Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMLA15-00031 � s- - 00031 -10/0 !S' - 0001 S w4s°N �o� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 621 Sheridan Street,Port Townsend,WA 98368 W Tel:360.379.4450 I Fax:360.379.4451 Web:www.co.iefterson.wa.us/con E-mad:dcd@co.ieffcrson.wa.us E rC PERMIT APPLICATIO �' 1 vu: El Steps in the Permit Process: j �- -Review application checklist to ensure all information is completed prior to submitting application. -Make sure septic has been applied for and water availability has been proven. - -Make an appointment to meet with the Permit Technician by calling 360-379-4450. -This is not a standalone application; it must be accompanied by a project specific supplemental application. -Fees will be collected at intake. Additional fees may apply after review and payment is required before permit is issued. For Department Use Only Building Permit# Related Application#s: MLA# Site Information Assessor Tax Parcel Number: 502023021 Site Address and/or Directions to Property: Driving south on 101,just past Dosewallips State Park the project site is on the east side of State Highway 101, immediately south of the walkers creek bridge. Access (name of street(s)) from which access will be gained: Ingress/Egress is located on State Highway 101 Present use of property: Vacant Land Description of Work(include proposed uses): Project work includes the removal of a derelict barge and fill material with the goal of restoring roughly 0.45 acres of intertidal habitat. Slope will be re-graded and replanted to emulate historic shoreline conditions. Wastewater-Sewage Disposal This property is served by Port Townsend of Port Ludlow sewer system? YES _ _ NO If not served by sewer identified above, identify type of septic system below: Type of Sewage System Serving Property: Septic Septic Permit#: Community Septic Name of System: Case#: Are other residences connected to the septic system? Additions or repairs to sewage system: Is it a complete or partial system installation: Complete Partial Has a reserve drainfield been designated? Yes No Date of Last Operations &Maintenance check: Attach last report to application Describe or attach any drainfield easements, covenants or notices on title,which may impact the property: No septic system exists on the parcel, and no septic system is being proposed. Not applicable. II The authorized agent/representative is the primary contact for all project-related questions and correspondence. The County will mail/ e-mail requests and information about the application to the authorized agent/representative and will copy(cc) the owner noted below. The authorized agent/representative is responsible for communicating the information to all parties involved with the application. It is the responsibility of the authorized agent/representative and owner to ensure their mailbox accepts County email (i.e.,County email is not blocked or sent to"junk mail"). Applicant/Property Owner Information Property Owner: Name: Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Address: 600 NE Roessel Rd. Belfair, WA 98528 Phone#: 060)275-3575 E-mail Address: mendy @pnwsalmoncenter.org ✓_ Please contact Authorized Agent/Representative with project info. (select only one). Property Owner Signature: t&.(,-t/ k G Q� Date: ✓U' 1• (S Note: For projects with multiple owners,attach a separate sheet with each owner(s)information and signatures. Applicant: Authorized Agent/Representative(if other than owner) Name: Julian Sammons Address: 600 NE Roessel Rd Belfair, WA 98528 Phone#: (360)275-3575 ext. 15 E-mail Address: julian @pnwsalmoncenter.org Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO / YES Engineer / Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant 1 Name: Coastal Geologic Services, Inc. Address: 1711 Ellis St#103, Bellingham, WA 98225 Phone#: (360) 647-1845 E-mail Address: alexis @coastalgeo.com Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO YES Engineer Architect Surveyor K. Contractor Consultant Name: Ceyi..5 Address: PO Cxojc till w"L6'1 ..� 5k Se 0147?- 'let ( Sc.(% O Phone#: (360)/sr'1-25tot E-mail Address: C y{y)u 04,6 °,L v(nfr-,l„1,A. ov Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO YES Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant Name: Address: Phone#: E-mail Address: Professional: Is this an Authorized Agent/Representative for this project? NO YES_ Engineer Architect Surveyor Contractor Consultant Name: Address: Phone#: E-mail Address: Attach additional pages if necessary Builders Statement The signer of this statement certifies that they are the Owners of the parcel referenced herein,that they are not licensed contractors and that they will be assuming the responsibility of the General Contractor for the proposed project. Signature: Print Name: Date: • ' AGENCY USE ONLY . f 1 "a ' Date received: > ■ �� US Ann Corps r WASHINGTON STATE Seattle " Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Agency reference#: Application (JARPA) Form1'2 Tax Parcel#0): USE BLACK OR BLUE INK TO ENTER ANSWERS IN THE WHITE SPACES BELOW. J t om. �1: `; L I UD � JN rm — 2 2015 !� Part 1—Project Identification L______ ,L-J; JFi F,R m_pool ry p-• h c?:.::-nrr_:14la' mgt elP1 1. Project Name (A name for your project that you create. Examples: Smith's Doc •• -- - � a [h Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Part 2—Applicant The person and/or organization responsible for the project. [help) 2a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Harlow, Mendy, Aquila 2b. Organization (If applicable) Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group 2c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) PO Box 2169 2d. City, State, Zip Belfair, WA, 98528 2e. Phone(1) 2f. Phone(2) 2g. Fax 2h. E-mail (360)275-3575 ( ) (360)275-0648 mendy@pnwsalmoncenter.org 1Additional 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 http://www.nws.usace.armv.m il/Missions/Civilworks/Requl story/PermitGu idebook/EndanoeredSpecies.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. 2To access an online JARPA form with[help]screens,go to http://www.epermittina.wa.gov/site/alias resourcecenterliarpa larpa form/9984/iaroa form.aspx. For other help,contact the Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at(800)917-0043 or help@ora.wa.00v. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 1 of 14 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.) [help) 3a. Name (Last, First, Middle) Sammons, Julian, Preston 3b. Organization (If applicable) Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group 3c. Mailing Address (Street or PO Box) PO Box 2169 3d. City, State, Zip Belfair, WA, 98528 3e. Phone(1) 3f. Phone(2) 3g. Fax 3h. E-mail (360)275-3575 ( ) (360)275-3575 julian @pnwsalmoncenter.org 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. Ihelpl ® 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) 4b. Organization (If applicable) 4c. Mailing Address (Street or Po Box) • 4d. City, State, Zip 4e. Phone(1) 4f. Phone(2) 4g. Fax 4h. E-mail ( ) ( ) ( ) JARPA Revision 2012,2 Page 2 of 14 Part 5-Project Location(s) Identifying information about the property or properties where the project will occur. [help] ❑ 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.) [help] ® Private ❑ Federal ® 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.) fhelp] 5c. City, State, Zip(If the project is not in a city or town, provide the name of the nearest city or town.) [help] Brinnon, WA 98320 5d. County [help] Jefferson 5e. Provide the section, township, and range for the project location. [help] 1/4 Section Section Township Range 2 25N 2W 5f. Provide the latitude and longitude of the project location. [help] • Example:47.03922 N lat./-122.89142 W long. (Use decimal degrees- NAD 83) 47.682708, -122.898933 5g. List the tax parcel number(s)for the project location. [help] • The local county assessor's office can provide this information. 502023021 5h. Contact information for all adjoining property owners. (If you need more space,use JARPA Attachment C.) [helpl Name Mailing Address Tax Parcel # (if known) Melissa Baker 307103 US Highway 101 Brinnon, WA 98320 502023013 Howard F Segar PO Box 225 Brinnon, WA 98320 502023008 Washington State Department of 310 Maple Park Ave SE Transportation PO Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504 Washington State Department of 1111 Washington Street SE Natural Resources PO Box 47000 Olympia, WA 98504 JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 3 of 14 5i. List all wetlands on or adjacent to the project location. [help] The National Wetlands Inventory maps the subject shoreline area waterward of Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) (+8.86 feet) as a regularly flooded Estuarine Intertidal Aquatic Bed and Unconsolidated Shore (E2AB/USN) associated with Hood Canal. Emergent estuarine areas (salt marsh) are mapped to north of the project area and Walker Creek. Jefferson County mapping indicates wetland areas associated with the riparian corridor of Walker Creek west of State Route 101. 5j. List all waterbodies (other than wetlands) on or adjacent to the project location. lheipl For the purpose of describing the project activities, in-water work is referred to as occurring near the confluence of Walker Creek in the Dosewallips River Estuary in Hood Canal South. Wetland related questions in Section 7 reference Section 8—Waterbodies for details regarding the volume and areas of fill removal and regrading proposed within the shoreline environment. 5k. Is any part of the project area within a 100-year floodplain? Them ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 51. Briefly describe the vegetation and habitat conditions on the property. [help' The vegetation within the project area is dominated by non-native and invasive shrub and ground cover plants, including Scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry and English Ivy. Riparian and shoreline buffer functions are provided at low levels within the project area. Intertidal habitat is restricted due to the extension of the derelict barge and associated fill waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM). Several young and mature native conifers currently present in disturbed filled areas will require removal in association with the project. 5m. Describe how the property is currently used. ]helal Currently the properly is not being used. It is vacant, undeveloped land. The barge's proximity and visibility from nearby Dosewallips State Park and Geoduck Tavern is enticing to the public for exploration; however the site poses a potential hazard, due to its condition of decay and its deck height above ground. 5n. Describe how the adjacent properties are currently used. [help] The Geoduck Tavern is located on the adjacent parcel to the north of the project site and Walker Creek, A single-family residence is located on the adjacent parcel to the south. State Highway 101 right-of-way sits adjacent to the west side of the parcel. State aquatic tideland sits to the east of the parcel. 50. Describe the structures (above and below ground) on the property, including their purpose(s)and current condition. lhelpl There are no structures currently on the property, aside from the barge itself which is in disrepair. 5p. Provide driving directions from the closest highway to the project location, and attach a map. [help] The project site is east of State Route (Highway) 101 and immediately south of the Walker Creek bridge in Brinnon, Washington. A paved road apron or vehicle access point is present on the subject parcel for parking. Part 6—Project Description 6a. Briefly summarize the overall project. You can provide more detail in 6b. lhelpl The project involves the removal of an approximately 190 foot by 42 foot creosote treated wood barge and associated fill material. The exposed shoreline after removal will be re-graded to match the adjacent shoreline in order to restore natural intertidal estuarine and upslope buffer habitat. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 4 of 14 6b. Describe the purpose of the project and why you want or need to perform it. [help] The purpose of the project is to re-establish intertidal habitat in the Dosewallips River Estuary through the proposed removal of a derelict barge and associated fill material. The mouth of Walker Creek, directly adjacent to the project site, is part of the greater Dosewallips Estuary complex which is important juvenile rearing habitat for Hood Canal Summer Chum, fall chum, chinook pink and coho salmon. The barge and fill material currently occupy a significant amount of valuable rearing habitat. The project is an ideal opportunity for educational outreach to tourists and the local community to learn about the need for salmon habitat restoration and to identify the project partners/sponsors that contribute towards its effort. 6c. Indicate the project category. (Check all that apply) [heipl ❑ Commercial ❑ Residential ❑ Institutional ❑ Transportation ❑ Recreational ❑ Maintenance ® Environmental Enhancement 6d. Indicate the major elements of your project. (Check all that apply) [help] ❑ Aquaculture ❑ Culvert ❑ Float ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Bank Stabilization ❑ Dam /Weir ❑ Floating Home (upland) ❑ Boat House ❑ Dike/ Levee /Jetty ❑ Geotechnical Survey ❑ Road ❑ Boat Launch ❑ Ditch ® Land Clearing ❑ Scientific Measurement Device ❑ Boat Lift ❑ Dock / Pier ❑ Marina / Moorage ❑ Stairs ❑ Bridge ❑ Dredging ❑ Mining ❑ Stormwater facility ❑ Bulkhead ❑ Fence ❑ Outfall Structure ❑ Swimming Pool ❑ Buoy ❑ Ferry Terminal ❑ Piling/Dolphin ❑ Utility Line ❑ Channel Modification ❑ Fishway ❑ Raft Other: Fill Removal Shore Armor Removal Creosote treated wood removal Native vegetation and habitat enhancement JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 5 of 14 6e. Describe how you plan to construct each project element checked in 6d. Include specific construction methods and equipment to be used. [help] • Identify where each element will occur in relation to the nearest waterbody. • Indicate which activities are within the 100-year floodplain. Land clearing &fill removal will both occur within the 100-year floodplain and intertidal area of the Dosewallips River Estuary associated with Hood Canal. The fill material and structure (derelict barge) that will be removed, which extends outward from the shoreline, are both occupying what was once intertidal habitat at the mouth of Walkers creek. Construction work will be timed to occur, as feasible, during low tide when sediments are exposed. Land-based excavators will be implemented for the work, and all work will be contained within a 25' work corridor around project actions except to the north towards Walker Creek and the associated saltmarsh. No work or equipment is allowed to disturb the saltmarsh to the north immediately adjacent to the project. Land clearing and fill removal will start out at the point furthest from site access and work toward the site access in order to reduce compaction of soils and sediments. 6f. What are the anticipated start and end dates for project construction? (Month/Year) [help] • If the project will be constructed in phases or stages, use JARPA Attachment D to list the start and end dates of each phase or stage. Start date: July 16, 2015 End date: September 30, 2015 ❑ See JARPA Attachment D 6g. Fair market value of the project, including materials, labor, machine rentals, etc. [help] $289,632.00 6h. Will any portion of the project receive federal funding? [help] • 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.)[help] 7a. Describe how the project has been designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands. [help] ❑ Not applicable See Section 8 (Waterbodies) 7b. Will the project impact wetlands? [help] • ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7c. Will the project impact wetland buffers? [help] ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Don't know 7d. Has a wetland delineation report been prepared? [help] • If Yes,submit the report, including data sheets,with the JARPA package. ❑ Yes ® No ; we are proceeding under the assumption that the project takes place almost entirely within wetland and is self-mitigating as a result of the wetland that is being restore. 7e. Have the wetlands been rated using the Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System? [help] • If Yes,submit the wetland rating forms and figures with the JARPA package. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 6 of 14 ❑ Yes ® No ❑ Don't know Based on Special Characteristics section on the rating forms, disturbances associated with the project site would result in a Category II rating of an estuarine wetland. 7f. Have you prepared a mitigation plan to compensate for any adverse impacts to wetlands? (hem • 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 ❑ No ❑ Not applicable See Parts 8c and 8d. 7g. Summarize what the mitigation plan is meant to accomplish, and describe how a watershed approach was used to design the plan. [help] See Section 8d. 7h. Use the table below to list the type and rating of each wetland impacted, the extent and duration of the 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. [help] Activity (fill, Wetland Wetland Impact Duration Proposed Wetland drain, excavate, Name' type and area (sq. of impact' mitigation mitigation area flood, etc.) rating ft. or type" (sq. ft. or category' Acres) acres) If no official name for the wetland exists,create a unique name(such as'Wetland 1"). The name should be consistent with other project documents,such as a wetland delineation report. 2 Ecology wetland category based on current Western Washington or Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System.Provide the wetland rating forms with the JARPA package. 3 Indicate the days, months or years the wetland will be measurably impacted by the activity. Enter"permanent"if applicable. 4Creation(C),Re-establishment/Rehabilitation(R),Enhancement(E),Preservation(P), Mitigation Bank/In-lieu fee(B) Page number(s) for similar information in the mitigation plan, if available: 7i. 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. [help] Refer to Section 8. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 7 of 14 • 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. [help) Refer to Section 8. 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.) [help] ® 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. [help] El Not applicable The project is designed to restore approximately 0.45 acre of estuarine wetland/intertidal marine habitat near the confluence of Walker Creek in the Dosewallips River Estuary associated with Hood Canal South. Potential short-term impacts to water quality resulting from construction work will be managed and minimized through the use of Best Management Practices, as outlined in the latest version of Ecology's Storm water Management Manual. 8b. Will your project impact a waterbody or the area around a waterbody? [help) ® Yes ❑ No JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 8 of 14 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 ❑ Not applicable Please see project specific habitat restoration plan prepared by Advanced Environmental Solution (Bellingham, WA)(April 2015). 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 barge and associated fill removal project will re-establish 0.45-acre of intertidal habitat in-situ in the Dosewallips River Estuary. Native vegetation and habitat features (snags, large woody debris logs and rootwats and brush piles) are specified for installation to restore 5,000 square feet (0.11 acre) of on-site shoreline buffer area. 8e. Summarize impact(s) to each waterbody in the table below. [help] Activity (clear, Waterbody Impact Duration Amount of material Area (sq. ft. or dredge, fill, pile name' location2 of impact3 (cubic yards) to be linear ft.) of drive, etc.) placed in or waterbody removed from directly affected waterbody Fill removal Dosewallips In 15 days 5,700 cubic yards 19,500 sq. ft. Estuary waterbody removed Fill re-grade Associated during low 1 day 280 cubic yards re- 7,800 sq. ft. with Hood tide grade Shore Armor Canal 1 day 10 cubic yards 60 linear feet Removal removed Creosote treated 7 days 700 cubic yards 7,800 sq. ft. wood removal removed '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. 2lndicate 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. 3Indicate the days,months or years the waterbody will be measurably impacted by the work. Enter"permanent"if applicable. 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. [help] No fill material will be brought from offsite sources. Approximately 280 cubic yards of beach nourishment quality fill currently within the project area will be relocated into the void left by barge removal as to not create a large depression that could trap fish. The material placed within the barge footprint will be similar to the surrounding native material as to not create a depression which could impact movement of the stream and river. 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] Approximately 5,700 cubic yards of fill will be removed from the project area with land-based excavators. Approximately 2,280 cubic yards of material will be removed above MHHW and approximately 3,420 cubic yards of fill will be removed below MHHW. The top layer shall be disposed of as noxious weeds to help abate invasive species return. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 9 of 14 • 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. [help] Agency Name Contact Name Phone Most Recent Date of Contact USFWS Rich Carlson (360)753-5829 5/11/2015 Jefferson County Joel Peterson (360)379-4457 5/13/2015 9b. 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? [help] • If Yes, list the parameter(s)below. • • If you don't know, use Washington Department of Ecology's Water Quality Assessment tools at: htto://www.ecy.wa.dov/proorams/wq/303d/. ® Yes ❑ No The downstream portion and mouth of the Dosewallips river is listed as a 303(d)/ degraded Category 5 water for temperature. Dabob Bay is listed as a Category 2 (Waters of Concern)for bacteria. 9c. What U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Unit Code (HUC) is the project in? [help] • Go to http://cfpub.epa.00v/surf/locate/index.efm to help identify the HUC. 17110018 9d. What Water Resource Inventory Area Number(WRIA#) is the project in? [help] • Go to http://www.ecv.wa.gov/services/ois/mapslwria/wria.htm to find the WRIA#. 16 9e. Will the in-water construction work comply with the State of Washington water quality standards for turbidity? [help/ • Go to http://www.ecv.wa.nov/programs/wa/swas/criteria.html for the standards. ® Yes ❑ No ❑ Not applicable 9f. If the project is within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act, what is the local shoreline environment designation? [help] • If you don't know, contact the local planning department. • For more information,go to: http://www.ecv.wa.00v/oroorams/sea/sma/laws rules/173-26/211 designations.html. ❑ Rural ❑ Urban [' Natural ❑ Aquatic ® Conservancy ❑ Other 9g. What is the Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type? fhelp] • Go to http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ForestPracticesApplications/Pages/fp watertvpinq.aspx for the Forest Practices Water Typing System. ® Shoreline ❑ Fish ❑ Non-Fish Perennial ❑ Non-Fish Seasonal 9h. Will this project be designed to meet the Washington Department of Ecology's most current stormwater manual? [help] • If No, provide the name of the manual your project is designed to meet. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 10 of 14 Z Yes ❑ No Name of manual: 91. Does the project site have known contaminated sediment? [help] • If Yes, please describe below. ❑ Yes ■ No 9j. If you know what the property was used for in the past, describe below. [help] The barge is believed to have been brought on land in 1968, and then used as a fish processing facility. The fill material was brought in to give road access to the facility. 