED PER SHEET B. 2. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION WITH HOOD CANAL COORDINATING COUNCIL ILF PROGRAM TO BE DETERMINED N MATCH EXISTING - 'A •1 PARKING AREA �. ------ -__v______ . _ HTL 12.00 __-------------- ELEVATION OF RESTORATION �� • • ~_ SET BY MATCHING THE TOP EDGE OF EX - RELOCATED - OF BEACH GRAVEL LOT t--� " GRAVEL/VEGETATION LINE ' - PICNIC , . ... - TAB4X8 TABLE - .... - FIRE PIT TO • •i BE REMOVED • - - . .900 SF i GRAVEL PARKING MITIGATION AREA v AREA EXCAVATE TO EXISTING ELEVATION ' �• ' ' • - • _ 20" BARRIER LOG SLOPE TRANSITION AT _ CORNER. FILL REMOVAL SHALL NOT DISTURB ANY _ EXISTING RIP RAP _ -- 12' SECTION OF-- CHAINLINK FENCE- " 5' CHAINLINK'�, 1 70 BE REMOVED FENCE MHHW 11.55_ �- ll�N PLAN SCALE; 1" = " 0 10 20 5 15 30 SCALE: 1" = 20' ENG. PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: D. HENNING H O e'-10' DIA. �1 1' x 1" STACK WATTLE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE CQNSTRUCT1ON SPECIFICATIONS: 1. PREPARE THE SLOPE BEFORE THE WATTUNG PROCEDURE IS STARTED. 2. SHALLOW GULLIES SHOULD BE SMOOTHED AS WORK PROGRESSES. 3. DIG SMALL TRENCHES ACROSS THE SLOPE ON CONTOUR, TO PLACE ROLLS IN. THE TRENCH SHOULD BE DEEP ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE HALF THE THICKNESS OF THE ROLL. WHEN THE SOIL IS LOOSE AND UNCOMPACTED, THE TRENCH SHOULD BE DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY THE ROLL 2/3 OF ITS THICKNESS BECAUSE THE GROUND WILL SETTLE. 4. IT IS CRITICAL THAT ROLLS ARE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO WATER MOVEMENT, PARALLEL TO THE SLOPE CONTOUR. 5. START BUILDING TRENCHES AND INSTALL ROLLS FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE SLOPE AND WORK UP. 6. CONSTRUCT TRENCHES AT CONTOUR INTERVALS OF 3-12 FEET APART DEPENDING ON STEEPNESS OF SLOPE. THE STEEPER THE SLOPE, THE CLOSER TOGETHER THE TRENCHES. 1:1=10' 2:1=20' 3:1=30' 4:1=40' 7. LAY THE ROLL ALONG THE TRENCHES FITTING IT SNUGLY AGAINST THE SOIL. MAKE SURE NO GAPS EXIST BETWEEN THE SOIL AND THE STRAW WATTLE. 8. USE A STRAIGHT BAR TO DRIVE HOLES THROUGH THE WATTLE AND INTO THE SOIL FOR THE WILLOW OR WOODEN STAKES. 9. DRIVE THE STAKE THROUGH PREPARED HOLE INTO SOIL. LEAVE ONLY 1 OR 2 INCHES OF STAKE EXPOSED ABOVE ROLL. 10. IF USING WILLOW STAKES REFER TO LIVE STAKING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. 11. INSTALL STAKES AT LEAST EVERY 4 FEET APART THROUGH THE WATTLE. ADDITIONAL STAKES MAY BE DRIVEN ON THE DOWNSLOPE SIDE OF THE TRENCHES ON HIGHLY EROSIVE OR VERY STEEP SLOPES. 12. INSPECT THE STRAW ROLLS AND THE SLOPES AFTER SIGNIFICANT STORMS. MAKE SURE THE ROLLS ARE IN CONTACT WITH THE SOIL. 13. REPAIR ANY RILLS OR GULLYS PROMPTLY. 14. RESEED OR REPLANT VEGETATION IF NECESSARY UNTIL THE SLOPE IS STABILIZED. REFERENCE NUMBER: APPLICANT NAME: WASHINGTON DEPT. of FISH & WILDLIFE PROPOSED PROJECT: ACCESS REDEVELOPMENT LOCATION: POINT WHITNEY ENG. PROJECT NO. JN:A633:18--1 DRAWN BY: D. HENNING SHEET 8 OF 8 DATE:12/28/2020 '��'•�a�' sr ri r _ xp Ogg mm, ©�r7 ■ � ■ [r] M. r rl�r *.r IrYia �r s r .i �r a r■ � r* r� �r 4 �� JL-.: J.Y--..sliiiii�;.�V. "tii {lam vv REFERENCE NUMBER: APPLICANT NAME: WASDEPT.WILDLIFE .... PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENTACCESS ... .. -. DATE. VArk�+ MLA21-00007 = Jan 01 2021 v' JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: P.O. Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504-3200 • (360) 902-2200 • TDD (360) 902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building, 1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia, WA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) Name of Proposal: DNS 19-061: POINT WHITNEY ACCESS REDEVELOPMENT Description of Proposal: The project site is a public boat launch and water access area on one parcel totaling 7.83 acres. Previous property improvements included in this project have already been permitted and completed as routine maintenance, including parking lot grading, a new kiosk, and restroom upgrades. This project focuses on the improvements associated with the boat launch itself. The current launch will be left in place while new planks and articulated concrete mat will be placed along the same alignment at an elevation that may meet but not exceed the beach elevation. The ramp is being raised to improve safety and reduce impacts on beach substrates in the area. Mitigation for the work will include removal of 2 piles within the lagoon area and the grading of the west end of the "point" to match the grade of the beach. This is a slight reduction in parking area, though no parking area is delineated. Proponent/Applicant: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Contact: Christina Gourley 600 Capitol Way North Olympia, WA 98501 (360) 790-3118 Christina.Gourlev@dfw.wa.gov Location of Proposal, including street, if any: Point Whitney Water Access, 1000 Point Whitney Road, Brinnon, Jefferson County, Washington: Township 26N, Range 1 W, Section 7. Lead Agency: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) WDFW has determined that this proposal will likely not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, state law' does not require an environmental impact statement (EIS). WDFW made this determination of nonsignificance (DNS) after we reviewed the environmental checklist and other information on file with us. We issued this DNS according to state rules.z We will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date we issued the DNS. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this proposal or DNS. We must receive your comments within 14 days of the date of this notice. The comment period will end at 5:00 pm on December 27, 2019. Method of Comment: The following procedures shall govern the method to comment on agency SEPA proposals. Comments received through these procedures are part of the official SEPA record for this proposal. You can submit your comments any one of the following ways: • Email to SEPAdesk2@dfw.wa.gov • Online at the WDFW SEPA website comment link at: biq)s://wdfw.wa.gov/licenses/environmental/sepa/open-comments • Fax to (360) 902-2946 • Mail to the address below. Responsible Official: Lisa Wood Position/Title: SEPA/NEPA Coordinator, WDFW Habitat Program, Protection Division Address: P.O. Box 43200, Olympia, WA 98504-3200 After the comment period closes, applicants may view the updated status of this proposal on the WDFW SEPA website: littps://wdfw.wa.gov/licenses/environmental/sCI)a/closed-final. Once the status is posted as final, applicants and permittees may take action on the proposal. When a proposal is modified or withdrawn, notice will be given in accordance with state law.' If you have questions about this DNS or the details of the proposal, contact Lisa Wood at the address, e-mail, or fax number above; you can also call her at (360) 902-2260. DATE OF ISSUE: December 13 2019 SIGNATURE: 64 1 yx�_ Footnotes 1. RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) 2 WAC 197-11-340(2). SEPA Log Number: 19-06Ldns POINT WHITNEY BOAT ACCESS RENOVATION COASTAL PROCESSES ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FINAL REPORT Prepared for: KPFF Tacoma, Washington On behalf of: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Olympia, Washington Prepared by: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. Seattle, Washington 14 August 2018 NHC Ref No. 2003950 nhc Prepared by or under the supervision of: is Av 9 2018 K.M. Leytham, PE Principal Digitally signed by Keith M. Keith M. Leytham Leyt h a m Date: 2018.08.15 08:32:48 -07'00' DISCLAIMER This report has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. for the benefit of OFF Consulting Engineers and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for specific application to the Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Project. The information and data contained herein represent Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. at the time of preparation, and was prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering and geoscience practices. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by OFF Consulting Engineers and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, its officers and employees. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. denies any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents. 1-ML TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Background......................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Approach......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Site Location.................................................................................................................................... 2 2 SITE VISIT AND GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT......................................................................................... 3 2.1 Site Surveys......................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Geomorphic Interpretation............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Boat Ramp Sedimentation ..................................... .......................................................................... 7 3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................8 3.1 Wind Analysis..................................................................................................................................8 3.2 Wave Analysis................................................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Longshore Sediment Transport Analysis....................................................................................... 17 4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................. 21 4.1 Ramp Improvements..................................................................................................................... 22 4.1.1 Elevated Ramp.......................................................................................................................... 22 4.1.2 Windward Berm....................................................................................................................... 22 4.1.3 Combined Elevated Ramp and Berm........................................................................................ 23 4.2 Sediment Management Plan......................................................................................................... 24 5 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................... 24 6 REFERENCES. ....................................................................................................................................... 25 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of observations at sediment pits on the ramp ....................................................... 7 Table 2: Longshore sediment transport rates for 2017......................................................................18 Table 3: Longshore sediment transport rates — grain size sensitivity test ......................................... 20 Table 4: Longshore sediment transport rates — foreshore slope sensitivity test ............................... 20 Table 5: Longshore sediment transport rates — wave attenuation sensitivity test ............................ 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Point Whitney boat ramp (source: WDFW)................................................................... I ...... - 2 Figure 2: Location map showing Point Whitney and shoreline to the south (Google Earth)................3 Figure 3: Site map showing RTK measurement positions (green crosses) and contours generated from topographic survey. Elevations reference NAVD 88......................................................4 Figure 4: Various photos of the beach and bluffs to the south of Point Whitney ................................. 6 Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc Figure 5: Views of beach in the vicinity of the boat ramp. Looking upslope at the ramp (left) and westalong the beach (right)................................................................................................... 6 Figure6: Pit #1 excavated near top of ramp.......................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: Pit #2 excavated part -way down the ramp.............................................................................8 Figure 8: Location of WPOW1 station....................................................................................................9 Figure 9: Wind distribution plot (wind rose) — WPOW1, 1984 to 2018...............................................10 Figure 10: Monthly wind distribution plot (wind rose) — WPOW1....................................................... 11 Figure 11: Observed WPOW1 wind speed (top panel) and hindcast wave height (bottom panel) - 2017 ...............................................................................................................................................12 Figure 12: Dabob Bay SWAN model grid extent................................................................................... 13 Figure 13: Wave height distribution map — winds from North -North-West .......................................... 14 Figure 14: Wave height distribution map — winds from North.............................................................. 14 Figure 15: Wave height distribution map — winds from North-North-East...........................................15 Figure 16: Wave height distribution map — winds from South-South-East...........................................15 Figure 17: Wave height distribution plot — winds from South............................................................... 16 Figure 18: Wave height distribution plot — winds from South -South-West .......................................... 16 Figure 19: Input environmental parameters and computed longshore transport rate —van Rijn ........ 18 Figure 20: Dimensions of a hypothetical deposition area east of the boat ramp.................................19 Figure 21: Annual net potential longshore transport. . .................................................................. _—. 