9k. Has a cultural resource (archaeological) survey been performed on the project area? [help] • If Yes, attach it to your JARPA package. ® Yes ❑ No The Cultural Resource Survey was completed May 13, 2015. The report is expected to be complete by the end of May. JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 11 of 14 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. [help] Hood Canal Summer Chum, Hood Canal Steelhead, Puget Sound Chinook, Marbled Murrelet, Bull Trout 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. [help] Coho, Resident Coastal Cutthroat, Fall Chum, Chum, Waterfowl Concentrations, Harlequin Duck, Estuarine Intertidal, Northern Spotted Owl, Oyster Beds, Wetlands, Dungeness Crab 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://apps.ecy.wa.gov/opas/. • Governor's Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance at (800) 917-0043 or help(c�ora.wa.gov. • For a list of addresses to send your JARPA to, click on agency addresses for completed JARPA. 10a. Compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). (Check all that apply.) [helpl • For more information about SEPA, go to www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e-review.html. ❑ A copy of the SEPA determination or letter of exemption is included with this application. ® A SEPA determination is pending with Jefferson County (lead agency). The expected decision date is July 3, 2015 ❑ I am applying fora Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption. (Check the box below in 10b.)[help] ❑ 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. And we are JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 12 of 14 10b. Indicate the permits you are applying for. (Check all that apply.) [help) LOCAL GOVERNMENT Local Government Shoreline permits: ❑ Substantial Development ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Variance ® Shoreline Exemption Type (explain): JCC 18.25.570(18) A public or private project, the primary purpose of which is to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage. Other City/County permits: 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 Effective July 10, 2012, you must submit a check for $150 to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, unless your project qualifies for an exemption or alternative payment method below. Do not send cash. Check the appropriate boxes: ®$150 check enclosed. Check# 3799 Attach check made payable to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. ❑ My project is exempt from the application fee. (Check appropriate exemption) ❑ HPA processing is conducted by applicant-funded WDFW staff. Agreement# ❑ Mineral prospecting and mining. ❑ Project occurs on farm and agricultural land. (Attach a copy of current land use classification recorded with the county auditor,or other proof of current land use.) ❑ Project is a modification of an existing HPA originally applied for, prior to July 10, 2012. HPA# 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: ® Section 401 Water Quality Certification FEDERAL GOVERNMENT United States Department of the Army permits (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 permits: ❑ Private Aids to Navigation (for non-bridge projects) JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 13 of 14 Part 11—Authorizing Signatures Signatures are required before submitting the JARPA package. The JARPA package includes the JARPA form, project plans, photos, etc. [help] 11a. Applicant Signature (required) [help] 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 author[z a agent named in Part 3 of this application to act on my behalf in matters related to this application. 11 (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 en e, ,rjng the property where the project is located to inspect the project site or any work rel ted to the project. 1F� (initial) r i A t t- --r/t V 1 Ow ���-��� (9 . I - i c Applicant Printed N�ne °Applicant Sire Date 11 b. Authorized Agent Signature [help] 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. t., zt- ‘A/I-S- - Authorized Agent Printed Name •uthorized Agen Signature Date 11c. Property Owner Signature (if not applicant) [help] Not required if project is on existing rights-of-way or easements. 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. T .AC '4�✓LOS , 0 (0 . 1 . 15 Property Owner Printed Name Property Ow er 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 Governor's 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: ENV-019-09 rev.08/2013 JARPA Revision 2012.2 Page 14 of 14 Advanced Environmental Solutions 1601 I. STREET, BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 (360) 202-6839 DOSEWALLIPS ESTUARY BARGE REMOVAL HABITAT RESTORATION & ENHANCEMENT PLAN Prepared for: HOOD CANAL SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP P.O. BOX 2169 BELFAIR, WASHINGTON 98528 Prepared by: JUN - 1 )\K-LC\19 1ErFER, DEPT OF"OMMJI i1" cirNT MS. TINA MIRABILE, PWS April 23, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2.0 SHORELINE BUFFER NATIVE VEGETATION 1 3.0 SHORELINE BUFFER HABITAT FEATURES 5 3.0 SHORELINE BUFFER HABITAT FEATURES 5 4.0 MONITORING AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 6 4.0 DISCLAIMER 7 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEWED APPENDIX B: FIGURES Advanced Environmental Solutions 1 .0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is proposing to restore approximately 0.45 acre of intertidal estuarine and shoreline buffer habitat near the confluence of Walker Creek in the Dosewallips River Estuary associated with Dabob Bay in Hood Canal South. The project site is situated in Water Resource Inventory Area(WRIA) 16 in Section 2 of Township 25 North, Range 02 West, W.M. The project area, approximately 0.9 acres in size, includes Parcel 502023021 and access on Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)aquatic land and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)right-of-way located to the east of State Route 101, near Brinnon, Washington. Reference project documents developed by the design engineer, Coastal Geological Services, Inc. of Bellingham, Washington, include: project description permitting level site plans and special provision technical specifications (CGS, 2015a-c). The project involves the removal of a derelict creosote treated wood barge, shoreline armoring and fill, including concrete, currently occupying and degrading approximately 0.34 acre of estuarine intertidal fish habitat. Non-native invasive plants dominating the shoreline buffer(0.11 acre) vegetation will be removed and native vegetation and habitat features, such as large woody debris, snags and brush piles,will be installed. The project area ranges in elevations from+35 feet NAVD to 0 feet NAVD (Mean Lower Low Water [MLLW] =-2.64 Ft NAVD, Mean High Higher Water [MHHW] +8.86-feet). The National Wetlands Inventory maps the subject shoreline area as regularly flooded Estuarine Intertidal Aquatic Bed and Unconsolidated Shore (E2AB/USN) associated with Dabob Bay (USFWS, 2015). Emergent estuarine areas (salt marsh) are mapped to north of the project area and Walker Creek. A formal wetlands delineation was not conducted by Advanced Environmental Solutions at the site. For permitting purposes, all project work proposed to occur waterward of MHHW has been assessed as"in-water"work in regards to potential impacts and aquatic area re-establishment. Areas above MHHW are considered as upland shoreline buffer. All proposed work activities are to occur on disturbed and impacted in-water and upland buffer areas. No work is proposed to occur on established salt marsh areas to the north of the project area. Based on a review of the Special Characteristics section of the Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Wetlands, existing disturbances associated with the project site would result in a Category II estuarine wetland rating for the project area (Hruby, 2014). Category I estuarine wetlands are those of any size located within National Wildlife Refuges,National Parks,National Estuary Reserves,Natural Area Preserves, State Parks, or Educational, Environmental or Scientific Reserves or those that extend over more than 1 acre that meet at lease two of the following three criteria: Relatively undisturbed, i.e., no ditching, filling, cultivation, or grazing, and the vegetation has less than 10%cover of non-native plant species; Advanced Environmental Solutions 1 The vegetated areas of the wetland have at least two of the following structural features:tidal channels,depressions with open water,or contiguous freshwater wetlands; and At the least,the landward edge of the wetland,has a 100-ft buffer of ungrazed pasture,shrub,forest, or relatively undisturbed freshwater wetland. Any estuarine wetland that does not meet the criteria above for a Category I is a Category II wetland. The estimated total volume of anthropogenic materials to be removed from the project area (0.45 acre)represents 6,410 cubic yards (CGS, 2015a). Fill and shore armor to be removed from the in-water project area located below MHHW represents 3,845 cubic yards. Restoration of the project site's intertidal shoreline habitat will include re-grading of approximately 280 cubic yards of existing on-site beach nourishment sediments to fill the void left by the barge removal. Aquatic vegetation is not proposed for installation; it is anticipated that the restored in-water project area will dynamically adjust to natural conditions and vegetation and driftwood will be recruited(CGS,2015a). During low tides, mudflats and mixed sand and gravel substrates will be exposed. Specifications for native vegetation and habitat feature installations proposed for implementation on the project site shoreline buffer are provided in Section 2.0. Recommended long-term monitoring protocols and performance standards for assessing the project's success to permit compliance requirements are provided in Section 3.0. 2.0 SHORELINE BUFFER NATIVE VEGETATION INSTALLATION Project-associated vegetation clearing includes the removal of approximately 0.34 acres of predominately non-native and invasive plants. Dominant species to be removed include Scotch broom(Cytisus scoparius), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and English Ivy (Hedera helix)(CGS, 2015a). These species are typically associated with disturbed sites. Native trees and shrubs, representing approximately 5%of the site vegetation to be cleared, include Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii),red alder(Alnus rubra), Pacific madrone(Arbutus menziesii), Indian plum (Oemerlaria cerasiformis),Nootka rose (Rosa nutkana) and Oregon grape (Mahonia sp.). The majority of the vegetation to be cleared is growing on"artificially created"upland areas on the top deck of the barge, along the filled historical access road, and along the top of the bank of associated fill. Approximately ten (10)conifers proposed for removal are situated directly to the north of the paved roadside apron, which will be removed from the shoreline buffer and replanted (CGS, 2015c). The larger sized felled conifer trees,with diameters at breast height(dbh) Advanced Environmental Solutions 2 measuring 12 inches or greater,will be retained for installation as habitat features, including large woody debris logs and snag placements, during final site restoration (CGS, 2015b). Rootwads from felled trees shall remain intact, as feasible.A large 11- stemmed big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) tree present to the south of the pavement area will be preserved. After removal of the fill and pavement, the shoreline buffer will be regraded.The Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area (USDA NRCS,2015) identifies Hoodsport(Soil Unit HpD) very gravelly sandy loam as mapped on the site's sloped shoreline buffer area. This moderately well drained hilly soil is located on glacial terraces with 15 to 30 percent slope (USDA 1975). Included with this soil in mapping are small areas having large basalt boulders and basalt bedrock outcrops In the higher areas the soil is generally 20 to 24 inches deep to the cemented layer,and in the lower areas it is 24 to 36 inches deep to this layer. Runoff is medium,and the hazard of water erosion is moderate.This soil is used mainly for producing trees and for wildlife habitat and recreation areas.The depth to the water is about 19 to 36 inches. Frequency of flooding and ponding is none. Available water storage capacity is very low. A layer of mulch will be applied to cover exposed soils as an erosion measure and weed deterrent until native vegetation installation is implemented. A total of 180 native woody-stemmed plants and 900 bare-root plugs of dunegrass, as specified in Table 1, are recommended for installation within approximately 5,000 square feet(0.11 acre)of the project's shoreline buffer. Native vegetation is to be installed in three vegetation community zones, Zones 1- 3, according to grading elevations of +10- feet to+12-feet, +12-feet to 20-feet and+20-feet to 34-feet, respectively. The zones represent the respectively backshore, mid-slope and upper-slope topographic positions of the shoreline buffer. In order to provide diverse vegetation structure within the restored shoreline buffer,three target vegetation communities, herbaceous dune grass, scrub-shrub and forest, are specified for Zones 1, 2 and 3, respectively. A total of 10 plants species are specified for installation at the project site. Species selection is based on the existing representation of plants referenced within the project vicinity, as well as,past success and experience with native vegetation restoration plans at other sites with similar habitat conditions. In order to provide a diversity of vegetation structure within the restored project area,two species of trees,three species of tall shrubs, three species of medium-sized shrubs and two species of ground cover plants have been specified for installation. Vegetation structural diversity will increase from one herbaceous strata in Zone 1, to two shrub layers (tall and medium-sized) in Zone 2 with a maximum of 4 strata in the forest community where trees,tall and medium-sized shrubs and ground cover plants are proposed. Plant stock shall be obtained,when possible, from the growing stock of local native plant nurseries from the local region. Bare-root or container plant stock may be used; however one-gallon container stock is preferred for sword fern. Bare-root plant stock is to be planted between December 15 and February 15. Container plant stock may be installed Advanced Environmental Solutions 3 in fall or early spring. If the indicated species in Table 1 is not available, a qualified biologist must approve substitutions. Table 1. Recommendations for Native Vegetation Installation in Shoreline Buffer(5,000 sq. ft.) #Plants Per Desi l nated Zone Zone-Vegetation 1 -Backshore 2—Scrub- 3—Forest Community: Dune Grass Shrub Planting Area: 1,240 sq. ft. 1,460 sq. ft. 2,300 sq.ft. Elevations: +10 to+12-feet +12 to+20- +20 to+34- feet feet Plant Common Scientific Total Spacings: Name Name Plants Trees Big-leaf maple Acer 2 2 and Tall macrophyllum Shrubs: Douglas fir Pseudotsuga 4 4 10-feet on menziesii center(o.c) Ocean spray Holcus 2 3 5 discolor Scouler's Salix 2 3 5 willow scouleriana _' Sitka willow Salix 2 2 stichensis _ Medium Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 25 25 50 and Low Common Symphoricarp 25 25 50 Shrubs: snowberry us albus 3-feet o.c Western Rubus 24 13 37 salmonberry spectablis Ground Sword fern Polystichitum 25 25 Cover: munifum 5 feet o.c Herbaceous American Leymus mollis 900 900 Plugs at 1- dunegrass feet o.c: Total: 900 80 100 [1,080 Plants are to be installed in groupings of three to five plants of the same species. Prescribed minimum spacing for native trees shall be 10' on-center. In order to discourage regeneration of non-native and invasive shrub species, such as Scotch broom and blackberry, dense plantings of medium-sized shrubs at 3-feet on center spacing are specified. Sword fern shall be installed at minimum 5-feet on-center spacing. Dunegrass plugs are to be installed in 1-foot on-center spacing. Maintenance of plant material will be the responsibility of the applicant.Natural recruitment or regeneration of native plants is to be encouraged within the planting areas. Non-native plants, such as blackberry and Scotch broom, are to be discouraged from growing within the restored shoreline buffer area.Non-native weedy and invasive species growing in the enhancement areas should be removed by mechanical removal (hand pulling or cutting). No fertilizers or herbicides shall be used on plant stock in the Advanced Environmental Solutions 4 shoreline area. Although native plants are adapted to seasonal drought during the summer, irrigation of the plant material during the first growing season is recommended when less than one-inch of precipitation is received in a given week. 3.0 SHORELINE BUFFER HABITAT FEATURES Restoration and enhancement of the shoreline buffer will include the installation of habitat features, such as large woody debris logs, snags and brush piles. The purposes of the features are to provide shelter and foraging opportunity for a variety of wildlife, including small mammals, birds, insects and amphibians. Snags provide perching habitat for passerines and large raptors. Felled trees and brush from clearing of the project site will be used as habitat features. A minimum of 3 snags, 3 brush piles and 7 large woody debris logs with rootwads retained as feasible are proposed for installation. Snags will be comprised of conifer logs, each no less than 21 feet long with minimum dbh measuring 12 inches. At least 1/3 of the log length shall be installed in the ground; the height of the snag should reach approximately 14-feet above ground. Brush piles shall be constructed with a variety of sized cut limbs from native hardwood and conifer species to reach 5 feet in total height and 10-feet minimum in diameter. Non- native species cannot be used for the construction of brush piles. 4.0 MONITORING & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Monitoring of native vegetation and habitat features within the restored shoreline buffer is recommended to occur at the end of each growing season, typically between August 15 and October 1, for a minimum of five (5)years. Data on the number and species of plants, survival rates, canopy (%areal) cover; stem density and plant heights shall be measured during each monitoring period. Photographs depicting the conditions on the site at established control points shall be recorded during each monitoring event. Monitoring of the success of the site's restoration efforts shall be based on the following objectives and performance standards: Objective 1: Installation of a minimum of 900 dunegrass plugs within planting Zone 1, approximately 1,460 square feet of backshore planting area at elevations between+10 and+12-feet(MHHW=+8.86 feet) Objective 2: Installation of a minimum of 80 native shrub species within Zone 2, approximately 1,240 square feet in size and located mid-slope on the shoreline buffer at elevations between+12and+20-feet. Objective 3: Installation of a minimum of 100 native plants(6 trees, 6 tall shrubs, 63 medium-size shrubs and 25 ground cover plants)within Zone 3, Advanced Environmental Solutions 5 approximately 2,300 square feet in size and located on the upper slope of the shoreline buffer at elevations between +20 and+34-feet. Objective 4: Plant species diversity within the shoreline buffer shall include a minimum representation of at least two native canopy species, six native shrub species and two species of ground cover plants, including dunegrass. Objective 5: Installation of a minimum of 7 large woody debris logs, 3 snags and 3 brush piles within the shoreline buffer. Objective 6: Establishment of the targeted vegetation communities in Zones 1, 2 and 3 at the end of the monitoring period. At the end of year 5, forested community in Zone 3 will be representative of scrub-shrub in vegetation strata but should have species diversity to develop in a mixed deciduous and coniferous forest in the long term. Performance Plant community success within the restored shoreline buffer area will be Standard evaluated during the monitoring periods based on the following table: 1: Table 2. Performance Standards for Zone I —Dunegrass Backshore Rated Item: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Installed Bare-root 90 > or= 80 >or= 70 >or=70 Natural Plug Survival (%) mortality Installed Plants <5 >15 >30 >or= 50 85% (%Areal Cover) . Overall Strata 1 Table 3. Performance Standards for Zones 2 and 3 (Scrub-Shrub, Forest) Rated Item: Year I Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Installed Woody 100 > or= 80 > or= 80 > or= 80 Natural Stemmed Plant mortality Survival (%) Installed Plants <5 >15 >35 >or= 55 75% (%Areal Cover) Overall Strata 1 2 2 3 3 Performance Non-native and other invasive plant species such as Himalayan Standard blackberry, Evergreen blackberry (R. laciniatus), Scotch broom, 2: Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), reed canarygrass,purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), English ivy (Hedera helix),morning glory (Ipomoea sp), etc. —should be discouraged and maintained from overtaking the installed plant stock. Volunteer species of native woody plants, such as red alders, black cottonwoods, etc., are to be encouraged. Advanced Environmental Solutions 6 Contingency Measures: Any fatal or diseased installed native plants observed within the wetland restoration and perimeter ditch area shall be replaced after the first growing season. A contingency mitigation plan,prepared by a qualified biologist, will be required should the mitigation project appear to be failing at rates greater than 70%in any monitoring year. If the percentage of cover of non-native invasive species exceeds 35%within the restored shoreline buffer, appropriate control procedures shall be implemented according to a custom designed maintenance plan for the project. 5.0 DISCLAIMER The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on interpretation of information currently available. It should be noted that shorelines are dynamic in character and vary with changes in climate, vegetation and up- slope modifications in drainage patterns. Advanced Environmental Solutions 7 APPENDIX A: LITERATURE REVIEWED Advanced Environmental Solutions Coastal Geological Services, Inc. (CGS)2015a. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Project Description. April 13, 2015. Bellingham, WA. CGS. 2015b. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal &Restoration Permit Level Site Plan Set 1-7, April 13, 2015. Bellingham, WA. CGS. 2015c. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal and Restoration Special Provision Technical Specifications(Permit Level) April 13, 2015. Bellingham, WA. Hruby, T. (2014). Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication#14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Pojar, Jim and A. MacKinnon. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast Washington, Oregon, British Columbia&Alaska. Lone Pine Publishing. Redmond, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington. Available at: http://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/washington/WA631/0/wa631 text.pdf. Accessed April 22,2015. United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation District. 2015. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed April 22, 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015.National Wetland Inventory Online Wetland Mapper.Accessed at http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.govfNWI/ Advanced Environmental Solutions APPENDIX B: FIGURES Advanced Environmental Solutions 510Z et IpdV BZgTZOZ(090 VM VHDNIT39'SNOI11I105 11,1N$WNOOAN3 03.INVA0V AB 0314V0V NVld 3113 593 '•OHM.••'-•�'✓� i +AOIDLiIYi:N1W MONK TWYI=Ow m. ( \i 1 11JtAll4 .v... ±.....� St101V3d 1V11BVN /1'1'14> i8 I NVId 9NINVid NOI1be01S3tl b 1i'; Y 4n "" 1VA0W31!3 021V Sdf11VM3504 a ��3:S t i y Ii 0 1 € fl o < rz ° a vi ii # 91 a II 'LI $ ] Z m= E1117;E IP.* 11 g [ 7 P •5 gi mo22 gory V zmM !OR I I i I . .al�� =N, S� Qo > a_ I I i I I a)c5;,?�- 2 1- 2 r F e I 1 1 w 0 d1 D 0°m w K w m 8 Z ig^ ..1= mss' ad � ; _. 10 � 8_� I I I I I I I q� .� r pQw�awoas F- a U+ w w¢w ? w w w w I- n ir de '3 f6 N ON ON m uzi 1 b t 3 I i Z = IIN Y, a U) •. o� N<0U F. a m�Q m J J 1 I.i I-r O.> 0 6c i In CC I—w O M 0 ' a., w ww12'n n o CU~W Z W RZ0IQKO I 1. CU • n n� MAW it > 8 ; , r ae Q)st c 1 <UNYMI2 1 .E 4s q a) L Gt 0 $ L .^.J{ G> z A CL S8-101 C 5 NAJak fAHK i11O# G i t ? _E O .• . • yi4 . •• 1 tea) go L ; C ;G s U._ II s II 1 £ O u U u N N L o 1 1 L I I i 1N, I._ 9 ra J E as 2 i O (^O` w W 8 / a a) i = m _ ' : R Z o W N ilkof III e = i m z c $ O fir— 4 ll a O- Ili L R • iltili ' ,2per m c °yy a 5 a) °a m ..tommK co _ R r R R R A ^ R 3 ° 3 7 _ • • ^ ° it o u m,,...." P SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST UPDATED 2014 Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but riot necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects)questions in Part B - Environmental Elements—that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: E G v E Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal ID JUfv - 2 2015 JEFFERSON ,OUNT( i ENT SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 1 of 16 1 2. Name of applicant: Mendy Harlow 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 600 NE Roessel Rd Belfair, WA 98528 (360)275-3575 ext.23 Julian Sammons (360)275-3575 ext.15 4. Date checklist prepared: May 14, 2015 5. Agency requesting checklist: Jefferson County 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Approximately July 16 through September 30, 2015 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Environmental Assessment, NEPA checklist, Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Habitat Restoration & Enhancement Plan (attached) 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Section 106, Section 401, Section 404, Section 10, Shoreline Permit, Aquatic Land Use Permit, Hydraulics Project Approval Permit, Endangered Species Act Compliance, Stormwater Management Permit, National Environmental Protection Act, State Environmental Protection Act 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 2 of 16 The Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal project seeks to restore estuarine habitat near the mouth of Walkers Creek, which feeds into the greater Dosewallips River estuary complex and Hood Canal. A derelict barge with large amounts of fill material is located just south of the mouth of Walkers Creek. The removal of this barge and its associated fill material will add approximately 19,500 square feet (0.45 acres) of intertidal habitat to the greater Dosewallips Estuary and Hood Canal. The project area, approximately 0.9 acres in size, includes approximately 220 linear feet of shore on the north and northeast side of the fill with 300 linear feet of exposed barge within the intertidal on the eastern and southern extents of the project. The project area ranges in elevations from +35 feet NAVD to 0 feet NAVD (MLLW= -2.64 FT NAVD, MHHW=+8.86 ft NAVD). The project is designed to create approximately 0.45 acres of estuarine wetland/marine habitat associated with Hood Canal and remove 15,000 square feet (0.34 acres) of vegetated areas within grading that include mostly invasive species while restoring 5,000 square feet (0.11 acres) of upland marine riparian and backshore habitat. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located on Jefferson County tax parcel #502023021. Legal description of the property is: S2 T25 R2W TAX 33(n387') The property is located on the shoreline side (east) of State Highway 101, immediately south of the Walkers Creek bridge in Brinnon, WA. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: shoreline b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 75% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 3 of 16 Hoodsport sandy loam, Project involvveery s removal gravelly of fill material 15 from to 30 an unknown percent slopes location. It is suspected to be similar soil from somewhere relatively close (<20miles). Natives soils will be impacted minimally, fill material will be removed from site. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The fill material onsite will be excavated and taken offsite, and the native soil below will be graded to provide slope that emulates nearby undisturbed shoreline slopes. Approximately 5,700 cubic yards of fill will be removed. With removal of barge and fill material, approximately 19,500 square feet will be affected. No fill material will be brought in from off-site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. Fill removal will result in disturbed soils on a slope. Fill re-grade will result in a steeper slope. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? No impervious surfaces will be placed on the site after project restoration. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Silt fences, brush piles, snag placement at toe of slope, revegetation, mulching, sequencing project work so removal starts at furthest location from access point to minimize compaction of soils, develop and implement Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust from excavation, unknown quantity up to 30 days. Greenhouse gases from restoration equipment (petroleum combustion). No emissions after restoration. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 4 of 16 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:[help] Minimize use of heavy equipment on exposed soils. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, part of the project takes place on intertidal land of Hood Canal, in the Dosewallips River Estuary. 2)Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Removal of the barge and fill material will occur above and below Mean High Water. However no work will occur during conditions where the work area is inundated by the tide; all work will be during low tide or above high water. See attached plans and specifications. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill will be placed/removed in/from surface water or wetlands, although "dry" tideland below MHHW (exposed soil during low tide)will have fill removed from it. Approximately 425 cubic yards of treated wood and hardware to be removed below MHHW. Approximately 3,420 cubic yards of fill material will be removed below MHHW. Approximately 280 cubic yards of beach nourishment quality fill currently within the project area will be relocated into the void left by the barge removal. See attached specifications. 4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The site appears to be within 100-year floodplain on the FEMA map, though as a shoreline project the site is unlikely to be affected by river flooding. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 5 of 16 1)Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. c. Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any(include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Stormwater will be the only source of runoff. There will be no collection of this stormwater. The water will flow down the slope into Hood Canal, as it currently does. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The grading of the slope to match natural slopes on adjacent shoreline will alter drainage patterns as a result of the following: change in slope; removal of the impervious concrete surface on the barge; removal of fill material. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Temporary silt fences during project land disturbance actions. Brush piles, re-vegetation, and mulching are proposed for areas disturbed by project actions. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain SEPA Environmental checklist(WAG 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 6 of 16 Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Invasive noxious weeds (blackberry, scotch broom, english ivy, etc.) will be removed from roughly one-half an acre of fill material. An attempt will be made to salvage and replant native vegetation. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. No known endangered plants known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: See attached Enhancement Plan e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Herb Robert, Himalayan Blackberry, English Ivy, Scotch Broom 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other • b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. Hood Canal Summer Chum, Hood Canal Steelhead, Puget Sound Chinook, Marbled Murrelet, Bull Trout c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. This site, like the entire Puget Sound region lies with the western flyway for migratory birds. The site is also part of the Dosewallips River Estuary, which provides critical habitat to juvenile salmon. However, it is not a fish corridor. And the site is not a wildlife corridor, as it is all shoreline. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The purpose of the project is to restore critical shoreline/intertidal habitat currently occupied by a barge and fill material. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 7 of 16 There are no known invasive animal species known to be on or near the site (within the Dosewallips River Estuary). 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Petroleum fossil fuels (diesel, gasoline, etc.)will be used to power the equipment for the project work. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: No energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal; energy impacts are relatively minimal. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. There is a spill risk associated with the fuel and fluids used by heavy equipment during restoration. To mitigate some of that risk vegetable-based hydraulic fluids will be required for all equipment, and a spill cleanup kit will be kept on site during all work. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Lead-based paint found on barge is to be removed. The barge is constructed out of creosote-treated lumber. No additional known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses (see attached environmental assessment). 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. There are no known existing hazardous/chemicals/conditions which might affect project development/design. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. There will be no toxic or hazardous chemicals stored, used or produced during SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 8 of 16 • this project, aside for petroleum fuels for heavy equipment. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required for this project, aside from spill kits, which will be onsite. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: A spill kit will be kept onsite. Safety measures will be taken to reduce chance of spills. b. Noise 1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Highway 101 is adjacent to the site. Noise from thiswill not affect the project. 2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. During the restoration window, noise will be generated from the use of heavy equipment (excavators and trucks). Operation will only occur during daytime hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: No measures will be taken to reduce the levels of noise likely associated with the project. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The property is currently vacant land and is not in use. One of the adjacent properties is a single unit residential property. Another adjacent parcel is part of the Geoduck Tavern, a local business. Both are aware of the project. The other adjacent parcels are State Highway and State Tideland. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The project site has not been used as working farmlands or working forest lands. 1)Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No; there are no nearby surrounding working farm or forest lands. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 9 of 16 c. Describe any structures on the site. There is the derelict barge on the project site, nothing else. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The purpose of the project is to remove the barge. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Rural residential f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 9100 -Vacant Land g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Conservancy h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Yes, wetlands. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None; zero. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None; zero. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Displacement is not a risk; not applicable L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project site will not be developed. Additionally, the project will restore valuable shoreline habitat. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: There are no nearby agricultural or forest lands of long-term commercial significant that could be affected by this proposal. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Zero. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 10 of 16 Zero. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: No measures to reduce housing impacts, as no housing will be affected. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? No structures are being proposed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views would be obstructed; nothing is being added to project site aside from native vegetation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Aside from restoring the site to mimic adjacent natural shoreline conditions, no measures are being taken to reduce or control aesthetic impacts. The project itself is inherently an aesthetic improvement to the project site, arguably. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No additional light or glare will be produced in or as a result of this proposal. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No additional light or glare will be produced in or as a result of this proposal. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No existing off-site sources of light or glare will affect this proposal. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: No measures will be taken to reduce or control light and glare impacts. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Dosewallips State Park is less than 1 mile from the project site. The project is on the shoreline of Hood Canal, which itself is a recreational attraction. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 11 of 16 No recreational uses will be displaced by the proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: There will be no impacts to recreation that will need reducing or control. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. The barge was brought onshore in 1968 and used as a fish processing facility b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. A professional archaeologist conducted an onsite cultural resources survey on May 13th. A report will be provided by the end of May. A section 106 permit will be issued prior to any work. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. A section 106 permit will be issued prior to any work. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. A section 106 permit will be issued prior to any work. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Property ingress and egress exists directly from Highway 101, immediately south of the Walkers Creek bridge (access shown in site plans). Vehicles and equipment will use this access. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site itself is not a point of public transportation, however public transportation does use Highway 101, which is adjacent to the project site. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 12 of 16 c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? Zero. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No transportation facilities will be created or improved. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Aside from rail transfer of creosote-treated wood, no water, rail or air transportation will be used for the project. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The completed project will generate no traffic. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Traffic will be flagged when trucks are entering/leaving project site during restoration, which could affect trucks transporting timber products. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: A flagging crew will be used when needed to allow trucks to safely enter and exit the project site during restoration. Traffic will not be affected at other times. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No increased need for public services will result from this project. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No public services will be impacted by this project. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 13 of 16 No utilities are being proposed for the project. Restoration activities will include fill excavation and re-grading, and dismantling and extraction of the barge. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. \ Signature: 4 pV��(``1 f IV (.0 Name of signee \\ -At 4ti-'l0 Position and Agency/Organization ELe iLL-+`Jt- b' { J f+csa c Date Submitted: ( ' I ` I S D. supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960) May 2014 Page 14 of 16 Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 15 of 16 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960) May 2014 Page 16 of 16 RECEW D JUN 222015 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. JEFFERSON COREY BCD TECHNICAL MEMO 1503A-2 DATE: June 2, 2015 TO: Julian Sammons Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement FROM: Glenn Hartmann, Principal Investigator RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County, WA The attached short report form constitutes our final report for the above referenced project. No archaeological resources were identified within the project.No further cultural resources investigations are recommended. Please contact the office should you have any questions about our findings and/or recommendations. 197 PARFITT WAY SW,SUITE 100 PO Box 10668,BAINBRIDGE ISLAND,WA 98110 PHONE 206 855-9020 - info @crcwa.com CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEE Author: Margaret Berger Title of Report: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project Jefferson County, WA Date of Report: June 2, 2015 County(ies): Jefferson Section: 2 Township: 25 N Range: 2 W Quad: Brinnon, WA Acres: < 1 PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) XI Yes Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? n Yes P1 No Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? n Yes P1 No TCP(s) found? n Yes P1 No Replace a draft? n Yes 71 No Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? n Yes # P1 No Were Human Remains Found? n Yes DAHP Case # No DAHP Archaeological Site #: • Submission of PDFs is required. • Please be sure that any PDF submitted to DAHP has its cover sheet, figures, graphics, appendices, attachments. correspondence, etc., compiled into one single PDF file. • Please check that the PDF displays correctly when opened. Management Summary At the request of Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement, Cultural Resources Consultants, Inc. (CRC) conducted a cultural resources assessment of proposed shoreline restoration on Hood Canal at Brinnon. CRC reviewed pertinent background information and conducted a field assessment of the project area. Results of the archaeological survey were negative and the project is considered unlikely to affect any as-yet unidentified historic properties. No further investigations are recommended. 1. Administrative Data Report Title: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County, WA Author(s): Margaret Berger Report Date: June 2,2015 Location: The project is located on the Hood Canal shoreline on the south side of the Dosewallips River estuary near Brinnon, in Jefferson County, Washington. This location is in the SW'/ of the NE1/4 of the SW'/ of Section 2, Township 22 North, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian(Figure 1), on Jefferson County tax parcel 502023021. USGS 7.5' Topographic Map: Brinnon, WA(1999) Total Area Involved: < 1 acre Project Description: The project goal is to remove a derelict creosote barge approximately 200 feet by 46 feet along with associated fill material (the source of which is unknown), as well as design and construct the exposed shoreline to imitate the historic shoreline. The barge and fill material will be taken off site and disposed of in accordance with federal and state law. Ground disturbance will occur under the 200-x-46-foot footprint of the barge, as well as under the adjacent fill material,which covers roughly an additional 15,000 square feet. The fill material, which is laid in a long strip roughly 70 feet wide, slopes downward to sea level. The thickness of the fill is unknown but based upon review of topographic maps, may be as thick as 14 feet. The barge and fill material will be removed via trucks onto Highway 101. There will be additional area inundated by tides after the completion of the project. This area includes the entire footprint of the barge and the associated fill material (roughly 24,000 square feet). After the material is removed larger trees that are currently growing in the fill material will be used in large woody debris placements along the bottom of the slope with the purpose of mitigating erosion. Native vegetation will also be planted along the newly-exposed shoreline. Any remaining invasive plants will be removed. The project location is undeveloped but contains the remains of a barge composed of treated timbers and a partial platform composed of a concrete and oyster shells (Rutherford 2015:iii). The piece of land on which the barge and fill material are located is commonly believed to have CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 1 been used for a ferry service that ran from Brinnon to Seabeck in the earlier 20th century. There is also some speculation that it was used as a fish processing facility in the mid-20th century. The barge itself has also been reported to have been brought on-beach in 1968. However, for at least two decades the property has remained undeveloped(aside from the barge) and unused in any significant capacity. For the purposes of this assessment, the area of potential effects (APE)to cultural resources is considered to be the locations of the proposed actions as described above and shown in Figures 1 —3. Objective(Research Design): CRC developed this assessment to evaluate the potential for the project to affect cultural resources. Assessment methods consisted of review of available project plans and correspondence, local cultural and historical information, and records on file at the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP); and field investigations. The project requires permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and is therefore subject to review for potential effects to historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and state laws and regulations protecting cultural resources (e.g., RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53). Under Section 106, agencies involved in a federal undertaking must take into account the undertaking's potential effects to historic properties (36 CFR 800.16(1)(1)). The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act(RCW 27.53)prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP), and the Indian Graves and Records Act(RCW 27.44)prohibits knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves. This assessment utilized a research design that considered previous studies, the magnitude and nature of the undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely nature and location of historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE), as well as other applicable laws, standards, and guidelines (per 36CFR800.4(b)(1)). Recorded Cultural Resources Present: Yes [] No [x] No archaeological sites have been recorded within the project. 