21 Figure 22: Plan and profile schematic of proposed elevated ramp and rock berm. Elevations reference NAVD88................................................................................................................................ 23 Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report 1 INTRODUCTION Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. (NHC) was engaged by KPFF Consulting Engineers (KPFF) to undertake an assessment of coastal processes that are resulting in sedimentation of the boat ramp at Point Whitney, near Brinnon, Washington. The boat ramp is operated by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) who are responsible for maintenance of the facility, including periodic sediment removal. This report presents the findings of the assessment and design considerations for renovation of the boat ramp. 1.1 Background The Point Whitney boat ramp near Brinnon, WA, is presently experiencing sedimentation problems that are burying portions of the ramp below sand and gravels (Figure 1). WDFW is seeking to improve the boat ramp functionality and, if possible, reduce the requirement for maintenance clearing of the ramp as part of redevelopment of the site. At present the concrete boat ramp does not extend far enough into the inter -tidal portion of the beach and users often experience challenges with pulling boat trailers back up the beach. Also, during times when the ramp is covered in gravel, users will back trailers laterally onto the lower portions of the beach to avoid the ruts left by previous users who were stuck, thus extending the area of disturbance to the beach. Developing an understanding of the shoreline coastal processes and sediment transport at the site is an important step to developing a functional renovation plan. WDFW does not want to relocate the boat ramp as this would necessitate additional permitting effort that does not fit within the proposed project schedule. Design considerations have focused on solutions that can be constructed within the existing boat ramp footprint. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc Figure 1: Point Whitney boat ramp (source: WDFW). 1.2 Approach NHC undertook a coastal processes study combining a wind and wave assessment of the project area with a geomorphological assessment of the shorelines to prepare estimates of the annual average longshore sediment transport. Our approach used existing information, for instance historical airphotos and records of wind and tides, to develop an understanding of the dominant processes affecting the site. Site specific information, including topographic survey, measurement of sediment grainsize, and observations of coastal processes, was collected during a site visit on June 12, 2018. An empirical approach to quantifying sediment transport rates was adopted using several alternative sediment transport formulae, which in the absence of detailed data for model validation and calibration, were considered the most appropriate tools available. Conceptual design options are presented that best meet WDFW's objectives. 1.3 Site Location The Point Whitney boat ramp is located on a short section of northward -facing gravel beach along a coastline that is dominantly oriented north -south (Figure 2). Figure 8 shows the overall location of the site within the context of Puget Sound and Hood Canal. The shoreline to the south of Point Whitney is dominated by a gravel beach that terminates at approximately the high tide line in a steep bluff extending to approximately 50 ft to 80 ft above sea level. A small creek discharges to the beach approximately 0.5 mi south of Point Whitney. Erosion of the bluff and sediment introduced by this creek appear to be the two main local sources of sediment. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report The northward facing beach at Point Whitney is interrupted to the west by the outlet of a tidal lagoon. Tidal flow through this outlet appears to maintain the channel, as it interacts with sediments moving westward along the beach. Figure 2: Location map showing Point Whitney and shoreline to the south (Google Earth). 2 SITE VISIT AND GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT A site visit was conducted on June 12, 2018 for the purposes of collecting topographic and bathymetric information, evaluating sediment sources and burial volumes, making observations of coastal processes, and making qualitative measurements of sediment grain size. The site visit was attended by Mr. Derek Ray, M.Sc., P.Geo. from NHC's North Vancouver, BC office, and Mr. Kevin Geoghegan, EIT from NHC's Seattle, Washington office. During the onsite visit, NHC staff met with WDFW staff for a verbal orientation of the site and informal history of the ongoing operational issues related to sediment accumulation on the beach. The site visit took place in the morning during a dropping tide. Water levels were approximately two thirds of the way down the beach when NHC staff arrived on site, and by noon the extreme lower end of Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 3 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc the beach was exposed or visible in shallow water. Winds were light and the sea state was at near calm conditions. 2.1 Site Surveys A topographic and bathymetric survey was undertaken using GNSS real-time kinematic (RTK) survey equipment. Several points were surveyed along transects down the beach which provide detailed topography of the ramp area. The lowest elevation points were collected while wading in water up to waist deep. The surveyed points reference the Washington State Plane North horizontal datum and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). The NAVD 88 datum is 2.85 ft higher than MLLW in Dabob Bay at NOAA station 9445246 (Mofjeld et al., 2002). �. + - Tp 180 40 0 80 Feet Figure 3: Site map showing RTK measurement positions (green crosses) and contours generated from topographic survey. Elevations reference NAVD 88. 2.2 Geomorphic Interpretation The beach extending approximately 0.25 mi to the south of Point Whitney was inspected on foot to gain an understanding of the dominant processes and main sediment sources. Figure 4 shows various views of the beach, which terminates near the high tide line in steep bluffs. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 4 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc The material comprising the lower portion of the bluffs is relatively resistant interbedded sands and gravels that tilt towards the north on an angle of approximately 30°. Based on available geologic mapping, these are interpreted to be pre -Fraser glacial deposits (and possibly older) in original position, or that underwent post -deposition tilting. The bluffs are nearly vertical and dominantly vegetated with occasional exposed portions (as seen in Figure 4), indicating more recent erosion. The sediment comprising the beach to the south of Point Whitney is relatively coarse, ranging in size from gravel to small boulders. The portion of the beach that is obviously experiencing active sediment transport is limited to a narrow band approximately 10 ft to 13 ft wide at the base of the bluffs, while the middle and lower portions of the beach appear to undergo active sediment transport very rarely. It is not possible to comment on the onshore -offshore movement of material with the information available at present. The composition of the northward -facing beach adjacent to the boat ramp is much finer (Figure 5), indicating two dominant processes: a) that the finer fraction of material is generally transported along the shoreline with little retention between wind events, and b) that the beach to the south of the boat ramp which provides material supplying the beach at the boat ramp is supply limited — e.g. the wave climate is capable of transporting more material than is presently available. The beach in the vicinity of the boat ramp is transport limited, as opposed to supply limited. The dominant wave direction from the south (which aligns with the longest fetch) results in waves refracting around the point and depositing sediment that ranges in size from medium gravel to coarse sand, with fine gravel being the dominant clast size. The lower wave energy environment of this section of the beach has resulted in a sediment -rich environment; however, site observations indicate that the wave environment frequently moves the material across the beach, as evidenced by the fact that the beach is evenly graded with no large accumulation zone on the western corner. It is likely that this finer beach material is mobilised relatively frequently within the existing wave climate. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc 4 Figure 4: Various photos of the beach and bluffs to the south of Point Whitney. Figure 5: Views of beach in the vicinity of the boat ramp. Looking upslope at the ramp (left) and west along the beach (right). Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 6 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc 2.3 Boat Ramp Sedimentation Sediment deposition on the boat ramp was investigated during the site visit by digging five small pits by hand. The five pits were distributed evenly from near the top of the ramp to near the water line (numbered one through five from upslope to downslope). Observations at each pit are summarized in Table I. Typically the sediment within the top layer at each pit is relatively loose, indicating the depth of the active transport zone, and coarser, indicating winnowing of fines. Sediment in the bottom portion of each pit is more compact, ranging from very hard at the top of the ramp to moderately compact at the bottom of the ramp. Excavation of the more compact layers in pit number 1, 2, and 3 required the use of a pick and the material was removed in chunks, while the lower parts of pit 4 and 5 were not nearly as compacted. This is interpreted to be partly related to less traffic over the lower parts of the ramp and the presence of water piping through the lower pits that would tend to soften those layers. The average depth of burial on the ramp is about 8 inches, though it should be noted that the bottom of pit 5 did not terminate on the ramp surface, either because the ramp does not extend that far down the beach or because it was not possible to excavate deep enough in the loose, wet sediment to reach the ramp. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show conditions at pit 1 and 2 respectively. Table 1: Summary of observations at sediment pits on the ramp 1 3.0 7.2 4 Lower part of pit very hard sediment 2 1.5 8.4 2 Lower part of pit very hard sediment 3 1.5 7.2 4 Dominated by very fine gravel 4 2.0 8.4 10 Lower part of pit much looser than upper ramp 5 3.0 10.8 15 Didn't reach concrete ramp; water piping into pit Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 7 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc Figure 6: Pit #1 excavated near top of ramp. Figure 7: Pit #2 excavated part -way down the ramp. 3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS Longshore sediment transport is the process responsible for the movement of sediment along the coastline resulting in deposition in the vicinity of the boat ramp. Knowledge of the wind and wave climate is required to confirm the longshore sediment transport processes and estimate the sediment transport rate. These processes are discussed in the following sections. 3.1 Wind Analysis Wind -generated waves are responsible for most of the waves experienced at Point Whitney; however, no meteorological station is situated in the vicinity. The closest meteorological station with long-term Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc wind data near the project site is the National Data Buoy Center Station West Point (WPOW1) station (1984 to 2018), which is located in Puget Sound (Figure 8). While West Point is located about 20 mi east of Point Whitney, both sites are located in the same geographical area (southern Puget Sound) and the orientation of the nearby water bodies to the wind forcing is similar (North -South). For the purpose of this study, we have made the simplifying assumption that the wind climate experienced at Point Whitney is similar to that experienced at West Point. Figure 8: Location of WPOW1 station. The local wind climate can be assessed by the use of a wind rose, a graphic presentation of winds for specified areas, utilizing arrows at the cardinal and inter -cardinal compass points to show the direction from which the winds blow and the magnitude and frequency for a given period of time. The wind rose derived from the observed data at WPOW1 is shown in Figure 9. The results show that the prevailing winds at WPOW1 are primarily from the north and south directions, corresponding to the orientation of the Sound. The site experiences stronger southerly winds than northerly winds. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc 0% Wind Speed (m/s) >18 15-18 12-15 9.12 6.9 ■ -6 1-3 Calms: 9.3 % Figure 9: Wind distribution plot (wind rose) — WPOW1, 1984 to 2018. Monthly wind roses for WPOW1 are shown in Figure 10. The largest storms are from the south and typically occur between late fall and early spring (October to March). Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 10 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report N +ram WjrE Sw{ 1 5 w_b4_ S January N • M1-r+\ I r tt \ WI�E \ k ,yy'r�� ! Sw{� ! • 'SE S Apra N I NYYEI rt`� _ ` l�NE 1 _ 1 W AL i E t e l-�'/} tit ^i l y 7 ~ % / 5NI { ! S 7SF S July u 'me ��' ' `>NE Sw t r SSE Oc tobe r N mw e +. 1 i I L_ 1_ W� - - 1 _4 i JE Sw )SE February N — n . �� 1 ..PE WI` y 1..;E • S"'Z' { 1 1 1 r / sw r ti �SSE L r ' S May N r 1. W�—-y� �I l ;E . IL ! 1 Sw S August IN Nwe r r � f WIJE SW{'' . SSE ^�«S` a November N Nw< �-PE W t_ _I�. I. ! _ iE \ Y t 1 Sw ' `++' ySE .5 March N_ NWr' ` ' ' 4E J � , WC - i - -k �E ~� _ 4 sw` � ' �ySE June N NW { iE w Sw� ' 'Sl,}SE 5 September N Nw, . 1 1 ��'-♦1 `�` i 'I wi L I. �E 1 }r~ir t �•! I • Y 1 't / SW{ >SE S December Figure 10: Monthly wind distribution plot (wind rose) — WPOW1. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 11 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc 3.2 Wave Analysis A long-term hourly incident wave climate was hindcasted using the empirical JONSWAP method. Key input parameters include hourly wind data from WPOW1 station and fetch length. A wind stick plot illustrating the wind climate for 2017 and time -series plot of hindcast wave height are shown in Figure 11. 0 N Aw, O f i O` V 71 N I O ' Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun JW Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec N 2017 07 .0 al CU o+jll I i II I I j I o f oij 1'1^ r� i i'11v °� 4t7"�.fYfrf i�! l' • n �, I 0 O Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec O 2017 Figure 11: Observed WPOW1 wind speed (top panel) and hindcast wave height (bottom panel) - 2017 This simplified approach computes deepwaterl waves only and assumes that the wave direction is the same as the offshore wind direction. To examine the effects of shoaling, refraction and diffraction on wave propagation direction in the vicinity of Point Whitney, a nearshore wave model, Simulating Waves Nearshore (SWAN), of Dabob Bay was developed. SWAN incorporates physical processes such as wave propagation, wave generation by wind, white -capping, shoaling, wave breaking, bottom friction, sub -sea obstacles, wave setup and wave -wave interactions in its computations. The SWAN model was implemented on a bathymetric grid resolved on a 164 ft by 164 ft (50 m by 50 m) orthogonal grid spacing. The model grid was generated from NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. The grid extends 6.2 mi in the east -west direction and 17.4 mi in the north -south direction (Figure 12). Model simulations were conducted for northerly storm events (NNW, N, NNE) and southerly storm events (SSW, S, SSE) with a constant wind speed of 34 mph (or 29 knots). The northerly storm results are show in Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15. The southerly storm results are show in Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18. 1 Refers to waves that are unaffected by interactions with the bed. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 12 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc The results indicate that when the offshore winds are from the NNW and N directions, waves reach the shore approximately head on and result in cross -shore transport (i.e., the sediment transport is perpendicular to the shoreline). When the offshore winds are from the NE and southerly directions (SSW,S,SSE), waves refract and diffract around Point Whitney and travel along the shore from east to west. When waves approach the shore at an angle, a longshore current will be generated. On sandy - gravel shorelines, the waves and current have the capacity to transport considerable amounts of sediment along the shore, assuming there is a supply of material. This transport of sediments along the shore from east to west during the southerly storm event is the dominant factor in the ongoing sand deposition on the boat ramp. 5300000 5295000 _ 5290000 E 0 Z H p 5285000 Z 5280000 5275000 510000 Depth (m) 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 520000 EASTING (m) Figure 12: Dabob Bay SWAN model grid extent. 530000 540000 Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 13 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report 5290600 5290400 5290200 E 5290000 0 z F 5289800 O z 5299600 5289400 5289200 5289000 510500 511000 511500 512000 51250C EASTING (m) Figure 13: Wave height distribution map —winds from North -North-West 5290600 5290400 L r r r r r r jij rrr-riiliriiii► 5290200 -d'!F r r r, f 1 L r: l r r r► r r+rrFrr►rfrrr�rrr►r►:.�Lr C 1rrrlrrrFll.J!•!lfilrLrldr Lr ' V LrcrFrl:FF•LrLFrJ:rrrrrrrr�r►L 5290000 E rr r rJ IL r 1 d r!'r r rrr 1►: ilii dr7lirlr �' LFrr:rr►Frrrrrrr.r►rrrrlrrr►Lrrr Z rrrrr•Ll:rr►Ir•rrrrL�dJrrrtrrr I rrr+ir►rr.lrr;rrlrrr:►rrr►Jrr 5289800 ►rrlLr:rr,r:rr:lF,Lrrt r'►►rr r Point ► F d r: L. ;/; t r► F Whitney r r .► r r r ► r ► r i! I LJrrLldrIr;ll/rrrrr�llrr►rf i 5289600 - r'rrlr�rLrrrrrrlrLrrrLldrrr r � / 1 [ L : {a�,d r d J { d r'L / ► d ' f r:lrin:'r:rrrlir�a! � ► ../. 5289400'`'�r ► 1 r r 1r : 5289200? a �JtLrJrF j ►� r (!r iI ► r f d � ► $289000 r: r •' r l: r l► r 1, �;'ii��, rr �� ! �lfld.l:1.•7,E�1 �i j{ r r 510500 511000 511500 512000 512500 FASTING (m) Figure 14: Wave height distribution map — winds from North Hs (m) Hs (m) L1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0-5 0.4 0.3 02 0.1 nhc Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 14 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report 5290600 5290400 5290200 E 5290000 Z z_ = 5269800 a~C O z 5269600 5289400 5269200 5289000 Irrr%JirJE1� Hs(m) ■rrrJrrrrr!!: rrrrJrrrrrrrrlrr� 1.1 +.o rrrrrrrrfrrrrrrrrrll++ TIIrJlrlrrr!!rlrlllJiJrlr!!Jlr11lr!!!r!llOf 09 lrrr:r.lrrJ!!r!!-!lrrJr:JJrrrrrr!lrrr!lrrrr/■ 08 r+rrrrll.rr/rJIIllr7r:7rJJrJlr:rrrJrJr!!rlIe 0.7 lIIJJJllflrJJlJJ-rEll:fJlIEJl/rllEfll!!!11/! 0.6 - lrfJrJlr!!rr!!lrlr.rr`rIlrllllrrlJl!!!!r1/l 0.5 r!rlJrlrlilrrlfrrr!!!JrlrlrrlJlllrrllll! 0.4 !%0,{..ir1lr���r�7�1�J1r.rl�lr%�%%lrlllr!!r 0..2 rJIJlIfIJlJIrIrlJlr!/IJllrr.'!IJlrlJ!!!JI o.1 lJrJI!lrrrrJJrrrJ:!!!lrlrlrlr!/IrIrIrJ JrIlJrlrJrrJJrllrlJrrrrJrlrJrrrrrr lrJ!!!!!!/IJriJlllJ!lI:I/Irlr//I lrlrllr!!!!rllr!!rlrr!!401l1!! !rf!!r!r! !r/I,� 1/Ilrlrr Point Whitney !! I V 1 4 r r r r JJl!'1: rlx !Illrri /rllr:Jlri1 r/rr1llrr !!!r!r IrJ!!'Io�/� 11,1111f11�111111� Jxxrr+ltlaaal�°! 1/! Ir1�111!/r ~~ 510500 511000 �511500 w 512000 512500 EASTING (m) Figure 15: Wave height distribution map —winds from North -North-East 5290600 5290400 5290200 E 5290000 Z z F 5289800 O Z 5289600 5289400 5289200 5289000 510500 511000 511500 512000 512500 EASTING (m) Figure 16: Wave height distribution map —winds from South -South -East Hs (m) I1 10 Hog 08 07 O6 05 04 03 02 01 Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 15 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report 5290600 5290400 5290200 E 5290000 Z z_ F_ 5269900 0Y O z 5299800 5289400 5289200 5289000 510500 511000 511500 512000 512500 EASTING (m ) Figure 17: Wave height distribution plot— winds from South. 5290600 5290400 5290200 E 5290000 D z 5289800 O z 5289600 5289400 5289200 5289000 _" '13L_S! i T • ■ c T1 — . . 3 .. I. S I r T � r s 510500 511000 511600 512000 512500 EASTINO (m) Figure 18: Wave height distribution plot —winds from South -South-West Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report - 0.9 -- 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 Hs(m) 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 0! 