2. Background Research Background research was conducted in March—May 2015. Archival Sources Checked: DAHP WISAARD There are no recorded archaeological or historic sites within the project. Web Soil Survey The soil unit mapped in the project location is Hoodsport very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2015). Context Overview: Environmental and cultural context information for this project is derived from relevant published reports, articles, and books (e.g.,Elmendorf 1990; Thorson 1980); historical maps and documents (e.g.,USSG 1872); geological and soils surveys (e.g., USDA CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 2 NRCS 2015; WA DNR 2015); ethnographic accounts (e.g., Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992; Gunther 1927); and archaeological reports (e.g., Wessen 1987) in the local area. The following discussion of project area geology, archaeology, history, and ethnography incorporates context information from CRC's prior work in the central Hood Canal area(e.g., Hartmann 2010). Environmental Context: The project area is located on the western shoreline of Hood Canal south of the mouth of Walkers Creek near the town of Brinnon. Highway 101 is located to the west. The project area is situated on former tidal flats (Todd et al. 2006:Figure 36)that have been covered with fill. The local landscape was formed by late Pleistocene glaciers and the processes of deglaciation(On and On 1996). The Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation was the most recent glacial advance of the Puget Lobe into western Washington, beginning approximately 17,000-18,000 years ago and continuing until roughly 14,000 years ago (Kruckeberg 1991:12). As the ice advanced south from Canada, it encountered preexisting stream channels. The ice mass deepened and depressed these channels. When the ice retreated and sea level rose, the glacial troughs became fjords forming Hood Canal,Puget Sound, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Babcock and Carson 2000). Warming of the climate caused the retreat of the Puget Lobe, leaving the regional landscape ice-free and suitable for human habitation by approximately 12,000 years ago(Kruckeberg 1991:22). On Hood Canal, valley glaciers occupying the Dosewallips and Duckabush river drainages flowed towards the ocean and converged to form large piedmont lobes terminating at sea level. As the ice in these drainages recessed, the associated alluvial fans left large deposits of unconsolidated glacial till at sea level (Spicer 1986). Surface geology and soils mapped in the project area reflect this glacial legacy. The surface geologic unit mapped in the project location is Qgt(Quaternary continental glacial till), composed of unsorted,unstratified, highly compacted mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders deposited by glacial ice(WA DNR 2015). Hoodsport very gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes, is the soil unit mapped along the western edge of the project (USDA NRCS 2015). The Hoodsport soil formed on terraces in parent material composed of basal till. The typical profile consists of very gravelly sandy loam to a depth of 60 inches below surface. The water table is typically about 19 to 36. inches below surface. The majority of the project is fill and no soil unit is mapped. Archaeological Context: Regional and local studies have provided an archaeological and historical synthesis of approximately the last 10,000 years of human occupation in Puget Sound based on archaeological materials,ethnohistoric texts, and historical documents (Nelson 1990). Archeologists have identified broad similarities in site and lithic assemblages dated to between 9000 and 5000 BP. Many of these early archaeological sites are referable to the Olcott complex in western Washington and are contemporaneous with similar Cascade Phase sites identified east of the Cascade Mountains. The Olcott complex is characterized by upland site occupation or atop upper river terraces, lithic workshops, and temporary hunting camps that contain a wide variety of flaked stone tools and laurel-leaf-shaped bifaces, suggestive of large game hunting, butchering and processing(Morgan et al. 1999). Several Olcott sites have been documented and studied throughout western Washington and the Olympic Peninsula(e.g., Dancey 1968; Morgan et al. 1999). CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 3 Changes in subsistence economy and occupation patterns are generally reflected in archaeological assemblages that date between 5000 and 3000 BP.During this time, an increasing number of tools were manufactured by the grinding of stone, and more antler and bone were utilized for tools. This middle pre-contact period is also indicated by the occurrence of smaller triangular projectile points. Living floors, evidence of structural supports and hearths are more common during this period in contrast to earlier cultural phases. In Puget Sound, evidence of task-specific,year-round,broad-based activities, including salmon and clam processing, woodworking,basket and tool manufacture, date from approximately 4200 BP (Larson and Lewarch 1995). Characteristic of the ethnographic pattern in Puget Sound, seasonal residence and logistical mobility occurred from about 3000 BP. Organic materials,including basketry, wood and food stuffs, are more likely to be preserved in sites of this late pre-contact period, both in submerged, anaerobic sites and in sealed storage pits. Sites dating from this period represent specialized seasonal spring and summer fishing, shellfish collecting, and root gathering campsites, as well as winter village locations. Sites of this nature have been identified in the Puget Sound lowlands, typically located adjacent to, or near,river or marine transportation routes. Fish weirs and other permanent constructions are often associated with large occupation sites. Common artifact assemblages consist of a range of hunting, fishing and food processing tools, bone and shell implements and midden deposits. Similar economic and occupational trends persisted throughout the Puget Sound region until the arrival of European explorers. Ethnographic Context: The project is located within the traditional territory of the Tuwaduq people,now known as the Skokomish Tribe. Tuwaduq territory included the shores and drainages of Hood Canal, from Port Ludlow in the north to the Skokomish River in the south (Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992). The Treaty of Point No Point in 1855 resulted in many Tuwaduq and neighboring S'Klallam and Chemakum people being compelled to move to the 3,840-acre Skokomish Reservation, located on the lower Skokomish River(Ruby and Brown 1992). Nine Tuwaduq winter village communities and numerous named places have been documented within the Hood Canal area(Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992), including the point on the south side of the mouth of Pleasant Harbor, within 1.5 miles southwest of the project, called gwcgc', or "between two creeks"(Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992:41). At the mouth of Pleasant Harbor, on the north side, is cc'o'ca'tad, or"bar across mouth of channel,"referring to Pleasant Harbor, a camping site located there, and a seasonal fishing station(Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992:42). The ethnographic village location nearest to the project is at the mouth of the Dosewallips River and called duswa'ylups or"place of thieves, selfish people,people who'll take it away from you" (Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992:42). This name was used to refer to the village as well as the river and a mountain far inland. According to Gunther(1927:177), Eells mentioned"a Klallam village opposite Seabeck"in the Brinnon area, which was"a favorite fishing station"and possibly not a 1 permanent settlement. Historic Context: The Euro-American presence on Hood Canal began with the arrival of fur traders working for the Hudson Bay Company, who built a blockhouse near the mouth of the Skokomish River in the 1830s(Wilma 2006). Euro-American settlement of the Brinnon area began in the mid-1850s when Ewell P. Brinnon claimed land at the mouth of the Duckabush CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 4 River(Luttrell 2010). In the 1860s he-sold his Duckabush claim and moved to the mouth of the Dosewallips River(Hermanson 2001:54). The GLO conducted its cadastral survey of the area in the late 1860s to early 1870s(USSG 1872). The map produced does not depict any trails,camps, clearings, homesteads,or any other cultural features in or near the project location(Figure 4). According to an online search of land patent records on file at the Bureau of Land Management(BLM), lands containing the project location were deeded to John Clements (Accession No. WASAA 092212, Homestead Entry, 35 acres, 2/15/1897) (BLM 2015). John Clements, who came from Maine and settled in the area in the 1870s,drove logs down the Dosewallips River and hauled them to the beach with oxen (Bailey and Bailey 1997:102). Loggers in the area would tow the timber to the nearest mills, which were at Seabeck and Port Gamble (Bailey and Bailey 1997:95). The United States Coast &Geodetic Survey(USCGS) charted the waters of Hood Canal in 1883-1884. This map denotes tidal flats in the project location, south of Clements' home and orchard (Figure 5) (Todd et al. 2006:100; USSG 1883). At the end of the nineteenth century, a dock was built that extended from a road attached to the general store and post office. This dock served as a stop on the Mosquito Fleet's Hood Canal route(Bailey and Bailey 1997:22-23). At about this same time, the Izett Logging Company built Brinnon's first logging railroad on the south side of the Dosewallips drainage, terminating just north of the Brinnon dock(Bailey and Bailey 1997:23, 198; Mather et al. 2006b:10). By 1910, the project area was in a logged or burned off area and the soil was characterized as susceptible to erosion and"best adapted to dairying and cover crops" (U.S. Bureau of Soils 1910). Logging has continued into the present day on some tracts of land west of the project but has diminished in importance to the local economy (Wilma 2006). Marine-oriented businesses, including commercial fishing and shellfish operations, gained importance as lands on the waterfront were cleared (Artifacts Consulting, Inc. 2011; Wilma 2006). In the 1920s to 1950s, land containing the project was owned by C. H. White and a dock was on T. B. Balch's property at the southern edge of Section 2, about .25 mile south of the project (Metsker 1926, 1952). The 1940 topographic map shows the Brinnon-Seabeck Ferry route terminating at a dock on the north edge of Pleasant Harbor, approximately one mile southwest of the project(USACE 1940). Historical air photos from 1939 and 1951 do not show any development within the project location(HistoricAerials.com 2011; PSRHP 2003). The barge currently on-site is said to have been used as a fish processing facility in the 1940s(Rutherford 2015:Appendix B), but it is unclear where the barge was located during that period. Fill appears to have been deposited at the project location by 1969 (HistoricAerials.com 2011), and the barge was in place on the property by about this time as well (Rutherford 2015:5). By the late 1970s, a long, narrow building had been built atop the barge (Rutherford 2015:5-6; WSDOE 2015) (Figure 6). The building has since been removed. DAHP WISAARD: The DAHP WISAARD database indicates nine previously conducted cultural resource assessments within a distance of one mile from the project(Table 1). None of these investigations identified any archaeological sites that could be affected by the current project. The survey conducted nearest to the project was for the replacement of the Highway 101 CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 5 bridge over Walker Creek approximately 40 feet west of the current project (Luttrell 2006). It was noted that the roadway south of the bridge was built in a cut into the side of a steep hill and that this landform was an unlikely location for the Twana winter village noted near the mouth of the Dosewallips River in the ethnographic record(Luttrell 2006:8). Four archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile from the project(Table 2). The archaeological site recorded nearest to the project is 45JE302, the remains of the Izett Logging Company railroad grade(Kelley 2006). The precontact archaeological site recorded nearest to the project is 45JE15, a shell midden site at Seal Rock approximately 1.6 miles north of the project(Righter 1978). Test excavations at this site identified four depositional units containing artifacts made from bone and stone as well as faunal remains such as salmonids, deer, elk, and a variety of shellfish(Wessen 1987). Radiocarbon dates indicated occupation from about A.D. 1200 to 1400(Wessen 1987:33-34). Based upon the results of test excavations, the site was listed on the NRHP (Neil 2009). One register-listed historic property has been recorded within one mile from the project, and no historic structures have been inventoried within a 1,000-foot radius from the project. The Swanson Barn, built around 1890 and located approximately .6 mile north of the project, is listed on the Washington Heritage Barn Register. DAHP records also include a bridge listed on the NRHP approximately .51 mile from the project but the mapped location is incorrect. The site record indicates that this is the Duckabush River Bridge spanning the Duckabush River, approximately 2.8 miles southwest of the project(Soderberg 1979). Previously recorded historic properties would not be affected by this project. Archaeological Expectations:The DAHP statewide predictive model uses environmental data about the locations of known archaeological sites to identify where previously unknown archaeological sites are more likely to be found. The model correlates locations of known archaeological to environmental data"to determine the probability that,under a particular set of environmental conditions, another location would be expected to contain an archaeological site (Kauhi and Markert 2009:2-3). Environmental data categories included in the model are elevation, slope, aspect, distance to water, geology, soils, and landforms. According to the model, the project location is ranked"Survey Highly Advised: Very High Risk"(DAHP 2015). This probability estimate is generally supported by the project's situation on Hood Canal near a fresh water source and the mouth of a major drainage, the Dosewallips River, as well as proximity to ethnographically reported place names. However, the project location was historically situated on tidal flats. The project area was likely used for resource procurement or processing activities at low tide (e.g., collecting shellfish)but would not have been suitable for habitation. Potential types of precontact archaeological materials in the project might include lithic scatters, rock features,or shell midden deposits. Historic-period archaeological materials may also be present and would likely be related to logging or homesteading. Historic-period debris items may be contained within fill within the project,but these materials would lack aspects of integrity such as association and location, and would not likely be considered significant(i. e. eligible for the NRHP) (NPS 2002). Any potentially significant archaeological deposits would be buried beneath fill material. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 6 3. Fieldwork Field observations were conducted by Margaret Berger; notes and photographs are on file at CRC, Inc. Pedestrian survey was conducted shortly after low tide (Figures 7 — 10). This entailed walking meandering transects on the uplands and tidal flats where sediments were stable enough. The uplands are vegetated with a few deciduous and coniferous trees along with dense understory including Scot's broom and Himalayan blackberry. The derelict barge and an adjacent segment of the upland are covered by concrete. Sand, cobbles, and naturally occurring shells were found on the tidal flat adjacent to the derelict barge. Heel scrapes in this area did not expose any indication of archaeological sites.Survey did not identify any aboveground evidence of archaeological or historic sites. Subsurface testing was conducted to characterize subsurface conditions and gauge the potential for buried archaeological sites to be present(Figure 11). Testing targeted the interface between the fill and native soils in order to identify any archaeological deposits that might be exposed during fill removal. A backhoe was used to excavate test trenches that exposed deposits to the depth of proposed disturbance. A 4-foot wide smooth-bladed bucket was used for trenches 1 through 3. Hard, compacted conditions in trench 4 necessitated use of a 2-foot wide toothed bucket. Sediments in the trenches consisted of a variety of fill materials overlying very gravelly sands and sand. Fill was evident to depths of 6 to 10 feet below surface (Figure 12; Table 3). Large oyster shell fragments (whole or nearly whole valves) were present near the ground surface and occasionally deeper in each test pit within fill material and were considered representative of animal foraging activity or discard from recent shellfish harvesting and processing. Other debris was present at varying depths including metal,plastic, glass, concrete, and material with a petroleum odor. Deposits beneath the fill exhibited some evidence of disturbance(i.e. modern debris items). No features, charcoal, shell, bones, or other archaeological evidence was found in any of the test pits. Area Examined: The entire APE. Date(s) of Survey: May 13, 2015 Weather and Surface Visibility: Cool weather conditions with mostly cloudy skies; surface visibility was good on the tidal flats at low tide and poor on the uplands due to coverage by concrete and vegetation. 4. Results Cultural Resources Identified: None. Project Conclusions,Findings and Recommendations: Survey did not result in the identification of archaeological or historic sites in the project location. Due to the association of the mouth of the Dosewallips River with a Tuwaduq place name (Elmendorf and Kroeber 1992), CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 7 it the project location was considered to have the potential to contain remains of precontact and contact-era occupations. However,the landscape of the project, formerly a tidal flat adjacent to sloped uplands, has been altered by filling and emplacement of the barge. The derelict barge on the property appears to be associated with middle twentieth century fish or shellfish processing and was not placed on the property until ca. 1969. Subsurface testing identified thick fill deposits overlying alluvial and tidal flat deposits. Project plans indicate that native soils will not be removed. Based upon the absence of archaeological material in the test trenches, the project is considered to have a low potential to affect archaeological sites. No further cultural resources evaluation is recommended necessary. In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities do result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, work should be halted in the immediate area and contact made with the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in Olympia. Work should be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation is concluded. In the unlikely event of the inadvertent discovery of human remains, work should be immediately halted in the area,the discovery covered and secured against further disturbance, and contact effected with law enforcement personnel(see Attachment B). No historic properties affected [x] Historic properties affected [ No adverse effect to historic properties [ Adverse effect to historic properties [ Attachments: Figures [x] Photographs [x] Other [x] Copies of project correspondence between CRC and cultural resources staff of the Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, Skokomish, and Suquamish tribes. 5. Limitations of this Assessment No cultural resources study can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for prehistoric sites,historic properties or traditional cultural properties to be associated with a project. The information presented in this report is based on professional opinions derived from our analysis and interpretation of available documents, records, literature, and information identified in this report, and on our field investigation and observations as described herein. Conclusions and recommendations presented apply to project conditions existing at the time of our study and those reasonably foreseeable. The data, conclusions, and interpretations in this report should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions described in this report. They cannot necessarily apply to site changes of which CRC is not aware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project, Jefferson County,WA Page 8 6. References Cited Artifacts Consulting, Inc. 2011 A Maritime Resource Survey For Washington's Saltwater Shores. Prepared for Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Babcock, Scott, and Bob Carson 2000 Hiking Washington's Geology. The Mountaineers, Seattle. Bailey,Ida, and Vern Bailey 1997 A Scrapbook History of Brinnon. Perry Publishing, Bremerton, Washington. Balch, T. B. 1947 History of Brinnon. In Hood Canal Kitchen Kapers. Quilcene Pre-School Parent- Teachers Association, Quilcene,Washington. Bureau of Land Management(BLM) 2015 Land Patent Search—BLM GLO Records. Electronic resource, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx, accessed May 11, 2015. Carlson, R. L. 1990 Cultural Antecedents. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7:Northwest Coast,pp. 60-69. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Dancey, W. S. 1968 Archaeology of Mossyrock Reservoir, Washington. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. Elmendorf, William W., and A. L. Kroeber 1992 The Structure of Twana Culture, With Comparative Notes on the Structure of Yurok Culture. Washington State University Press, Pullman, WA. Fox, Matt 2009 Google Earth Library, Historical T-Sheets. Electronic resource, http://www.gelib.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/tsheets_nl.kml, accessed May 11, 2015. Franklin, Jerry F., and C. T. Dymess 1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,General Technical Report PNW-8. Google Inc. 2015 Google Earth Pro(Version 7.1.4.1529) [Software] Available from http://www.google.com/earth/download/gep/agree.html, accessed April 23, 2015. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project, Jefferson County,WA Page 9 Gunther, E. 1927 Klallam Ethnography. Publications in Archaeology 1(5): 171-314. University of Washington, Seattle. Hartmann, G. D. 2010 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Hama Hama Tideland Farms Permit Project, Mason County, WA. Prepared for Hama Hama Company. Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc., Bainbridge Island, Washington. Hermanson,James 2001 Rural Jefferson County, Its Heritage and Maritime History. HistoricAerials.com 2011 HistoricAerials.com. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC, in partnership with USDA and USGS. Electronic resource, http://historicaerials.com/, accessed April 23, 2015. Jefferson County Historical Society 1966 With Pride in Heritage:History of Jefferson County. Professional Publishing Printing, Inc., Portland, Oregon. Kauhi,Tonya C., and Joanne Markert 2009 Washington Statewide Archaeology Predictive Model Report. GeoEngineers, Seattle. Kruckeberg, A. R. 1991 The Natural History of Puget Sound County. University of Washington Press. Seattle. Larson, Lynn L., and Dennis E. Lewarch (eds.) 1995 The Archaeology of West Point, Seattle, Washington: 4,000 Years of Hunter-Fisher- Gatherer Land Use in Southern Puget Sound. Larson AnthropologicaUArchaeological Services, Gig Harbor, Washington. Luttrell, C. T. 2006 Cultural Resources Investigations for the Washington State Department of Transportation US 101: Walker Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Jefferson County, Washington. Prepared for WSDOT, Olympic Region. Archaeological and Historical Services,Eastern Washington University, Cheney. 2010 State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form Update, 45.1E77. On file at Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Marino, Cesare 1990 History of Western Washington Since 1846. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 7: Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles,pp. 169-179. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 10 Metsker, C. F. 1926 Metsker's Atlas of Kitsap County, Washington. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. 1952 Metsker's Atlas of Jefferson County, Washington. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. Metsker,T. C. 1978 Metsker's Atlas of Jefferson County, Washington. Kroll Map Company, Seattle. Morgan, Murray 1979 Puget's Sound:A Narrative of Early Tacoma and the Southern Sound. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Morgan, Vera, Glenn Hartmann, Susan Axton, and Craig Holstine 1999 Cultural Context. In The SR-101 Sequim Bypass Archaeological Project: Mid- to Late- Holocene Occupations on the Northern Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County, Washington,edited by V.E. Morgan,pp. 3.1-3.36. Report prepared for Washington Department of Transportation. Eastern Washington University Reports in Archaeology and History 100-108, Archaeology and Historical Services, Cheney. National Park Service (NPS) 2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.National Register Bulletin No. 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,Washington, D.C. Electronic resource, http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/, accessed June 5, 2013. Neil, S. 2009 Seal Rock Campground Maintenance, Olympic National Forest, Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Report, 10-OLY-01. USDA Forest Service, Olympic National Forest. Nelson, Charles M: 1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, pp. 481-484. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(OAHP) n.d. Washington Heritage Register. Publication on file at Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Orr, Elizabeth, and William N. Orr 1996 Geology of the Pacific Northwest. McGraw-Hill, New York. Puget Sound River History Project(PSRHP) 2003 Hood Canal area orthophotos— 1939. Electronic resource, http://riverhistory.ess.washington.edu/hood/photo_1939/harn/brinnon_se_1939.zip, accessed May 11, 2015. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 11 Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown 1992 A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London. Rutherford, W. 2015 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Conducted on Jefferson County Tax Parcel 502023021, Brinnon, WA 98320. Prepared for Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, Belfair, Washington. ADESA, LLC, Tenino, Washington. Soderberg, L. 1979 Historic American Engineering Record Inventory, Duckabush River Bridge. On file at Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia. Spicer,Richard C. 1986 Glaciers in the Olympic Mountains, Washington:Present Distribution and Recent Variations. Master's thesis, University of Washington, Seattle. Suttles, Wayne 1990 Environment. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles,pp. 16-29. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane 1990 Southern Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7, Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles,pp. 485-502. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Thorson, Robert M. 1981 Isostatic effects of the last glaciation in the Puget Lowland, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 81-370. Todd, Steve,Nick Fitzpatrick, Alan Carter-Mortimer, and Chris Weller 2006 Appendix B-10: Central Hood Canal Sub-region. In Historical Changes to Estuaries, Spits, and Associated Tidal Wetland Habitats in the Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Regions of Washington State. PNPTC Technical Report 06-1. Point No Point Treaty Council, Kingston, Washington. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1940 Washington, Point Misery Quadrangle, Grid Zone G. 1:62,500. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. United States Bureau of Soils 1910 Land Classification Map, Reconnaissance Survey, Puget Sound Basin, Washington. 1:125,000. U.S. Bureau of Soils, Washington, D.C. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey(USCGS) 1883 T-1558a; Sheet No. 3, Hood's Canal, Dabop Bay, Washington Territory. 1:10,000. J. J. Gilbert, Surveyor. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 12 United States Department of Agriculture,Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) 2015 Web Soil Survey. Electronic resource, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, accessed April 1, 2015. United States Geological Survey(USGS) 1999 Brinnon, WA. 7.5-Minute Series. 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. United States Surveyor General (USSG) 1872 General Land Office Cadastral Survey Plat, Township 25 North, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian. Electronic resource, http://www.blm.gov/or/landrecords/survey/yPlatView 1_2.php?path=PWA&name=t250n 020w_002.jpg, accessed May 11, 2015. Waitt, Jr., Richard B., and Robert M. Thorson 1983 The Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. In Late-Quaternary Environments of the United States, Volume 1: The Late Pleistocene, edited by Stephen C. Porter, pp. 53-70. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP) 2014 Survey and Inventory Standards: Washington State Standards for Cultural Resource Reporting. Electronic document, http://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/CRGuidelines_External%20FINAL_1.pdf, accessed November 20, 2014. 2015 The Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data. Electronic resource, https://secureaccess.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/, accessed April 23, 2015. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) 2014 Washington State Coastal Atlas—Shoreline Photos. Coastal Atlas Version 6.2. Electronic resource,https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/ShorePhotos.aspx, accessed May 11, 2015. Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WA DNR) 2015 Washington Interactive Geologic Map. Division of Geology and Earth Resources— Washington's Geological Survey. Electronic resource, https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/geology/, accessed May 11,2015. Wessen, Gary 1987 Archaeological Testing at Seal Rock (45-JE-15), Olympic National Forest, Washington. Prepared for Olympic National Forest. Wessen& Associates, Kirkland, Washington. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 13 7. Figures and Tables jj k ,1 r 4 '.'+L '4 �. elf . � ' « q;,-5, ,:1. 1T- ;, gs. t" - ' p : '. "'""'"•^..4.,:„�. . "`J ...- . - : ' i h.. ` ..trvnna•:i v.vu...;H Brinnon ,. Restoration j- r.. ;,f .• Project , .. .,\,,,,,i—..,-.."------.' f r!' l y . .r~ r, ti {. I r l h ` • R f /• _ I� jar' -...f• b'c r - t ...% - � rj.1l�. i+, ti 1 �/ , Figure 1.Project location(outlined in red)shown on portion of the Brinnon,WA 7.5' USGS quadrangle. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 14 Y�- Iri 4 S 5 'd �5 � 5 � .g �� fa'r 11rr Yq_ !PjI Y r r r i + • ks S ri s01 ACS ' « Ytp ■'zi i« #i ,� r .; tr: �, a Area for"Parked"Barge timated S .l J �After Praj i77` N I Feet 0 50 100 200 300 400 Figure 2.Project overview showing proposed work on aerial imagery,provided by Hood Canal Salmon.APE marked by dashed line. Area for Parked Barge no longer included in project. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,We Page 15 • Figure 3.Air photo showing recent conditions in the project location(WSDOE 2010). ,.: r , e I 4 ` Figure 4.Approximate project location marked on portion of GLO map(USSG l's ";, CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 16 I i,„,.., . , y.,:- * •4 — If fr. -• '-_ ,,,, I" • $.1r$ •,...*,..--- --...,, YA::. ta a+w' p a.. r its -.,,., 1 4t$ 4 is �4 1 '°& —4-4,', k M".VrM. . 'w ti. ., I. MM r in ✓ -}yi µ w — Y } }' ' ( .:Iv ..,. y y j {.41 (�� u4 i i X ^ _ � t "�r Lp+f�f xf .v _-e..®....,..,..W -............... ...�.. il ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„ , Fi'gur'e 5.Historical coast survey chart showing the project location (Fox 2009; I SCGS 1883). a r Y �g. a '� r Yu . 8 � � ' t aI ° ;^i. .fie1 r r��i p 3 _. „4,44, s 5 y , It. / ..., s. tt Figure 6.Air photo showing the project location in 1977(WSDOE 2014). CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 17 Table 1.Cultural resource investigations at DAHP within approximately one mile from the project. Author Date Title Results Wilt and 2001 Results of a Cultural Resources Survey Background research and pedestrian survey did Roulette of the Bonneville Power not identify any archaeological or historic sites Administration's Olympia to Port near the current project.One high probability Angeles Fiber Optic Project Area area identified north of the project.Additional fieldwork recommended in the event that ground- disturbing work is required in high probability areas. Kelley 2006 Cultural Resource Survey of the Background research and pedestrian survey led to Dosewallips State Park Bridge identification and inventory of one historic-era Construction and Trail Maintenance archaeological site(45JE302).It was determined Project that the project would not affect the site.No further work recommended. Luttrell 2006 Cultural Resources Investigations for Background research,pedestrian survey,and the Washington State Department of subsurface testing did not identify any Transportation US 101:Walker Creek archaeological or historic sites.No further work Bridge Replacement Project recommended. Bundy 2007 Memo to Jeff Sawyer RE:A Cultural Background research and pedestrian survey did Resources Survey for a State Highways not identify any archaeological or historic sites. Safety Project,XL 2645 No further work recommended. Hoyt 2009 Lower Dosewallips River Restoration Background research and pedestrian survey did Project-Phase III,Jefferson County, not identify any archaeological or historic sites. Washington No further work recommended. Luttrell 2010 Letter to Jessica Logan re:Dosewallips Background research,pedestrian survey,and State Park-Small Improvement subsurface testing did not identify any Projects,Jefferson County archaeological or historic sites.The project coincided with the recorded location of 45JE77 but this location was determined to be incorrect and the site form was updated. Merrill 2011 Results of a Pedestrian Survey of Select Background research and pedestrian survey led to Areas of the Dosewallips State Park identification and inventory of two historic-era archaeological sites(45JE356 and 45JE357). No further work recommended. Cauffman 2014 Cultural Resources Survey and Background research,pedestrian survey,and Presence/Absence Testing for the subsurface testing did not identify any Proposed Dosewallips Restoration archaeological or historic sites.No further work Project recommended. Luttrell 2015 Dosewallips State Park-Clean Water Background research,pedestrian survey,and Signs Project subsurface testing did not identify any archaeological or historic sites.No further work recommended. Table 2.Archaeological sites recorded within a distance of one mile from the project.No archaeological sites have been recorded in or adjacent to the project. Site Site Type Distance from Historic Register Status Potential Number Project Project Effects 45JE77 None .5 mile N Determined not cultural. None. 451E302 Historic logging properties .4 mile NW Unevaluated. None. 45JE356 Historic bridges .75 mile NW Unevaluated. None. 45JE357 Historic road,historic commercial .65 mile NNW Unevaluated. None. properties CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 18 R i 74 g' � t7-4" Da k`&36w _ ri vi vj `� . �, Y� tia�'°y,��.' e e �x" *tee ';. k'. Figure 7.Upland conditions in the northern part of the project where fill will be removed;view is to the west. „,**1•NF Figure 8.Concrete covered area atop and adjacent to the derelict barge;view is to the northwest. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 19 tR .. Vati wlt.I 111l.14.'. art Figure 9.Overview of tidal flat adjacent to barge as seen from atop derelict barge;view is to the east. • Sq „„ teN. orPrl zA r� +-tttnaa Figure 10.Derelict barge to be removed from project;view is to the northeast. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 20 �'*-74<--: 4 91P .�- a , y aM y' b -0., +R� bx ° 3 i� s i9r ,iy� t' - �_ sue' iii a Y � . . , w^w rJt : I '15 a= .9' a a +� .' i x t o 4 yr 't 1,411 �. '�P ' 1t i! d a t x ,.A., •wok 6u�F m } ggpp v8 T. kT`.. c l A j {,, Y Figure 11.Area surveyed and locations of trenches mar ked on aerial imagery(base map:Google Eart h). Table 3.Summary of subsurface testing results,for the Brinnon Restoration Project. Test Location(WGS84 UTM Stratigraphic Description Archaeological Pit# Zone 10 coordinates,+1- Materials 5 meters) Found l 507600E,5281053N 0-1 ft:brown gravelly loam(fill); None. 1-2.5 ft:very gravelly compacted grayish brown sandy loam with large oyster shells(fill); 2.5-6 ft:gray gravelly loamy sand with a few oyster shells(fill); 6-8 ft: cobbly,gravelly sand(beach or alluvium); 8-8.5 ft:gray silt and sand(tidal flat). End on tidal flat. I CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 21 r Test Location(WGSS4 UTM Stratigraphic Description Archaeological Pit# Zone 10 coordinates,+/- Materials 5 meters) Found 2 507574E,5281058N 0-4 ft:grayish brown somewhat compacted gravelly loam with a None. few oyster shells,metal chain/tie-down,and plastic hose(fill); 4-8 ft:gravelly,cobbly coarse sand with fragments of thick white ceramic(insulator?)(fill or disturbed alluvium); 8-9: gray gravelly silt and sand with one piece of glass and fragments of material with petroleum odor(disturbed tidal flat). End on tidal flat. 3 507560E,5281046N 0-7 ft:grayish brown somewhat compacted gravelly loam with a None. few oyster shells,concrete blocks,slab,and rubble,plastic pipe, and brown bottle glass fragments(fill); 7-10 ft:gravelly,cobbly coarse sand with quarry rock,metal fragment,and pieces of material with petroleum odor(fill or disturbed alluvium). End at reach of backhoe. 4 507549E,5281054N 0-4 ft:very compact,very gravelly grayish brown sandy loam None. with oyster shell at surface; 4-6.5 ft:very gravelly grayish brown sandy loam; 6.5-10 ft:very gravelly coarse sand(alluvium); 10-10.5 ft:gray gravelly silt and sand with one piece of material with petroleum odor(disturbed tidal flat). End on tidal flat. • �Sd hl` 1"40•"-, , "' • r 4 •kE ' M L� aNY » 1� &n • FiLure 12.'f}picd1 ,uhstrtace cunditivn: peen in trench 1. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 22 Attachment A. Copies of project correspondence between CRC and cultural resources staff of the Jamestown S'Klallam,Lower Elwha Klallam,Port Gamble S'Klallam, Skokomish, and Suquamish tribes. 1 CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 23 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. March 23,2015 Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe Gideon Cauffman,Cultural Resources 1033 Old Blyn Highway Sequim,WA 98382 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project,Brinnon,WA Dear Gideon: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources.The project is located in Section 2,Township 25 North, Range 02 West Willamette Meridian at Highway 101 in Brinnon,Jefferson County,WA.Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is requesting this assessment prior to beginning a restoration project on Tax Parcel 502023021.The project will remove a derelict creosote barge along with associated fill material,as well as design and construct the exposed shoreline to imitate the historic shoreline.The barge and fill material will be taken off site for disposal.Ground disturbance will occur under the 200'by 46'footprint of the barge,as well as under the adjacent fill material,which covers roughly an additional 15,000 square feet.The fill material,which is laid in a long strip roughly 70'wide,slopes downward to sea level,starting at a depth of roughly 14'deep.Construction may utilize a barge brought in and parked on the south side of the derelict barge. The project area is believed to have been a ferry landing for service that ran from Brinnon to Seabeck in the earlier 20th century;and,used as a fish processing facility in the mid-20th century.The barge itself may have been brought on-beach in 1968. We are in.the process of reviewing available information.Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports,and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies.Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources.Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment,we would very much like to include it in our study.Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments.I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D.Hartmann President/Principal Investigator CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 24 • Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc, March 23,2015 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe Bill White,Cultural Resources 2851 Lower Elwha Rd Port Angeles,WA 98363 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project,Brinnon,WA Dear Bill: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources.The project is located in Section 2,Township 25 North, Range 02 West Willamette Meridian at Highway 101 in Brinnon,Jefferson County,WA.Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is requesting this assessment prior to beginning a restoration project on Tax Parcel 502023021.The project will remove a derelict creosote barge along with associated fill material,as well as design and construct the exposed shoreline to imitate the historic shoreline.The barge and fill material will be taken off site for disposal.Ground disturbance will occur under the 200'by 46'footprint of the barge,as well as under the adjacent fill material,which covers roughly an additional 15,000 square feet.The fill material,which is laid in a long strip roughly 70'wide,slopes downward to sea level,starting at a depth of roughly 14'deep.Construction may utilize a barge brought in and parked on the south side of the derelict barge. The project area is believed to have been a ferry landing for service that ran from Brinnon to Seabeck in the earlier 20th century;and,used as a fish processing facility in the mid-20th century.The barge itself may have been brought on-beach in 1968. We are in the process of reviewing available information.Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports,and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies.Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources.Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment,we would very much like to include it in our study.Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments.I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D.Hartmann President/Principal Investigator PO BOX 10668,BAINBRIOGE ISLAND,WA 98110 • PHONE 206.855.9020 - intoOcrcwa.com CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 25 • Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. March 23,2015 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Josh Wisniewski,THPO 31912 Little Boston Rd NE Kingston,WA 98346 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project,Brinnon,WA Dear Josh: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources.The project is located in Section 2,Township 25 North, Range 02 West Willamette Meridian at Highway 101 in Brinnon,Jefferson County,WA.Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is requesting this assessment prior to beginning a restoration project on Tax Parcel 502023021.The project will remove a derelict creosote barge along with associated fill material,as well as design and construct the exposed shoreline to imitate the historic shoreline.The barge and fill material will be taken off site for disposal.Ground disturbance will occur under the 200'by 46'footprint of the barge,as well as under the adjacent fill material,which covers roughly an additional 15,000 square feet.The fill material,which is laid in a long strip roughly 70'wide,slopes downward to sea level,starting at a depth of roughly 14'deep.Construction may utilize a barge brought in and parked on the south side of the derelict barge. The project area is believed to have been a ferry landing for service that ran from Brinnon to Seabeck in the earlier 20th century;and,used as a fish processing facility in the mid-20th century.The barge itself may have been brought on-beach in 1968. We are in the process of reviewing available information.Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports,and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies.Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources.Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment,we would very much like to include it in our study.Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments.I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D.Hartmann President/Principal Investigator CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 26 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc, March 23,2015 Skokomish Tribe Kris Miller,Cultural Resources North 80 Tribal Center Rd Skokomish,WA 98584 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project,Brinnon,WA Dear Kris: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources.The project is located in Section 2,Township 25 North, Range 02 West Willamette Meridian at Highway 101 in Brinnon,Jefferson County,WA.Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is requesting this assessment prior to beginning a restoration project on Tax Parcel 502023021.The project will remove a derelict creosote barge along with associated fill material,as well as design and construct the exposed shoreline to imitate the historic shoreline.The barge and fill material will be taken off site for disposal.Ground disturbance will occur under the 200'by 46'footprint of the barge,as well as under the adjacent fill material,which covers roughly an additional 15,000 square feet.The fill material,which is laid in a long strip roughly 70'wide,slopes downward to sea level,starting at a depth of roughly 14'deep.Construction may utilize a barge brought in and parked on the south side of the derelict barge. The project area is believed to have been a ferry landing for service that ran from Brinnon to Seabeck in the earlier 20th century;and,used as a fish processing facility in the mid-20th century.The barge itself may have been brought on-beach in 1968. We are in the process of reviewing available information.Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports,and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies.Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources.Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment,we would very much like to include it in our study.Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments.I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D.Hartmann President/Principal Investigator CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 27 Cultural Resource Consultants, Inc. March 23,2015 Suquamish Tribe Stephanie Trudel PO Box 498 Suquamish,WA 98392-0498 Re: Cultural Resources Assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project,Brinnon,WA Dear Stephanie: I am writing to inform you of a cultural resources assessment for the above referenced project and to seek additional information about the project area the Tribe may have that is not readily available through other written sources.The project is located in Section 2,Township 25 North, Range 02 West Willamette Meridian at Highway 101 in Brinnon,Jefferson County,WA.Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group is requesting this assessment prior to beginning a restoration project on Tax Parcel 502023021.The project will remove a derelict creosote barge along with associated fill material,as well as design and construct the exposed shoreline to imitate the historic shoreline.The barge and fill material will be taken off site for disposal.Ground disturbance will occur under the 200'by 46'footprint of the barge,as well as under the adjacent fill material,which covers roughly an additional 15,000 square feet.The fill material,which is laid in a long strip roughly 70'wide,slopes downward to sea level,starting at a depth of roughly 14'deep.Construction may utilize a barge brought in and parked on the south side of the derelict barge. The project area is believed to have been a ferry landing for service that ran from Brinnon to Seabeck in the earlier 20th century;and,used as a fish processing facility in the mid-20th century.The barge itself may have been brought on-beach in 1968. We are in the process of reviewing available information.Background research will include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, review of previously recorded cultural resource reports,and review of pertinent published literature and ethnographies.Results of our investigations will be presented in a technical memo. We are aware that not all information is contained within published sources.Should the Tribe have additional information to support our assessment,we would very much like to include it in our study.Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments.I appreciate your assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Glenn D.Hartmann • Pre sident/Principal Investigator CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 28 Tribal llistoiic Preservation Officer y�'r Fi,aeries fetxenrnent G... 3W-04-852g Fax 3(>ntst-4 4666 THE SLJQUAM ISH TRIBE PO.Om 4c03 Soc uamish,Washington 9'8392 March 24,2015 Mr.Glenn Hartmann Cultural Resource Consultants,Inc. PO Box 10668 Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 RE: Brinnon Restoration Project,Brinnon,Jefferson County,Washington Request for Traditional Cultural Property Information Suquamish Tribe Reference: 15-03-24-02 Dear Glenn: Thank you for consulting with the Suquamish Tribe regarding CRC's cultural resources assessment for the Brinnon Restoration Project in Brinnon,WA. The Tribe does not have any specific statements or concerns about the proposed project at this time. Please contact me at 360-394-8533 or via e-mail at strudelq,suquamish.nsn.us as additional project information becomes available. Sincerely, triman,f. i".7rudel Stephanie E.Trudel Archaeologist Cc: Gretchen Kaehler,Local Government Archaeologist,Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 29 .. �- Margaret Berger<margaret @crcwa.com> Custwv.14.suoct CONY.A v4 I.c. 1503A Brinnon Restoration Miller,Kris<kmiller @skokomish.org> Mon,Mar 30,2015 at 3:45 PM To:Margaret Berger<margaret@crcwa.com> Could you keep me posted on the survey,I was going to say that a survey should be done as this is on area of high potential for cultural sensitivity. Thank you, On Thu,Mar 26,2015 at 7:28 AM,Margaret Berger<margaret©crcwa.com>wrote: Yes,we are planning to conduct a survey(schedule pending right-of-entry from current property owner). Ground disturbance for this project will involve removing fill up to 14 feet deep from a-200 ft by 70 ft area, along with removal of a barge.Please let us know if you have any more questions. -Margaret On Wed,Mar 25,2015 at 9:38 AM,Miller,Kris<kmiller @skokomish.org>wrote: Good morning Margaret 6 Glenn, Do you all have an idea about ground disturbance,and are you conducting a survey? On Wed,Mar 25,2015 at 9:23 AM,Teresa Peterson<teresa@crcwa.com>wrote: Good Morning Kris- Let me include a project area overview map for your reference and also include Margaret Berger,Project Archaeologist in this email string.She is a better person to discuss the high cultural sensitivity with but is out of the office until next week. Appreciate your review. Thank you, Teresa On Tue,Mar 24,2015 at 3:59 PM,Miller,Kris<kmiller @skokomish.org>wrote: Teresa, Hi,do you have any other documentation that I can review for this project? I can tell you from what you sent that this area is of high cultural sensitivity to the 5kokomish tribe. Do you have information that can explain how much if any ground disturbance will take place? Thank you, Kris On Man,Mar 23,2015 at 9:33 AM,Teresa Peterson<teresa@crcwa.com>wrote: Hi Kris- Attached please find a letter regarding an upcoming project in Brinnon. If you have any questions or concerns,please let us know. CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 30 Thank you, Teresa Our office has moved to 197 Parfitt Way SW,Suite 100,Bainbridge Island. Teresa Peterson Office Manager Cultural Resource Consultants,Inc. PO Box 10668 Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 206 855-9020 web: www.crcwa.com Kris Miller Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 80 N Tribal Center Road Skokomish, WA 98584 shlanay1 lskokomish,org Our office has moved to 197 Parfitt Way SW,Suite 100,Bainbridge Island. Teresa Peterson Office Manager Cultural Resource Consultants,Inc. PO Box 10668 Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 206 855-9020 web: www.crcwa.com Kris Miller Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 80 N Tnba!Center Road Skokomish, WA 98584 shlanayi@skokomish.org Margaret Berger Project Archaeologist Cultural Resource Consultants,Inc. P.O.Box 10668 Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 206-855-9020(office) 206-979-3652(cell) CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 31 Attachment B. Inadvertent Discovery Plan Protocols for Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during project implementation, the following actions will be taken: In the find location, all ground disturbing activity at the location will stop. The find location will be secured from any additional impacts and the supervisor will be informed. The project proponent will immediately contact the agencies with jurisdiction over the lands where the discovery is located, if appropriate. The appropriate agency archaeologist or the proponent's contracting archaeologist will determine the size of the work stoppage zone or discovery location in order to sufficiently protect the resource until further decisions can be made regarding the work site. The project proponent will consult with DAHP regarding the evaluation of the discovery and the appropriate protection measures, if applicable. Once the consultation has been completed, and if the site is determined to be NRHP-eligible, the project proponent will request written concurrence that the agency or tribe(s) concurs that the protection and mitigation measures have been fulfilled. Upon notification of concurrence from the appropriate parties, the project proponent will proceed with the project. Within six months after completion of the above steps, the project proponent will prepare a fmal written report of the discovery. The report will include a description of the contents of the discovery, a summary of consultation, and a description of the treatment or mitigation measures. Protocols for Discovery of Human Remains If human remains are found within the project area,the project proponent, its contractors or permit-holders,the following actions will be taken, consistent with Washington State RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055: If ground-disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains,then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance. The project proponent will prepare a plan for securing and protecting exposed human remains and retain consultants to perform these services. The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched,moved, or further disturbed. The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non- forensic. If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic,then they will report that finding to DAHP, which will then take jurisdiction over the remains. DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate-cemeteries and the affected tribes. DAHP will then handle CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 32 all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Contact Information Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe 1033 Old Blyn Highway, Sequim 98382 Lead Representative: W. Ron Allen, Chair, 360-681-4621 Primary Contact: Gideon Cauffman, Cultural Resources, 360-681-4638 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe 2851 Lower Elwha Rd, Port Angeles 98363 Lead Representative: Frances Charles, Chair, 360-452-8471 ext 106 Primary Contact: William S. White, Cultural Resources, 360-460-1617 Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe 31912 Little Boston Rd NE, Kingston 98346 Lead Representative: Jeromy Sullivan, Chair, 360-297-2646 Primary Contact: Josh Wisniewski, Cultural Resources, 360-297-6282 Skokomish Tribe North 80 Tribal Center Rd, Skokomish Nation, WA 98584 Lead Representative: Charles "Guy" Miller, Chair, 360-490-6679 Primary Contact: Kris Miller, Cultural Resources, 360-426-2280 ext 215 Suquamish Tribe 15838 Sandy Hook Rd; POB 498, Suquamish 98392-0498 Lead Representative: Leonard Forsman, Chair, 360-394-8461 Primary Contact: Dennis Lewarch, Cultural Resources, 360-394-8529 Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343, Olympia,WA 98504-8343 Lead Representative: Allyson Brooks, State Historic Preservation Officer, 360-586-3066 Primary Contact: Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist, 360-586-3080 Primary Contact for Human Remains: Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, 360-586-3534 Jefferson County Sheriffs Department 79 Elkins Road, Port Hadlock, WA 98339 Non-Emergency Phone: 360-385-3831 Jefferson County Coroner's Office PO Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Lead Representative: Scott W. Rosekrans, Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner, 360-385-9180 CRC Technical Memorandum 1503A-2 Brinnon Restoration Project,Jefferson County,WA Page 33 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC,. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal and Restoration Special Provision Technical Specifications Permit Level — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Prepared for: Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group Prepared by: Coastal Geologic Services Inc. JUN 222015 546-- JEFFERSON COUNTY DCO COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES May 26, 2015 Introduction The Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal project seeks to restore estuarine habitat at the mouth of Walkers Creek,which feeds into the greater Dosewallips River estuary complex in Jefferson County Washington near the town of Brinnon on Hood Canal. Design elements detailed within this specification document include BMPs, notification,WMP,TESC,SPCCP, responsibilities, records, mobilization,traffic control,construction survey,clearing and grubbing, removal of derelict barge, removal of shore armor, removal of concrete,clearing and grubbing, removal of barge, removal of shore armore, removal of concrete, removal of asphalt, removal of cisterns, excavation and removal of fill,excavation and stockpile of beach nourishment quality material, removal and placement of large wood, silt fence, stabilized construction entrance,wood chip mulch, brush pile,snag, and final clean up. Vegetation enhancement details are provided by others and are not included in this document except for planting area and habitat enhancement plan preparation under"Remove,Stockpile,and Place Large Wood", "Wood Chip Mulch" and "Brush Pile". Best Management Practices (BMPs) The work area is subject to tidal inundation from Hood Canal as well as adjacent discharge from Walker Creek and the Dosewallips River. Therefore,the Contractor shall anticipate working in intertidal elevations with wet and weak soils.The Contractor shall control its work to comply with all federal,state, and local project permits for the protection of wildlife and the environment. BMPs shall be followed to reduce erosion, reduce environmental impact, and maintain a safe work area. There shall be no separate payment for water control,water diversion, permit compliance, and BMPs. This work shall be incidental to the Lump Sum Bid Item included in "Mobilization". BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • The Contractor shall schedule all activities to minimize the length of time during which there is in- water work to minimize impacts to aquatic resources. • Work within the intertidal area shall not occur while the active work area is inundated by the tide. • Timing of construction activities is to occur during daylight hours. 1711 Ellis St. Suite 103, Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 647-1845 www.coastalgeo.com Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April 13,2015 Page 2 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. • Timing of construction activities immediately adjacent to the intertidal is to occur during lower tide intervals,as feasible,when beach substrates within the project area are exposed, rather than submerged; • The Contractor shall use vegetable-based hydraulic fluids instead of petroleum-based products for equipment to be used near or within aquatic habitat action areas. • The contractor shall have a spill containment kit on-site • The Contractor shall operate equipment where ground is relatively stable. Equipment is not allowed atop the barge. • The Contractor shall only access the project site within 25 foot work corridor except towards the saltmarsh area north of the fill area.The contractor shall not operate equipment within the saltmarsh. • When feasible,the Contractor shall reduce the potential for soil compaction from equipment use and transport by sequencing construction phases to initiate work at locations further from the project access point and then working to "back out"of the site at final project completion. • The Contractor shall comply with all timing restrictions as specified by the permits. Notification The project will be conducted according to WDFW's requirements for a Hydraulic Project Approval, which includes written pre-notification to WDFW at least 48 hours prior to the initiation of project work. Notification is also required should fish distress or kill occur as a result of the project actions. Water Management Plan (WMP) The Contractor shall develop, implement, maintain, and regularly update a Project specific Water Management Plan (WMP).The WMP shall include all materials, equipment, and labor to be used for the duration of the project for water management of surface water required for construction. The WMP shall include: • Name of person who will be responsible for implementing and carrying out the plan. • Demonstration of compliance with State and local waste disposal • Sequencing, schedule(including tidal cycles and work periods), and materials plans. • Methods for preventing or controlling treated wood and other release of sediment off-site through runoff and erosion related to water management, both during and after construction, including some portion of the following elements: o Bulk Bag Isolation Dams o Silt/Turbidity Curtains o Pumps and Appurtenances o Buffer zones o Other impacted areas • Contingencies for unexpected high water levels. The WMP shall be submitted to the Owner's Representative a minimum of 5 working days prior to the installation of any water management components. This work shall be incidental to the Lump Sum Bid Item included in "Mobilization". Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April 13,2015 Page 3 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESP) Plan The Contractor shall identify the ESC Lead at the preconstruction discussions and in the TESC Plan.The ESC Lead shall have,for the life of the Contract, a current Certificate of Training in Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control from a course approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The ESC Lead shall implement the TESC Plan. Implementation shall include, but is not limited to: • Installing and maintaining all temporary erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) included in the TESC Plan to assure continued performance of their intended function. Damaged or inadequate TESC BMPs shall be corrected immediately. • Updating the TESC Plan to reflect current field conditions. The TESC Lead shall also inspect all areas disturbed by construction activities, all on-site erosion and sediment control BMPs, and all stormwater discharge points every calendar week and within 24 hours of runoff events in which stormwater discharges from the site or as directed by the Owner's Representative. Inspections of temporarily stabilized, inactive sites may be reduced to once every calendar month.This work shall be incidental to the Lump Sum Bid Item included in "Mobilization". Contractor Responsibilities during Construction The Contractor shall continue to inform the Owner's Representative of changes in the construction plans or schedule once construction has commenced.The Contractor shall notify the Owner's Representative of upcoming ground disturbing activities a minimum of 24 business hours in advance of planned construction. Archaeological or historical objects,such as ruins, sites, buildings, artifacts,fossils, or other objects of antiquity that may have significance from a historical or scientific standpoint,which may be encountered by the Contractor,shall not be further disturbed.The Contractor shall immediately notify the Owner's Representative of any such finds. The Contractor shall be watchful for indicators of unidentified cultural materials.These indicators will be discussed in the Pre-Construction briefing. If indicators are present at any time,the Contractor shall immediately notify the Owner's Representative. Site activities shall be carried out in such a way as to not disturb native soils. The activities described above are considered incidental to the Contract.There will be no separate measurement or payment for these activities. Records Contractor shall keep an account of all materials used on this project and shall make such records available to Owner upon request. Contractor shall keep a record of as-built conditions and shall submit a redlined plan set to the Owner's Representative no more than 15 business days after substantial completion.There will be no separate measurement or payment for these activities. Mobilization This item shall consist of preparation work and operations performed by the Contractor. Mobilization shall also include Demobilization in accordance with the pay schedule identified herein. In addition, all costs for acquiring, preparing, and cleaning up the staging area for the project will be considered part of this item. Based on the lump sum contract price for, 'Mobilization', partial payments will be made. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April13,2015 Page 4 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Submittals: • TESC Plan • WMP • Accident Prevention Program and Site Specific Safety Plan. • List of subcontractors. • Approved Statement of Intent to Pay Prevailing Wages. • Progress Schedule. • Emergency Contact List. • Disposal Plan. Payment for"Mobilization" shall be per lump sum. Mobilization shall include moving and removing equipment to the job site, inspections and testing;acquisition and payment for permits,fees, bonds and insurance. Temporary Traffic Control This item shall consist of furnishing, installing and removing all temporary traffic control devices necessary for the project. The signs shall be furnished and installed at the beginning of the project and shall be removed upon final acceptance.The Contractor shall provide a Temporary Traffic Control plan compliant with Manual on Uniform Traffic and Control Devices (2102 Supplement to the 2004 Edition of Standard Highway Signs)for approval. Submittals: Traffic control and signing plan for approval. Payment for "Temporary Traffic Control"shall be per lump sum. Labor for Traffic Control This work shall provide for the labor required to perform traffic flagging activities. Measurement for this item shall be for each hour actually spent flagging traffic.Time shall be measured to the 0.5 hour.The Contractor's Daily Report of Traffic Control shall be turned in by next business day.All other traffic control related materials,tools, equipment,and labor to perform this work as specified shall be considered incidental to the various items of the contract.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Submittals: Contractor's Daily Report of Traffic Control Payment for"Labor for Traffic Control"shall be by the unit price per hour. Payment shall be full compensation for all tools, equipment, labor, materials,and incidental required to complete this work. Minimum bid shall be equal or more than the relevant prevailing wage. Construction Survey This item consists of providing all stake-out survey, quality surveys, and an as-built survey. The Contractor's surveyor shall use project benchmarks and site control provided on the plans. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to schedule survey and to verify that work has met the requirements prior to proceeding to the next sequence of work. The Contractor may utilize equipment on site that allows for real-time comparison between design drawings and constructed elevations and grades, or other equivalent method,to be approved by the Owner's Representative. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April 13, 2015 Page 5 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Surveys of the project shall use the same vertical datum and horizontal coordinate system as the drawings. Project Stake Out Surveying:The Contractor shall stake out project design elements. The Contractor's surveyor shall set stakes for project actions including removal activities, grading, and planting preparation areas.The Contractor shall reset stakes disturbed or destroyed during construction as needed. Construction Progress Surveying:The Contractor will perform progress surveying during construction to verify earthwork activities are meeting required tolerances. Progress surveying shall include topographic surveying if needed where applicable. Construction progress surveys shall be conducted to monitor the accuracy of the work being performed. Progress surveys shall be provided to the Owner's Representative for review and approval when requested. Post Construction-Surveying (As-built Surveying):The Contractor will perform a post-construction as- built topographic and feature extent survey where applicable of the entire project site.The as-built survey will detail final grades, and grade elevations. The Owner reserves the right to retain an independent surveyor to periodically check the Contractor's survey. Surveying performed by the Owner will be at no cost to the Contractor unless to Owner's surveyor identifies project elements previously accepted as within tolerances are not within tolerances. Submittals: • Project survey data shall be stored as electronic files formats as DWG and PDF. • On request,field notes and quality survey submittals. • The as-built survey shall have associated surfaces delivered in DWG format. • At a minimum, data for each survey point shall include a sequential reference number,the elevation, and appropriate northing and easting coordinates. • Progress construction surveys shall be submitted in hard copy form to Owner's Representative (or as real-time display)for approval when requested. Hard copies of the progress surveys shall be submitted prior to submittal of progress payment requests. Payment for"Construction Survey" shall be per lump sum basis and include full pay for labor, equipment, materials,and supervision utilized to perform stake-out, interim,and as-built conditions surveying specified including any resurveying,checking, correction of errors, replacement of missing or damaged stakes and coordination efforts. Clearing and Grubbing This item shall consist of clearing and grubbing for construction and cleanup as shown on the plans. Included in this item is the removal and disposal of all vegetation including noxious weeds within the clearing and grubbing limits (excluding conifer trees and vegetation meeting specifications in "Remove, Stockpile, and Place Large Wood", "Snag" and "Bruch Piles");an estimated amount of approximately 6- inches of topsoil shall be included as incidental to this item. The contractor shall manage noxious weeds removal from the site. All large coniferous trees at least 12 inch DBH within the clearing limits will be stockpiled and reinstalled on site as detailed in ""Remove, Stockpile, and Place Large Wood" and "Snag". Dosewalhps Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT Apni 13,2015 Page 6 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. All large coniferous felled trees not used in "Remove, Stockpile, and Place Large Wood"and "Snag"shall be placed cross slope within the project area as directed by the Owner's Representative above elevation +13 ft NAVD. Fell all trees that lie within 2 feet of the cut or fill slopes, maintain rootwad if acceptable for"Remove, Stockpile,and Place Large Wood". Remove all stumps that fall within 2 feet of the cut or fill slopes. The clearing limits shall be marked in the field by the Contractor and shall be approved by the Owner's Representative before commencing work. The Contractor shall not injure native trees,shrubbery, plants, and other native vegetation growing outside the slope limits of excavation and embankment.The Contractor shall paint all cut or scarred surfaces of trees or shrubs selected for retention. The paint shall be an approved asphaltum base paint prepared especially for tree surgery. Submittals: none. Payment for"Clearing and Grubbing" shall be per lump sum basis.The lump sum price shall be full compensation for all costs incurred for clearing,grubbing, removing, and disposing as specified. Removal of Derelict Barge Contractor shall follow Washington Department of Natural Resources Best Management Practices for Pile Removal&Disposal to the extent practicable (Attachment A).The Contractor shall provide a Creosote Removal Plan that details the sequence,means, and methods proposed to remove portions of the bulkhead. The plan shall include the following: • Site access and material stockpile techniques. • Proposed BMPs to capture debris in water and address re-suspension/turbidity. • Methods to contain any sawdust from cutting treated lumber. • Proposed transport approach and disposal site. Acceptance of the Creosote Removal Plan by the Owner's Representative is required prior to any creosote removal work. All work for barge removal shall be from relatively stable areas such as adjacent fill and native sediments within the action area. No equipment is allowed atop the barge. Contractor must use plant-based hydraulic fluids and oils in equipment used within the action area. Fasteners and hardware affixed to treated wood shall be removed and hauled with "Removal of Derelict Barge". Large barge,vessel hardware, and other metal that can be disassembled from the treated wood and fill shall be hauled as"Removal of Shore Armor". The Owner's Representative shall approve of large hardware being included with "Removal of Derelict Barge". "Derelict Barge Removal"will be measured by ton in the hauling vehicle as per weight ticket from the disposal facility.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Submittals: Creosote Removal Plan, permit for disposal of material Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April 13,2015 Page 7 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Payment for"Derelict Barge Removal" is per ton.The unit Contract price per ton for"Derelict Barge Removal"shall be full compensation for all costs incurred for all material, labor,tools, equipment, and incidentals required to remove, contain, load, and dispose of treated timber.The creosote removal plan is considered incidental to this line item.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Removal of Shore Armor This item shall consist of completely removing and disposing of the shore armor at the northeast corner of the project site including derelict wood bulkhead,tie-back anchors and angular rock rip rap as per plan. Metals or any other recyclable materials shall be recycled when possible. Contractor must use plant-based hydraulic fluids and oils in equipment used within the action area. There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Approximately 15 tons of derelict bulkhead, large barge hardware, metal, and rip rap shall be removed with this item. Large barge hardware shall also be included with "Removal of Shore Armor". Large barge and vessel hardware that can be disassembled from the treated wood and fill shall be hauled off with "Removal of Shore Armor". Submittals: • Recycling plan Payment for"Removal of Shore Armor" shall be per lump sum. The unit price per lump sum shall be full compensation for all costs incurred for all material, labor,tools,equipment, and incidentals required to remove, load, and dispose of shore armor and metal from the barge. Removal of Concrete This item shall consist of completely removing the concrete barge deck from the project site as per plan. All removed material shall be hauled off site and disposed of in an approved recycling facility or upland disposal area. Contractor must use plant-based hydraulic fluids and oils in equipment used within the action area. Approximately 160 Tons or 4,800 square feet of concrete to be removed with is item. There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Submittals: • Recycling plan Payment for"Removal of Concrete"shall be per lump sum..There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns.The unit price per lump sum shall be full compensation for all costs incurred for all material, labor,tools,equipment,and incidentals required to remove, load, and dispose of concrete. Removal of Asphalt This item shall consist of completely removing and disposing of the asphalt pavement from the project site as per plan. All removed material shall be hauled off site and disposed of in an approved recycling facility or upland disposal area. Contractor must use plant-based hydraulic fluids and oils in equipment used within the action area. There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Approximately 15 tons or 900 square feet of asphalt shall be removed with this item. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April 13,2015 Page 8 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Submittals: • Recycling plan Payment for"Removal of Asphalt"shall be per lump sum.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns.The unit price per lump sum shall be full compensation for all costs incurred for all material, labor, tools, equipment,and incidentals required to remove, load, and dispose of asphalt. Removal of Cistern This item shall consist of completely removing and disposing of two plastic cisterns from the project site as per plan.The cisterns shall be removed from 3 feet below grade and backfilled with adjacent sediment as needed to fill the voids from removal. All removed material shall be hauled off site and disposed of in an approved recycling facility or upland disposal area. Contractor must use plant-based hydraulic fluids and oils in equipment used within the action area.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Submittals: none Payment for"Removal of Cistern"shall be per lump sum and shall include all labor, material, and equipment for removal and haul to the disposal location. Excavation and Removal of Fill The work described in this section, regardless of the nature or type of materials encountered, includes excavation within the barge footprint and associated fill within the action area. Excavation shall be conducted in such a way to allow any native soils encountered during excavation to be left undisturbed. The Contractor shall replace any native soils disturbed and shall not further excavate in areas of native soils. All excavation extending into the intertidal area must be performed during lower tide conditions. Excavation and fill placement shall occur in the dry whenever possible. At the end of each shift, prior to the tide coming in, any excavation must remain free-draining without low areas that could potentially strand fish when the tide retreats. Should any low pools remain at low tide, the Contractor shall coordinate fish removal with the Owner's Representative at the Contractor's expense. The Contractor shall utilize excavating equipment appropriate for the work being performed. The method of excavation shall be the Contractor's responsibility. All methods and equipment used shall result in finished work meeting the construction tolerances specified. Excavate to the lines and grades indicated on the Plans.The bottoms of excavations shall be level,firm, undisturbed earth,clean and free from loose material, debris, and foreign matter. Except as otherwise indicated,the Contractor shall preserve the material below and beyond the lines of excavations. Where excavation is carried below the indicated grade,the Contractor shall backfill to the indicated grade as herein specified. The Contractor shall be responsible for, and shall take all necessary precautions to protect and preserve any and all existing subsurface drains,conduits, utilities, and other underground structures or parts thereof which may be affected by the construction, and which in the opinion of the Owner's Representative may be properly continued in use without any change.The Contractor shall, at his own expense, repair all damage to facilities or structures which results from any of his operations or his negligence. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April13,2015 Page 9 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. If material is encountered that cannot be removed with normal excavation equipment,the Contractor shall promptly notify the Owner's Representative, and a determination shall be made as to its disposition. Any adjustments to the Contract price and time due to changed conditions shall be in accordance with the provisions for changes contained in Contract Documents. Contractor must use plant-based hydraulic fluids and oils in equipment used within the action area. Equipment must not access the action area from the saltmarsh on the north of the fill. The finished surfaces shall be within a 3/10(0.3)foot of tolerance of the grades shown on the design sheets. The Owner's Representative must approve final grades. The unit Contract price per cubic yards for"Excavation and Removal of Fill" shall be per cubic yards from comparisons of survey before and after earthwork excavations of fill material or other approved method.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Measurement method will be agreed upon between the Contractor and Owner's Representative prior to the actual measurement. Submittals: • Method to track volume removed approved Payment for"Excavation and Removal of Fill" is per cubic yard.The unit Contract prices per cubic yard for"Excavation and Removal of Fill" shall be full compensation for all costs incurred for excavating to finish grades as shown on the Plans. Dewatering and coordination for fish removal is considered incidental to this item and no additional payment will be made.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Excavation and Placement of Beach Nourishment Quality Material The work in this section includes excavation,onsite handling, minor sorting, and placement of beach nourishment quality material within the same action area as"Excavation and Fill Removal".This item includes sorting and screening approximately 280 cubic yards of beach quality material to be placed in the void left by barge removal.The sand/gravel fill material just north of the barge if it does not contain silt or clay of more than 8%by weight could be used for beach nourishment and could be stockpiled for this work and does not need screening. Material sorted as not beach quality material during the screening process shall be included in "Excavation and Removal of Fill". The contractor shall take care with ensuring only beach nourishment quality material is placed in the barge footprint area. Submittals: none. Payment for "Excavation and Stockpile of Beach Nourishment Quality Material" is per lump sum and is not allowed to have partial payment. The lump sum price for"Excavation and Stockpile of Beach Nourishment Quality material" shall be full compensation for all costs incurred for excavating, sorting, stockpiling, and placing to grades within tolerances. Dewatering and coordination for fish removal is considered incidental to this item and no additional payment will be made. Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONS I RUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April13,2015 Page 10 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Remove, Stockpile, and Place Large Wood Large conifers with at least 12 inches Diameter at Breast Height(DBH)within the project area shall be felled with rootwad intact for stockpile and placement in the project backshore footprint after project installation. Owner's Representative can approve additional conifers within the project area for large wood placement in the field. All coniferous trees above 12 inch DBH shall be replaced on site as either large woody debris, snag or additional large wood habitat feature. Large wood shall be placed between elevations+9 ft and 13 ft NAVD as per plan and as directed by the Owner's Representative. Large wood shall be buried approximately 1/3 of the cross section along approximately 2/3 of the length of the log with the rootwad end exposed generally in a shore-parallel orientation. Payment for"Remove,Stockpile, and Place Large Wood"shall be lump sum. Price includes materials, labor, tools, equipment,and supplies necessary for the removal, stockpile and placement of large wood as shown on the Plans.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Silt Fence This item shall consist of delivering, installing, maintaining and removing the silt fence. Silt fence, posts, and support fence shall comply with ASTM D 6461. Submittals: none Payment for "Silt Fence"shall be per linear foot.The unit contract price per liner foot for silt fence shall include all costs for removal and disposal of accumulated debris,silt fence maintenance, and silt fence removal and disposal. Damaged silt fence shall not be included for payment. Stabilize Construction Entrance This item shall consist of constructing, operating, maintaining,and removing the stabilized construction entrance. Submittals: None Payment for"Stabilize Construction Entrance" shall lump sum and includes all labor, material, and equipment for constructing, operating, maintaining, and removing. Wood Chip Mulch Wood chip mulch shall be placed in a uniform 4 inch thick layer in the upland and backshore planting areas as per plan.Wood chip mulch shall not contain salt, preservatives,glue, resin, tannin, or other compounds in quantities that would be detrimental to plant life. Sawdust shall not be used as mulch. Areas not accessible by mulching equipment shall be mulched by hand methods.Wood chips from cedar are not allowed in the mulch mix. Mulch shall not be placed in tidally or marine wave inundated areas to maintain the wood chips within the planting areas and not release into the water. Onsite trees within the action area not meeting specification for"Remove, Stockpile, and Place Large Wood" and meeting requirements of these specifications can be ground and used as wood chip mulch. Approximately 4,800 square feet of newly graded or grubbed area will be covered with wood chip mulch. Submittals: none Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April 1.7 2015 Page 11 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. Payment for"Wood Chip Mulch"shall be per lump sum and will include all material, equipment, and labor necessary to stockpile, haul, handle, and install as described in the specifications.There will be no change in unit price for quantity overruns or underruns. Brush Pile A portion of the cut tree and shrub limbs from the grubbing of project area shall be retained for installation as brush piles within the restored wetland and buffer area.The greens and side branches may remain on the cut limbs which shall be minimally 1 inch in diameter and 5 feet long in size. Brush piles shall be constructed at approximately 10 feet minimum in diameter and 5 feet in height. Only native species can be used for brush piles. Blackberry, scotch broom and English ivy cannot be used for brush piles. Submittals: none Payment for"Brush Piles"shall be per each and will include all material, equipment and labor necessary to stockpile and install as described in the specifications. Snag Felled coniferous trees within the clearing limits at least 12 inch DBH not being used for"Remove, Stockpile, and Place Large Wood" shall be retained and stockpiled for installation as snags within the restoration area. The snag must be at least 21 ft long and buried at least 1/3 in the ground to have at least 14 ft above ground.The adjacent grade shall be compacted with an excavator bucket. Only coniferous trees shall be used as snags. Submittals: none Payment for"Snag" shall be per each and will include all material, equipment, and labor necessary to fell, stockpile and install as described in the specifications. Final Clean-Up This item consists of final cleanup of the project site. Final Cleanup shall be performed immediately before written request for final inspection of Contract Work, This work includes removing mud, oil,grease, dirt,and trash and hose down upland asphalt areas such as access and staging areas. This work includes removing trash, debris, and surplus excavated material from the project site and premises. This work includes removing any debris or angular material left within tidally influenced areas. This work includes restoring disturbed areas including, but not limited to staging and stockpiling areas, construction strips, access roads, and areas within clearing limits. This work includes preserving public and private signs, markers,and fences, and maintains in existing locations and condition unless written permission is obtained for removal and restoration or replacement. The contractor shall repair or replace damaged items when directed, at no cost to the Owner. Submittals: None Payment shall be per lump sum.The Owner has defined this lump sum amount of$2,000 Dosewallips Estuary Barge Removal Special Provision Technical Specifications-PERMIT LEVEL -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Permit Level-DRAFT April 13,2015 Page 12 COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES, INC. ATTACHMENT A Washington Department of Natural Resources Puget Sound Initiative — Derelict Creosote Piling Removal. Best Management Practices for Pile Removal & Disposal. Washington Department of Natural Resources Derelict Creosote Piling Removal Best Management Practices For Pile Removal&Disposal The following Best Management Practices (BMPs)are adapted from EPA guidance(2005), Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT)methods and conservation activities as included in Joint Aquatic Resources Protection Application(JARPA) 2005, and Washington State Department of Resources(WADNR)"Standard Practice for the Use and Removal of Treated Wood and Pilings on and from State-Owned Aquatic Lands"2005, as well as WADNR's practical experience through managing piling removal projects since 2006. The purpose of these BMPs is to control turbidity and sediments re-entering the water column during pile removal,and prescribe debris capture and disposal of removed piles and debris. BMP 1. PILE REMOVAL Crane operator shall be experienced in pile removal. Piles will be removed slowly. This will minimize turbidity in the water column as well as sediment disturbance. Pulled pile shall be placed in a containment basin to capture any adhering sediment. This should be done immediately after the pile is initially removed from the water. A. Vibratory extraction 1) This is the preferred method of pile removal. Vibratory extraction shall always be employed first unless the pile is too decayed or short for the vibratory hammer to grip. After consultation with WADNR, the alternative options listed below may be used. 2) The vibratory hammer is a large mechanical device(5-16 tons)that is suspended from a crane by a cable. The hammer is activated to loosen the piling by vibrating as the piling is pulled up. The hammer is shut off when the end of the piling reaches the mudline. Vibratory extraction takes approximately 15 to 30 minutes per piling depending on piling length and sediment condition. 3)Operator will"Wake up"pile to break up bond with sediment. • Vibrating breaks the skin friction bond between pile and soil. • Bond breaking avoids pulling out a large block of soil—possibly breaking off the pile in the process. • Usually there is little or no sediment attached to the skin of the pile during withdrawal. In some cases material may be attached to the pile tip, in line with the pile. B. Direct Pull 1) This method is optional if the contractor determines it to be appropriate for the substrate type,pile length, and structural integrity of the piling. Vibratory extractor must be attempted first unless there is risk of greater disturbance of sediments. 1 Updated 3/19/2013 2) Pilings are wrapped with a choker cable or chain that is attached at the top to a crane. The crane pulls the piling directly upward,removing the piling from the sediment. C. Clamshell Removal 1) Broken and damaged pilings that cannot be removed by either the vibratory hammer or direct pull may be removed with either a clamshell bucket or environmental clamshell. 2) A clamshell is a hinged steel apparatus that operates like a set of steel jaws. The bucket is lowered from a crane and the jaws grasp the piling stub as the crane pulls up. 3) The size of the clamshell bucket shall be minimized to reduce turbidity during piling removal. 4) The clamshell bucket shall be emptied of material onto a contained area on the barge before it is lowered into the water. D. Cutting 1) Is required if the pile breaks at or near the existing substrate and cannot be removed by other methods. 2) If a pile is broken or breaks above the mudline during extraction, all of the methods listed below should be used to cut the pile. a. The pile should be cut 1 foot below the mudline. b. Piles shall be cut off at lowest practical tide condition and at slack water. This is intended to reduce turbidity due to reduced flow and short water column through which pile must be withdrawn. c. In subtidal areas, if the piling is broken off at or below the mudline,the piling may remain. In intertidal areas, seasonal raising and lowering of the beach could expose the pilings above the mudline and leach out PAH's or other contaminants. In this case, the piling should be cut off at least one foot below the mudline. d. No hydraulic jetting devices shall be used to move sediment away from piles. e. The contractor shall provide the location of all the broken and cut piles using a GPS. BMP 2. BARGE OPERATIONS, WORK SURFACE, CONTAINMENT A. Barge grounding will not be permitted. B. Work surface on barge deck or pier, or upland staging area shall include a containment basin for all treated materials and any sediment removed during pulling. Creosote shall be prevented from re-entering the water. Uncontaminated water run-off can return to the waterway. 2 Updated 3/19/2013 1) Containment basin shall be constructed of durable plastic sheeting with continuous sidewalls supported by hay bales,ecology blocks, other non-contaminated materials, or support structure to contain all sediment and creosote. Containment basin shall be lined with oil absorbent boom. 2) Work surface on barge deck and adjacent pier shall be cleaned by disposing of sediment or other residues along with cut off piling as described in BMP#4.B. 3) Containment basin shall be removed and disposed in accordance with BMP#4.B or in another manner complying with applicable federal and state regulations. 