03 02 01 7M 16 nhc 3.3 Longshore Sediment Transport Analysis To provide input to a conceptual assessment of the coastal processes, a high level analysis of the sediment transport was undertaken using empirical formulae with input from the wave climate analysis. Potential net longshore transport (in yd3 per year) of sediment at the foreshore along Point Whitney boat ramp was computed based on the offshore wave climate as input. Based on the findings from the SWAN model simulations, the following assumptions were applied to the hindcast offshore wave data to account for nearshore wave transformation: ■ Waves from NNW and N directions reach the shoreline along Point Whitney boat ramp from 0° true north. • Waves from NE direction reach the shoreline along Point Whitney boat ramp from 45° true north. • Waves from SSW, S and SSE directions reach the shoreline along Point Whiney boat ramp from 90' true north. • Wave height in the nearshore zone is typically half of the offshore wave height. Other assumptions made for the analysis include: • Dso of 2 mm - very coarse sand. • Beach slope of 8%. • The sediment system is not supply limited. The assumed Dso of 2 mm is the lower limit of the sediment samples collected from the boat ramp pits (Error! Reference source not found.). Thus, using a 2 mm Dso in the sediment transport analysis would produce a conservatively high estimate of the transport rate. The relationship between Dso and sediment transport rate is captured in the sensitivity analysis below. Three transport formulas were applied, including CERC (Shore Protection Manual, US Army Corps of Engineers, 1984), modified Kamphuis (Mil-Homens, 2013), and van Rijn (2014). The CERC equation does not account for particle size and beach slope and is only valid for sandy conditions. The modified Kamphuis equation is only applicable to sandy beaches, and the van Rijn equation is applicable to sandy gravel and shingle beaches (0.1 to 100 mm). Figure 19 shows the time -series of input parameters and computed longshore transport rate for the period between July and December 2017 using the van Rijn equation. Positive transport rate indicates sediment transport from east to west. Negative transport rate indicates sediment transport from west to east. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 17 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc O p N N 1� O p ^O O O p N Jul Aug Sep on Nov Dec N Offshore Hs Nearshore Hs 4 0 Lo fA a M1 f�l O oY9Ap o Jut Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec N Offs a wave angle 'a no Near ore wave angle C N 0 eo N �QQQyyy 8-8 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Deep o p a, r Y cc LQ Iq li p � p L LQ O Ri N O 1= C �. CIS L 01 qu ~ o —,- - o Ju Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec , Figure 19: Input environmental parameters and computed longshore transport rate —van Rijn Computed sediment transport rates for 2017 based on the three equations are summarized in Table 2. The large range of predicted longshore transport rate is due in part to the uncertainty in the coefficients in each formula, as well as to the specific beach environment to which each equation was intended to be applied. Table 2: Longshore sediment transport rates for 2017 transportEquation Longshore CERC (1984) 3,157 Modified Kamphuis (2013) 105 Van Rijn (2014) 183 Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 18 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report As there are no field data to assess the results of the predicted longshore transport rates, it is not possible to determine which estimate most closely reproduces conditions at Point Whitney. For context, if a hypothetical sediment deposition area with dimensions 100 ft x 40 ft was assumed east of the boat ramp at the break in the north -south to an east -west aligned beach (Figure 20), the average change in bed elevation in this area using CERC, modified Kamphuis, and van Rijn equations are estimated to be 22.0 ft, 0.7 ft, and 1.3 ft respectively. On this basis, the predicted sediment transport rate using the van Rijn equation appears to most reasonably replicate the conditions. Figure 20: Dimensions of a hypothetical deposition area east of the boat ramp. Sensitivity tests were conducted using the van Rijn equation to determine the sensitivity that variation in sediment size (Table 3), foreshore slope (Table 4) and percentage of wave attenuation between deepwater and shallow water (Table 5) might have on the calculated longshore transport rate. The results show that: For the sediment size range examined, the transport rate increases by about 1.5 times when the diameter is reduced by half. Longshore transport rate is not overly sensitive to foreshore slope. Longshore transport rate is sensitive to the assumed percentage of wave attenuation between deepwater and shallow water. The estimation could be improved by conducting a long-term two-dimensional nearshore wave model study of Dabob Bay to obtain the nearshore wave characteristics at the Point Whitney shoreline. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 19 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report Table 3: Longshore sediment transport rates — grain size sensitivity test transportSediment size (mm) Longshore 0.25 —fine sand 636 0.50 — medium sand 420 1.00 — coarse sand 277 2.00 — very coarse sand 183 4.00 — very find gravel 120 Table 4: Longshore sediment transport rates — foreshore slope sensitivity test Foreshore slope Longshore transport (yd3/year) 8% 183 00 Table 5: 50% 60 % 70 % 80% 90% 100% Longshore sediment transport rates — wave attenuation sensitivity test 183 301 458 693 955 1287 nhc The annual net potential longshore transport volume between 1998 and 2017 at Point Whitney was computed and is shown in Figure 21. The average net annual potential longshore transport volume is about 170 m3. This translates to an average bed elevation increase of 1.3 ft in the assumed sediment deposition area east of the boat ramp. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 20 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report 180 160 140 E E 120 � 100 V 0 M c 80 ec H 60 �Vlll 20 182 1163i 150 4i 142 MIA 133 1 � 133 130 124 127 - 1 � 120 ® F911 F911 nhc 11995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Figure 21: Annual net potential longshore transport. Note that assessing longshore sediment transport rates with a high degree of certainty requires extensive field data, a detailed analysis of sediment sources, and a fully calibrated numerical model. This level of detail and precision is costly, with study costs exceeding the costs of construction and maintenance of the boat ramp. And regardless of cost and effort, a degree of uncertainty would remain within the study results. 4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Three options for mitigating the issue of sediment migrating along the beach and covering the ramp are presented below. Each option builds on the current sediment management principle in which accumulated sediment is excavated and deposited on the leeward side of the ramp, allowing the longshore transport processes to continue westward. Given the dominant geomorphic processes, an ongoing sediment management plan will be required to avoid long-term aggradation of the beach on the windward side of the boat ramp and the eventual return to the existing conditions. The following preliminary designs improve the existing ramp conditions by inducing sediment accumulation on the Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 21 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc windward side of the ramp. The primary goal of the improvement is to capture the sediment away from the ramp and reduce the frequency of required maintenance. Additional sediment management plan considerations are also presented. 4.1 Ramp Improvements The following preliminary design options consider elevating the replacement ramp above the existing beach profile, constructing a berm on the windward side of the ramp, and implementing a combination of both an elevated ramp and a berm. The major difference among the three options is the amount of storage each will provide for sediment accumulation. 4.1.1 Elevated Ramp Elevating the proposed ramp above the existing beach profile would maintain the current footprint but would only provide nominal sediment storage. The ramp renovation footprint is an important consideration for permitting purposes. Extending the repair efforts outside of the footprint may require permits which could adversely impact the proposed project schedule. Elevating the proposed ramp would maintain the existing footprint while still providing some sediment storage, but would result in a slightly narrower driving surface. Based on a preliminary analysis using the contours derived from the topographic survey, elevating the ramp by 1 ft would provide an estimated 5 yd3 of sediment storage to the east (windward) side of the ramp. According to the sediment transport rates estimated above, the added storage would not be sufficient to contain a year's worth of sediment, but would provide some level of storage that is not present for the existing ramp. 4.1.2 Windward Berm Constructing a berm on the windward side of the ramp provides significantly more sediment storage, but the new feature would extend outside of the existing footprint and may require a new permit. A 3-ft tall rock berm, shown in Figure 22 along with the elevated boat ramp, would provide an estimated 170 yd3 of sediment storage assuming it is extended to the approximate lowest observed tide (-4 ft MLLW). It would capture sediment east of the boat ramp and could provide approximately a year's worth of storage, depending on actual sediment transport rates. This would reduce maintenance requirements, possibly to a near annual basis, and would provide managers with advanced warning of impacts to the ramp if the sediment trapping area is monitored. Even if the sediment transport rates are underestimated, and the sediment trap fills more frequently, the berm would intercept sediment and prevent the degree of accretion presently occurring between maintenance events. An added benefit of a berm is the partial protection from waves. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 22 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report 7 uM Sediment Elevated boat ramp storage 3 ft rock berm Direction of sediment transport Figure 22: Plan and profile schematic of proposed elevated ramp and rock berm. Elevations reference NAVD 88. Although the berm presents a simple and cost effective solution for mitigating the ramp sedimentation issue, extending the repair work outside of the existing footprint could invoke permitting requirements. The additional time and expense incurred from the permitting efforts could make this option less desirable. 4.1.3 Combined Elevated Ramp and Berm A possible solution to implementing a berm while avoiding the potential permitting impacts on the proposed schedule is to proceed with the elevated ramp option while the berm option is being permitted. This option would allow the schedule to continue unencumbered by the permitting process, offer some sediment storage in the interim, and provide all the benefits of the berm upon its completion. Once the berm is constructed, the elevated ramp would continue to offer additional storage providing a second line of defense against sedimentation. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 23 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report nhc 4.2 Sediment Management Plan Regardless of the selected repair option, routine maintenance will still be required to excavate accumulated sediment. Given the estimated sediment transport processes established above, there are no simple options to prevent the ramp from being buried (in the long term) with no intervention. The current maintenance strategy should be maintained moving forward since there is no net removal of sediment from the natural transport process. Displacing the sediment to the western side of the ramp ensures that the sediment is available for transport to the shore west of the ramp, avoiding degradation of the beach. The key difference in the proposed maintenance management plan from the current plan is the reduced frequency of maintenance requirements to prevent ramp burial. Sediment that would previously accrete on the ramp would instead be stored in sediment traps. If the traps are excavated before they reach capacity, the major sediment transport processes would not affect the ramp, which is distinct from the existing conditions where the ramp is subjected to sedimentation immediately following excavation. Managing the sediment to avoid burial of the ramp would have the added benefit of avoiding extensive disturbance to the lower beach to each side of the ramp as users seek areas that are clear of ruts formed by previous vehicles becoming stuck in the soft gravel. Excavation of the trap area below the present grade would provide additional storage but it is important to note that care should be taken avoid over -excavation during sediment clearing that might destabilize the ramp structure. Removing too much sediment could lead to undercutting the proposed protective structures. Sediment management operations should focus on the accreted sediment and avoid disturbing the beach profile below the structures. 5 CONCLUSION Point Whitney is subject to longshore sediment transport processes that currently present sedimentation issues for the existing boat ramp located on the northern -facing shore. As part of WDFW's efforts to improve ramp functionality and reduce the requirement for maintenance, NHC developed preliminary design options for the proposed repair work to mitigate the sedimentation issue. The design process included wind and wave analyses, which were used to estimate sediment transport rates. Under the assumptions described above, the analysis using the van Rijn equation produced a likely range from about 120 yd3/yr to around 400 yd3/yr. Although we are not able to narrow down the estimated range to a precise rate due to limitations in data availability and the level of analysis, understanding the sediment transport process occurring in the westerly direction is the fundamental consideration in the repair design. In response to the inevitability of sedimentation at the ramp, the preliminary designs presented above share a common key feature of temporary storage to reduce the required frequency of sediment management. Creating an area for the sediment to collect away from the ramp is an effective way to both address the sedimentation issue and reduce the requirement for maintenance. Elevating the ramp Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 24 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report by 1 ft would provide a nominal amount of storage, while installing a 3-ft tall rock berm on the windward side of the ramp would create additional storage and shelter the ramp for longer durations between maintenance activities. The third preliminary design option addresses the possible schedule delay incurred from permitting a berm outside of the existing footprint. By proceeding with the elevated ramp while simultaneously pursuing berm permitting, the project can continue as planned and benefit from additional protection after berm construction. 