4) Upon removal from substrate the pile shall be moved expeditiously from the water into the containment basin. The pile shall not be shaken,hosed-off, left hanging to drip or any other action intended to clean or remove adhering material from the pile. BMP 3. DEBRIS CAPTURE IN WATER A. A floating surface boom shall be installed to capture floating surface debris. The floating boom shall be equipped with absorbent pads to contain any oil sheens. Debris will be collected and disposed of along with cut off piling as described in BMP#4. B. The boom may be anchored with four or fewer'/2 ecology blocks or a similar anchoring device. These anchors must be removed once the project is complete. The anchor system shall be located to avoid damage from vessel props to eelgrass,kelp, and other significant macroalgae species. The line length between the anchor and surface float shall not exceed the water depth as measured at extreme high tide plus a maximum of 20 percent additional line for scope. The buoy system shall include a subsurface float designed to keep the line between the anchor and surface float from contacting the bottom during low tide cycles. The subsurface float shall be located off the bottom a distance equal to 1/3 the line length C. The boom shall be located at a sufficient distance from all sides of the structure or piles that are being removed to ensure that contaminated materials are captured. The boom shall stay in its original location until any sheen present from removed pilings has been absorbed by the boom. BMP#3B may be used to keep the boom in its original location. D. Debris contained within boom shall be removed at the end of each work day or immediately if waters are rough and there is a chance that debris may escape the boom. E. To the extent possible all sawdust shall be prevented from contacting beach,bed, or waters of the state. For example, sawdust on top of decking should be removed immediately after sawing operations. F. Any sawdust that enters the water shall be collected immediately and placed in the containment basin. G. Piles removed from the water shall be transferred to the containment basin without leaving the boomed area to prevent creosote from dripping outside of the boom. 3 Updated 3/19/2013 BMP 4. DISPOSAL OF PILING, SEDIMENT AND CONSTRUCTION RESIDUE A. Piles shall be cut into lengths as required by the disposal company. B. Cut up piling, sediments, absorbent pads/boom, construction residue and plastic sheeting from containment basin shall be packed into container. For disposal, ship to an approved Subtitle D Landfill. C. Creosote-treated materials shall not be re-used. BMP 5. RESUSPENSION/TURBIDITY A. Crane operator shall be trained to remove pile from sediment slowly. B. Work shall be done in low water and low current,to the extent possible. C. Removed piles shall be placed in a containment facility. D. Sediments spilled on work surfaces shall be contained and disposed of with the pile debris at permitted upland disposal site. E. Holes remaining after piling removal shall not be filled. BMP 6. PROJECT OVERSIGHT A. WADNR will have a project manager or other assigned personnel on site. Oversight responsibilities may include, but are not limited to the following: 1) Water quality monitoring to ensure turbidity levels remain within required parameters 2) Ensure contractor follows BMPs 3) Ensure contractor is in compliance with contract and permit requirements 4) Ensure correct structures are removed 5) Maintain contact with regulatory agencies should issues or emergencies arise BMP 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES A. In the event that artifacts (other than the pilings or materials attached to them)that appear to be 50 years old or older are found during the project,the WADNR Aquatics archaeologist must be notified in order to evaluate the find and arrange for any necessary consultation and mitigation required by law. B. If human remains or suspected human remains are found during the project,work in the vicinity will be halted immediately, and the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If 4 Updated 3/19/2013 the remains are determined to be non-forensic,then the WADNR Aquatics archaeologist will be notified to begin tribal and Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation consultations required by law. C. If sediment exceeding 1 cubic meter is removed,the WADNR Aquatics archaeologist will be notified and given the opportunity to examine the sediment for cultural materials before it is removed from the containment area. 5 Updated 3/19/2013 04/08/2015 08:48 FAX REcErvii e J 0002/002 JIJN222015 Memorandum JEFFERSON COUNTY dui To: File—Puget Sound Coastal Program,Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group, Fl4AC00276 From: Rich Ikon, .ish Wildlife Biologist,Washington Fish and Wildlife Office C .- 1)///5 Subject: Environmental Action Statement for the Dosewallips Barge Removal Within the spirit and intent of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) and other statutes, orders, and policies that protect fish and wildlife resources, I have established the following administrative record and have determined that the proposed action does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, Therefore,this action is Categorically Excluded from NEPA documentation requirements (i.e.,preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement)consistent with guidance provided in 43 CFR 46.210,43 CFR 46.215, and 516 DM 8.5. No further NEPA documentation will therefore be made. Proposed Action Description: A derelict wood barge and associated fill is proposed to be removed from the mouth of the Dosewallips River, in Jefferson County, Washington. The barge was possibly used as an improvised ferry landing in the 1940's. Since this time, the barge has deteriorated to the point where large sections of the deck are missing and there is little structural integrity as evidenced by the barge conforming itself to the surrounding substrate. The wood used to construct the barge was treated with creosote,which is a known carcinogen and hazardous to both people and wildlife. Additionally,the barge has altered they natural processes in the river delta by redirecting flows, and preventing the natural deposition and erosion of sediment within the delta. This has resulted in the loss of productive fish and wildlife habitat in the Dosewallips River. Removal of the barge will eliminate the source of contamination from the delta and restore productive habitat for fish and wildlife, Extraordinary Circumstances: I have also reviewed the extraordinary circumstances listed below and determined that none are applicable to the proposed action. Yes No Will the Proposed Action: x (a) Have significant impacts on public health or safety. FT:1 (b) Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park,recreation or refuge lands; wilderness areas; wild or scenic rivers; national natural landmarks;sole or principal drinking water aquifers;prime farmlands;wetlands(Executive Order 11990); floodplains(Executive Order 11988);national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas. Ix (c) Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve unresolved conflicts • concerning alternative uses of available resources[NEPA section 102 (2) (E)]. CONSIDER THIS MEMO AS DOCUMENTATION , (d) Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks. x I (e) Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects. II x I (1) Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects. x (g) Have significant impacts on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as determined by the bureau. x I (b) Have significant impacts on species listed,or proposed to be listed,on the List of Endangered or Threatened Species,or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species. x (1) Violate a Federal law,or a State, local,or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment. x J U) Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations(Executive Order 12898). x (k) Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites(Executive Order 13007). x (1) Contribute to the introduction, continued existence,or spread of noxious weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range of such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112). Categorical Exclusion: The Categorical Exclusions listed below are excerpted from the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual for the Fish and Wildlife Service 516 DM 8.5, and are often applicable for habitat restoration projects. The Categorical Exclusion(s)checked below apply to the proposed action: Removal of the derelict barge will not significantly impact the human environment because the state of the barge prevents any safe use of the area due to the barge's instability and creosote contamination. Post removal,the area will be available for use by people and wildlife. This use would be identical to the immediately adjacent,undisturbed areas of the river delta. B(1)Research, inventory,and information collection activities directly related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources which involve negligible animal mortality or habitat destruction,no introduction of contaminants,or no introduction of organisms not indigenous to the affected ecosystem. B(2)The operation,maintenance, and management of existing facilities and routine recurring management activities and improvements,including renovations and replacements which result in no or only minor changes in the use,and have no or negligible environmental effects on-site or in the vicinity of the site. B(3)The construction of new,or the addition of, small structures or improvements, including structures and improvements for the restoration of wetland,riparian, instream,or native habitats, which result in no or only minor changes in the use of the affected local area. The following are examples of activities that may be included. i. The installation of fences. ii. The construction of CONSIDER THIS MEMO AS DOCUMENTATION small water control structures. iii. The planting of seeds or seedlings and other minor revegetation actions. iv. The construction of small berms or dikes. v. The development of limited access for routine maintenance and management purposes. B(4)The use of prescribed burning for habitat improvement purposes,when conducted in accordance with local and State ordinances and laws. • B(5)Fire management activities, including prevention and restoration measures,when conducted in accordance with departmental and Service procedures. B(6)The reintroduction or supplementation(e.g. stocking)of native,formerly native,or established species into suitable habitat within their historic or established range,where no or negligible environmental disturbances are anticipated. B(7)Minor changes in the amounts or types of public use on Service or State-managed lands, in accordance with existing regulations,management plans,and procedures. x B(8)Consultation and technical assistance activities directly related to the conservation of fish and wildlife resources. II B(9)Minor changes in existing master plans,comprehensive conservation plans,or operations, when no or minor effects are anticipated. Examples could include minor changes in the type and location of compatible public use activities and land management practices. B(10)The issuance of new or revised site,unit,or activity-specific management plans for public use,land use,or other management activities when only minor changes are planned. Examples could include an amended public use plan or fire management plan. B(11)Natural resource damage assessment restoration plans,prepared under sections 107, 111, and 122(j)of the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA);section 311(0(4)of the Clean Water Act;and the Oil Pollution Act;when only minor or negligible change in the use of the affected areas is planned. C(8)Actions where the Service has concurrence or coapproval with another agency and the action is a categorical exclusion for that agency. This would normally involve one Federal action or connected actions where the Service is a cooperating agency. x E(1)State, local,or private financial assistance(grants and/or cooperative agreements),including State planning grants and private land restorations,where the environmental effects are minor or negligible. x E(2)Grants for categorically excluded actions in paragraphs A,B,and C,above; and categorically excluded actions in 43 CFR 46.210. Supporting Documents: All environmental compliance documentation is contained in the project files located in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Washington Fish and Wildlife Office in Lacey,Washington. Supporting documents for this determination include relevant office file material and the following key references. Level 1 contaminant survey Programmatic Endangered Species Act Compliance Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(in process) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Puget Sound Coastal Program Strategic Plan. CONSIDER THIS MEMO AS DOCUMENTATION • 04/08/2015 08:48 FAX fQ 001/002 OPTIONAL.FORM 99(T- O) . . FAX TRANSMITTAL Sol papa► To // iron) ip (( Dep1.iASane Phan* Fa**364,^Z,r? a r- pa cg Fax 9 3 iAr- vacs. N5N 75041_317_73gg 5099-109 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION N:Ue ffe rsonCO\Dosewall'ips\ISOII-PIANS_2OIS-04-10.DWG __-- Z VI A W NJ 01* Z S et o < I N = D C = y0 z C n3.2, =4. o F o m \ �3 �o ,:•z fd,[(tg`, m 7�7�rY V13 m 'm an d ea Z 3 \` N° __ __ f w vSi '�j'yiJ 3 V Ir-1 n'-•a c m 1\ , u,o `. o s rn 3 N o 3 ul O� / I y.. W-1 a�:,.s Ba_ vw www ww.. i o.L - m WOd WZ n rd d d N _ i j t = O W N A W Ll n O ,- re_.�.r_.��.�.�.�r r - i f �� O Or Nao w 00 2 ^� b �) / 1 /_ O A m = 0 ! �� d 1,, n �`\\\\ UI N N N N Z 1 0 "0 n m C p Ft cz 1I-1" CI z \ / w w m W is A x =a CP m I II m C r UJ EN D- '\ V,,,CO ON N 87 O Z O I 7.77 Z y� roa N =•cmU, 7� oo_ N cp m fTT I D i 7 011.4 w r-w m Y VI A o V rm � it HO W s+G Y' // W OsONO• �e V w w o _... ,::fi 4� I / _-. ' ,p W V O, N A W N r m GI w o .0 , r z - [] O O �.t- 1 ,c n o 2 a n o S o n o �P. r °o ' O4R o y^ A.,O .0_2 §" Z -„,i N dz (0 . t. R � m r^cZP .Sd. Run o'd mPI .< g w0= A O a in ' z D o WI.q W a m m ul a Q d G a .. p ry , I O `' r a ID m , mm a u o m f o S r �m . - M l n. 'w V `/,Q g 3' 3 aA r3 `e1 f1 °1 xo o S vI-n p 1 ('" '=:_ 1 r... I <• h d to g 3 y rt m c = =o a - �1 xi 1 �I. k1A .. I Y Ill c aKE p v _ 0 H-` mmdp .<. I, m0 11 fq, 9 3 .. o.. N a S so n' 2 ff--8 c C (ml I i a"!I •. tp Q A = o. = n n d n o 3 3 IB rl. \..0,,,-.---,---.-,4,-, = a „ aIox , o , ".ateI y D r r -: m o Cr c 0 m°d m p �i •. ( 1 'kC+' tryf I--I IA m o m c n Cr m o D D 0 I h .. c W 4 c r`n'. �.m �d Do a d ii t-,• o a v m a o y d vii c 70 1 _ Ill g- R � 2o � d � ar' � � rn 0 n• d d a b p c , Sp n m M O ,^o ° o x m c a a S a o *w a > c v c n n c mop ` - a > c m o 0 3 vi 'c g o n to a z 5 o 7 S T-31.m a d s 'f o 3 Z a 2 C C D O ` _ = O c Ll < c D m RI m m a = z D m 6 m o. m B m mz to A Z nri37 z PODmO22 p Z in (1. I-n Z m O A A Gl pO m z F P Ll m O �, D m m m O In N m . >c m - Z O r Z 3 3 r� Vi z2 m n Z vD. 5 NI VI R>; m n f1 -1 D = G O. O Z m z `G m N. F r w N M D VI Z z X < G1 O v v v-I l mntn a N d 3 3 3 C'D N Ni.1 S ? m 0 m ^'o°ovo ^.nemiD, x J N d O C In @ m n na m, c-.-r: F Z aoo'�� 2m1e O I O N n n n n o n X ® I I t r7i, N >? Wi ,Z 7. 0 I r I i dd N3 Dmcoc0003" Wrn' co 1 i I ( I F to,mm3 N ' N W , m x d•be ii�. n o o n 'o 0 o g T.r� x nd -" 0 IV , , r N d 2 o p m v o i D N Dp,_> D .2' • a C nn m m 8 O CO -'W � ,c tt w O 0 -w"3N 3 • o m I in O as"a""_ c o 0 r m I 0 m r , 3 c 3 % w or a II c ^d I w a �m_N I i o 0 a N a a �c mG., S p w $ \� \ \ DRAWN BY: REV610N6 /_ 9 _ = A DOSEWALLIPS BARGE REMOVAL DESIGNED BY: Fts ACE N EXISTING CONDITIONS CHECKED COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES Nil p DATE RV ` / \ WTI0/3015 1711 ghCam,WA 25 as \\e � SITE PLAN BYIB-:Wmss Bellingham,WA 98225 �e HOOD CANAL SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP SURVEYED BY: 388.847-1845-48aetalge0.cam Y:\IelfersafCO\DCIPW Ilipir15011-Pwrvs 2015.04-10.DWG 9 44 2$ rF $ q: 4_Af e 1#*.'r y XOLfdV) MO21 i\ , , A- p , w+:.,t �Y p.. y W� t y H1 P vn { -t 1` �W O m 73 O a zcr` ioc° u00 3'�ord )4 'dDaa WM O, -" — a N W 2 y 1 m m r. D D p v�2 m m G1 m.T. w y�, -CES A yv r-a 2.-. °,,„mot - ul n 1 ➢r TA ,, —O-i o 7P T`”" Aw —— — ' /.t' �- — ,/ ('XOt7dV)M —f %�_ LZ ,/(I zoom ///'-� �1a _..-9Z z z 2 T A - I z5- I //y / ,a p!m D I _ / W �,Raq x z I n p _ 17 J Z/P� �y fit i S __ ___ - ____ -- ,d� �`1 2) \ 1 x •1.1 v� - I n m s J 1 ....„ ___ ______ ___ ' \ -- --- V I z a m __ r J T �1 n D o �_, °0 3I ,pA O D P PD 2 0 G1 \ - 1 to (i:t 11 II m m tn 0 23 03 I Ai:leis v N .. 1■ IT,- ' 7 1 m I OO 1 - 4 1 t'l 7_,,c, w $D ,,l\I1 {Ca m m m O V O`CFh n O 'D n' '2.IA` O * ( z C/ryvj//// ��(1PS.R � m 4 A "1 ; m a 3 F rn m ��� \ `z 7 i y v O m W A O Z m T CI \ \ ?gyp r Z \ i �`V \2 �.r,__ � s CPC t -0 m Z O m =m D n n , 1 z• =an z• x 1 A o A / ---------KN. V 1 T m/ rD ® ( .k W 111 m l'-' n■ In q x P %n71 P W 3 ymDm \ L 1` O 1 22 D A U) W rn I��t E°> k1 z p in RI T. 11 F r Z Z a y "'E� < DmC° mcx-0 at/3 � � V T. 2 =.'-^9. m Oo w m , 2 A A r .....� ro , x m w o n�. m o 3,_g D O H 4 _v D W� ^ u -i 1 w m f I, 3 I I 1 I I I I co c o a n m I I . I Z Z 1 -' 0 -C W I I I I " I o I 1 N}o G N r iTl ? I w F4 I l I I t I I N Ills I 0 v DRAWN BY'. REVISIONS l0\ DOSEWALLIPS BARGE REMOVAL DESIGNED BY U F MB - CIN/A5 N £a \ <<s' 'Q.w(�� EXISTING CONDITIONS w�EOB` COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES °mNB't� \ G " / N DATE SURVEYED: 1711 Ellis St.Suite 103 44 \\Ls SITE PLAN 1/19-20/]015 Bellingham,WA 98225 e HOOD CANAL SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP SURVEYED RV 360-647-1845-Iwastalgea.mm JEW K;Velf.ncnCO\DUewAp$\15-011-PUNS2015-04-10.DWG I o n z n 11 5 m _ — o _ m— — n z 3 3 DA ,tiT..^' �.••L4 p7 T a e0 T `41219>332J-11 — — D p r<Sr zn�u rpo " ■E• _�_ - -_ ��� _ ♦+ �t� ('XO_adtl)MOB , n=."—' - -4 '/ �r z ,_ A2 � l- _ 11 I m m 2.z 0 r ♦ n . L T o o 0A ■\ 1 Am T G______/_ - Dp° m • N 1 I x'11 mO - x-i xi,, • n 1+ t• •,1 ■ y F. r D z N Z L 'i II _ • i o 1'I` i1 \ yo° �_-- p _' -Cr• O • •oS N I t Ii.k , ? / I/ ■ !‘'S• -i t• I i R:VefersonC olDOUwallips\15-011-RIANS_21NS-0410.OWG ® O jipj Z CA 01'4'7 Z CO O . . IPJ • = 6 • ,n A IJ i �N ' J o k' I� n\ D § 20.›.m xg . i f < 0 y` m w m s _ 0i m 75` r y y' ° :i-'..- y Y w I Z C o v Z m O �A " i° O $�" .G :/•,/ i5! D Z F 4 q y r 8 m � 'i. w A D � ' a Z ;s ;; s o Ii 2' DMIN®o o, M — _g Dr_ ( m� m h. !.clai. 11 1 iflp.4i. it ?rig b — 1 A m y .._•.p.v.c1 \ g 1 a^ N 9, : . wwm a. 3 Er, w �' .L.07:47:ji, , nv i 3 , 'm'm g'�— % f`/y;.' �mm md. q'm m� vz0 2' Nvm k� �w ppR3 ,m wnm mm mo -. ' >ymv Pmm 01 mm50 -• r.g 00m D2p = m _0. iOw rytl i(ly qq//����/' �0a en m_ 09Om�n /n� m O F y is'm a m ^z>owa— /11./y-�/sy/p//% o Rgg —g j� n m`n 3 w nm 1+i a �3= v =m a '9.am v mo m �m4 E a mwv E 8s 5 m w0 S N Om m :�:;. va 4o 059 o I m S k — ' :Ek... “ c E. an 8 ph. -.... . m '3 = _ 0 2 y S me a CD � Dn5N-e mtiv O ? - m.3 H D H �C 0 � y =9 WO w R C ? O O H- o o N j Sr ff'g dv w N 7 C O ill; S-.-s° p 8m M m4a y a 4C m m *f r G N m _ C S A d l'=.',?, ?O_ 2 m ° a P.m 0 m T v y� " a so ' r w fj 3'3� y W ° < Tim 102 m W � \ T C O .4v( Z g � ������ z c o ° n m m 3 °c 3 0�N `�m c mmz�= IP 3 ifsft/ N m O myo O }E O » n GA m N O C CmO o DRAWN SGNED REVISIONS 4 \ DOSEWALLIPS BARGE REMOVAL DDEDSGNEDRY SSA zF F � ACB N $g� \"<Cs, TEMPORARY SEDIMENT AND ERROSION CONTROL ; Rc : COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES \I� T DETAILS DATE SURVEYED: 1711 Ellis S4 Suite 103 1T_ 5/1420/3015 Bellingham,WA 88225 \fie HOOD CANAL SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP rURRVEYED B' 380-847-1845-coastalgeo.com F:V•ff o\DoseW+IIips\lsuii-punsamsosao DWG I 1- 03 r NO c z _ ro I q N> -- — l xobav)Moa Ixrn ---- _?�— --— __ —_— _— Dp -- i_ --= n rn o 0 E° 39Qvrn �Tm rw m n* $�, iOi b5 PO z� -C r mD 7 's� ? .�rryi \��r _- -. (xo�av)nnoa_ J 1 \ / ....;,,,,...fr .......,-, yq1_w --- –� 4a� sti, d/ _ ----------:--_:_-_---17------=-T--------------------:_ r<:1,....._.... I 7 111 ��r\Nn �Jf%�t T i 1111,10&%111,0009 W bat , m vr ,� � �r1 � � P n n n1�u n , 2 rn 3 -- . ■1,16:1■16:N111614011■111jilligreA\ k ,- - al 71116%.11111i...31C-' .1 13 7 1100 - r � A _..... ----V:-. ---------- N11.1.1111W v o D m vxi m 3� im \ mu, 3 DG P . 1 lik4hk, • 0 3 z m rrN N♦ ;'1 II64io� O Z m cl - _ r m 3. ` rn cc xr.Z \� m o z 1 00\ n 3 Zt t In z x SFT u z o a N °s\ 7M 14148 rn O , _, Ia N D •a �= yarn .tea%% ` 7 rag --4\10444 m 0 Ire I 73 p o m r a 0 9 0 < A A CO m I- z rn rn Z x GOl i 3 °m a G1 rn z z 4 > m c 4 m \ O rnA m O m 1 x A 01 m G 30 O n 1mP \\ m -I O 5 o i 3 > �f , r3 \11 200 D = r O 0 2 Y Ern \ Z r Z 22 23 _ x \ril 1l/1 D N Z 3 -i y p \ L T � m z y A z _,lx Nm3 I 2 c ppmD \� 17'rcg I AAA Y 1 at # ��N n , m $ 0 '^rn '''.2. w _. n o (110 o 1 1 I I I ( e - 9,0=' .�xna ;Z0 or, " *d5f�' on °con w A to 5 Z.03 0 CV g!''< -- W -0 i0—... o NNi � °m 0 O c o fc<m O a u v m '.A o n o LI ti W NJ T Fi Y c 9 B DRAWN BY MAMAS X Q g =F A\\\ DOSEWALLIPS BARGE REMOVAL DRAWNBB. In 1 F \'<<' �2j/ PROPOSED CONDITIONS W'CM1ED BY: COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES F w : &R \ / \ DATE SURVEYED: 1711 Ellis St,Suite 103 \ F • SITE PLAN 3/19-10/2015 Bellingham,WA 98225 \\e HOOD CANAL SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP SURVEYED BY -.. 380-847-1845-eoeslalgoo.wm N:UeffersoNColt sawalllps\15-011-PIANS_101504.10.DWG Elevation(ft MLLW) Elevation(ft MLLW) Elevation(ft MLLW) O N A 01 W O N 4 N G9 O N A W W 0 N A ON Co O N A P 0) O N A OA W O N N N W O N A P W 11 00 0 I - o : I ..• I m 111 H R I n > > l p / I i W O N - O 1// 1 IG 1 I jT ll $ 1 13 c & /ME A I i 6 L. IAA A , r . , , . 1 , 1 } o o $ I i Ir g / _ o o. 2 O jj p 1 il I N I I O 8 8 = N i 1 O 0 N re o • • 41 1 N 1 1I fi p O A �- ° G O 1 lli a p I I m ..,G* _ ° l l rt n0 3 1 z n \\ OO 0 , \ I �� I I I I 1 1 _ I I�G 0 _1 _ I I� 0 I ? I i t 1 11 LI g I °II 6 r ° ° �I m , � r I Z1, L n1 F. in M n ll r-. ... • yy ° r [ 11-11 D mNO c p 0t, W D = p ~ 0 ~ 1 1 --� N j 2-6–. W 0 0 J d n1O o i 1 °4e n R o n W . . Pi 0 ■ u Y a Z D„K W w o N 3 d - 0, N O Y K K d N 2 NY- CO O O N 1` ° \ Cz 1 C 0 0 n A i I D m m o 0- s c 03 D m ? °�' D UN ° _ N O N Llc m 3$ ° 1 Y 0 O cJe O I \ 1. 9 = �� \ 1 —O s DRAWN Sr. 1aNSroNS �G SS_ DOSEWALLIPS BARGE REMOVAL DEE916 NED BY. ACB s i £<� \? 4)\ PROPOSED CONDITIONS NE0`EOen COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES al °i§ \<<s \L� CROSS SECTION AND DETAILS DATE SUNNEYEO 1711 Ellis S4 Suite 103 94 1/19-z0)mss Bellingham,WA 98225 \' HOOD CANAL SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP Fe wr' 360847-1845-coestalgeo.com JFW R:VeffenmCo\Cl-aewSlos\15031-PIANS_1015.04.10 DWG _ � - } . \ " J 0z - - ' C AF A r N.. _ m - - _— -i _ - - 00 y hZ n <c, -00 x. T T �1 z0 mi u30 z m TOT-aS �T mz vz �x.x m x m W y i) 7. 0`G0 J VI n 2I _� _v — y0 rn O� X 3 r s 1 ' --� `���y; �pc'��� 1 l�I b� � .e9a., t. Q {dl ), d� r m •�N� w —�, gy �! Yv P-1 a N 3 1 m r S N m 3 -8 r ��--- � R � 1� 1 z m . m M G) x n -I m - ��a'�,��!.;.iii//i/. m 3 m Z m «_. A Z \ ��u't. t 1„�111��1 O 0 OCD m X O m F m .. \ `_� ,1' 1 ♦ m m D m = 0 m D 9 `� ill og �t C-..41114" Aillimmulios„lt ut 3 -.. .pe N D 3 9 o`e ) 6.0 1 K O co O Z Om� 1 • '� ..1 .�■ H O 1 • °• n 5 Cl yy °'. 1• .. • _ 3 I z o-n r m m O G1 = = 0 > G1 G O O C D 111 I 1.° •1111 am m • m n n n > 3 Z 3 z O D m c c z A Z e.°. 1 •o- ° • 1� m m m 707oo m -- ;.12G) m O 1 . -° b •° 1 m m D " P •I• X 7c Cl Z O 3 3 r� • 1 m = n * Z D 5 I 144 b. DI II rn ,rnT,. = p Z , m P F G Z ° • of•D N 8 in h 1. z • 1 (A m(t 1. °� ��.° 1 1\ ° . . ■1 \ Gl ° • ■ . I NI'1 I A O = T. X o *< Q Ary 1 ( I 1 0 w *,, E r y O D , c to O. t 1 i DN+.dR �mtn� O1 a a =woO n�i 3� �° � n O I ,. o c o CO m M m cr iic iii, 3G iG v o 1 o N p IV 1 0 la 3 ~ .... ) \ NI S a o i $ DRAWN er: REVISIONS S 33 \ DOSEWALLIPS BARGE REMOVAL D NEDD.:Er v a `<�� F 'r4� w,ACB \ PROPOSED CONDITIONS enecem Nr COASTAL GEOLOGIC SERVICES \\ e la i PLANTING PLAN DAIL Su 301SED' 1711 Ellis Bellingham, 8225 3/19\�� HOOD CANAL SALMON ENHANCEMENT GROUP sumEren�' 986847-1845-coastalgeo.com VW