6 REFERENCES Mil-Homens, J., R. Ranasinghe, J.S.M. van Thiel de Vries, and M.J.F. Stive (2013). Re-evaluation and improvement of three commonly used bulk longshore sediment transport formulas. Coastal Engineering, 75:29-39, May 2013. ISSN 0378-3839. doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.01.004. Mofjeld, H.O., Venturato, A.J., Titov, V.V., Gonzalez, F.I., Newman, J.C. (2002). Tidal Datum Distributions in Puget Sound, Washington, Based on a Tidal Model. NOAA Technical Memorandum OAR PMEL-122. Seattle, WA. November 2002. US Army Corps of Engineers (1984). Shore Protection Manual. Coastal Engineering Research Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Point Whitney Boat Access Renovation 25 Coastal Processes Assessment and Design Considerations Final Report "6. Jan 01 2021 JEFFERSON COUNTY DC® GEOENGINEERS-!57 1101 Fawcett Ave S, Suite 200 MLA21-00007 Tacoma, Washington 98403 253.383.4940 July 13, 2018 KPFF Consulting Engineers 2407 North 31st Street, Suite 100 Tacoma, Washington 98407 Attention: Scott Kuebler Subject: Eelgrass Delineation Point Whitney Access Redevelopment Jefferson County, Washington Project No. 3730-167-00 INTRODUCTION GeoEngineers, Inc. (GeoEngineers) is pleased to present this report summarizing the eelgrass delineation conducted by GeoEngineers at the Point Whitney Access Site. The Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is planning to extend the existing boat ramp waterward by approximately 24 feet. KPFF Consulting Engineers (KPFF) subcontracted GeoEngineers to document the extent and location of existing eelgrass beds in the vicinity of the boat launch. Assessing and mitigating potential impacts to delineated eelgrass was not included as part of this scope. SCOPE AND METHODS The scope of work included preparing a Self -Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus (SCUBA) dive plan and conducting eelgrass boundary survey surrounding the boat launch. Geoengineers coordinated the site visit the week of extreme low tides which allowed eelgrass within the project vicinity to be mapped while minimizing the extent of the underwater dive survey. The site visit was conducted on Thursday, June 14, 2018 and completed in one day. Low tide occurred at 11:55 AM, at elevation -3.62 feet (Station 9445293 - Pleasant Harbor). Eelgrass was mapped with a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) unit equipped with external antennae and survey rod to increase accuracy. Following differential correction post - processing, over 97 percent of points collected were estimated at less than 15-centimeter (cm) accuracy. Eelgrass was mapped wading from shore where possible, directly markingthe eelgrass boundaries with the GPS ensemble. Where the landward eelgrass boundary moved into deeper water, mainly around the existing ramp, one SCUBA diver entered the water to mark the line. The diver would place a measuring tape at the eelgrass edge, which combined with an azimuth bearing created an offset from the GPS base station. The project was conducted following US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidelines described in Components of a Complete Eelgrass Delineation and Characterization Report (dated January 9, 2018). A photographic record of the site has been included as Attachment 1, Site Photographs. KPFF Consulting Engineers July 13, 2018 RESULTS SUMMARY Page 2 A continuous eelgrass bed was identified and mapped near the ramp (Figure 1, Eelgrass Map). A shallow scour trench exists roughly in line with the ramp, presumed due to prop scour as boats launch and depart. Eelgrass observed around the site was generally dense and robust, with minimal patches of smaller, less dense eelgrass turions in higher elevation portions of the beach. Eelgrass point features collected by GPS were mapped using geographic information system (GIS) software (Figure 1). These features were interpreted into a line delineating the eelgrass boundaries surrounding the ramp. Our efforts focused on delineating the landward eelgrass boundary near the boat launch. Eelgrass beds extend laterally along the beach and waterward into deeper water. Digital Shapefiles were provided along with this report. Visibility was good duringthe site visit, with no issues viewingthe bottom while wading and diving along the delineation boundary. Substrate surrounding the eelgrass was predominantly gravel and sand with fine sediments. Beach substrate above the eelgrass beds quickly transitioned to gravels and cobbles. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this letter report for use by KPFF and WDFW. They may distribute copies of this report to their authorized agents and/or regulatory agencies as may be required. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with methods detailed within this report as prepared. The conclusions, recommendations and opinions presented in this report are based on our professional knowledge, judgment and experience. No warranty, express or implied, applies to the services or this report. GEOENGINEERS' KPFF Consulting Engineers July 13, 2018 Page 3 We thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this letter report, please contact Joe Callaghan at 253.383.4940. Sincerely, GeoEngineers, Inc. Joseph 0. Callaghan, MS, PWS Associate ALWJOC:tlm Attachments: Figure 1— Eelgrass Map Attachment 1— Site Photographs Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright© 2018 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. GMENGINEEM File No. 3730-167-00 • �,,� - � Tarr T ater, F ''... - j �! yy f ;k.; Le end Delineated Eelgrass Boundary Eelgrass - Ramp Notes: 1, The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2, This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Aerial from GoogleEarthPro 2017. Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet Eelgrass extends offside N W E 50 0 50 *1 S Feet Eelgrass Map Point Whitney Eelgrass Delineation Jefferson County, Washington GE4ENGINEERS rZ) Figurel Photograph 1. Existing boat ramp is largely buried in beach sediment below the parking lot Eelgrass visible just below the water's edge. Photograph 2. Eelgrass beds extend well offsite, view looking north into the bay. Site Photographs Point Whitney Eelgrass Delineation Jefferson County, Washington G M E N G I N E E R S AttacIment