Appendices - Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

310 Pages·2014·2.37 MB·English

HYDRAULIC CODE RULE CHANGES
Title 220-660 Washington Administrative Code

Final Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement
Appendices

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife October 27, 2014
APPENDIX A – COMMENTS RECEIVED

APPENDIX B – SPECIES LISTED UNDER THE STATE AND FEDERAL
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACTS

APPENDIX C –HYDRAULIC CODE RULE CHANGE WORKGROUP PARTICIPANTS

Table A-1 Comments Received by Name, Date, and Comment Categories* .............................................................. A-3
Tables
Table A-2 Individuals Submitting Form Letter Comments ......................................................................................... A-7
Table A-3 Comments and Responses Regarding Process for Rulemaking and SEPA ................................................. A-9
Table A-4 Comments and Responses on Mitigation ................................................................................................ A-13
Table A-5 Comments and Responses Regarding Overlapping Authorities ............................................................... A-13
Table A-6 Comments on Science Supporting Rulemaking ........................................................................................ A-17
Table A-7 Comments on the SDPEIS ......................................................................................................................... A-21
Table A-8 Comments on Proposed Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Version 6 ........................................................... A-48
Table A-9 General Comments on the Proposed Hydraulic Code Rules ................................................................. A-128
Table A-10 Comments on the Economic Analyses ................................................................................................. A-133
Table A-11 Response to Comments on September 2013 (Version 4) Proposed Hydraulic Code Rules ................ A-140
Table A-12 Comments on October 2013 Hydraulic Code Rule Change Draft Programmatic EIS ........................... A-264
Table B-1 Listed Wildlife Species and Species of Concern.......................................................................................... B-2
Table B-2 Listed Fish Species and Species of Concern with Status of Critical Habitat Designation ........................... B-5
Table C-1 Hydraulic Code Rule Change Workgroup Meeting Participants ................................................................. C-2
APPENDIX A
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT PEIS; SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT PEIS;
VERSIONS 4 & 6 OF HYDRAULIC CODE RULES
Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Supplemental Programmatic EIS Appendices

Appendix A COMMENTS RECEIVED
Included in this appendix are comments received on each of the environmental and rules documents
related to the current rule making process. They include:
A.1 Comments on the HPA Supplemental Draft Programmatic EIS
A.2 Comments on Proposed Changes to the Hydraulic Code Rules ~ Version 6
A.3 Comments on Economic Analyses
A.4 Comments on September 2013 (“Version 4”) Draft Hydraulic Code Rules
A.5 Comments on Draft Programmatic EIS

WDFW prepared a Supplemental EIS to add analysis to areas not adequately addressed in the original
Draft Programmatic EIS that was issued in September 2013. A Supplemental Draft EIS does not typically
include a formal response to comments that were received on the previous Draft EIS.
This appendix provides responses to comments received on the Supplemental Draft EIS in section A.1, and
on the original draft EIS in section A.4.
A.1 Comments on the HPA Supplemental Draft Programmatic EIS
The Supplemental Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SDPEIS) and the Final Draft
Hydraulic Code Rules were released for a 60-day public comment period from July 15 through September
15, 2014. During this time, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) received 197
individual comment letters. Among the comment letters there were two distinct form letters that
numerous individuals submitted. These form letters represented 106 of the letters submitted, or about
54 percent. The remaining letters were counted as unique letters.
Each comment letter was assigned a unique identification number and then the individual comments
from each letter were evaluated. Table A-1 identifies each numbered comment letter, the name of the
individual or organization that submitted the letter and the FPEIS Appendix A section number in which the
response can be found. WDFW encourages the reader to review all comments and responses in their
entirety to gain a full understanding of the breadth of comments received and the department’s response
to those comments.
Table A-1 lists the names of individuals submitting the 106 form letters and where responses can be
found for those letters.
A similar process was used for comments on the SDPEIS. In many cases, comments from many individuals
expressed similar concerns, so we summarized the comments before composing a response. In other
cases, the individual comment is provided more or less as submitted.
Staff from WDFW Habitat Program responded to the comments.
A.1.1 Comments Received
One hundred ninety-seven comments were submitted during the EIS/rule comment period, including 90
short form letters and 16 long form letters. Comments are generally grouped into the following
categories:
Appendix A – Hydraulic Code Rulemaking SPEIS Comment Responses Page A-2
Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Supplemental Programmatic EIS Appendices

A.1.1 Comments Received
A.1.2 Statutory authority and geographic jurisdiction
A.1.3 Process for rule development and SEPA
A.1.4 Mitigation
A.1.5 Overlap between HPA and other laws and rules
A.1.6 Protection and Recovery of ESA listed species
A.1.7 Science in support of rulemaking
A.1.8 EIS Comments

Table A-1 identifies each numbered public comment letter, the name of the individual or organization
that submitted the letter and the FPEIS Appendix A section number in which the response can be found.
WDFW encourages the reader to review all comments and responses in their entirety to gain a full
understanding of the breadth of comments received and the department’s response to those comments.
Table A-1 Comments Received by Name, Date, and Comment Categories*
COM-
MENT DATE FPEIS APPENDIX A
NO. RECEIVED NAME REPRESENTING RESPONSE SECTION
1 7/16/2014 Matthew Van Camp This comment did not
apply to the Hydraulic
Code rule change
2 7/23/2014 Don Russell A.2
3 7/28/2014 Bruce Beatty A.2
4 7/28/2014 Bruce Beatty A.2
5 7/28/2014 Bruce Beatty A.2
6 7/29/2014 Elizabeth Braun Pend Oreille County A.3
7 7/31/2014 Christina Martinez WSDOT Inquiry only
8 7/31/2014 David Bugher City of Lakewood A.2
9 7/31/2014 Kim McDonald Fish Not Gold A.2
10 7/31/2014 Regional Forum Regional Road Maintenance Forum A.3
Permit Subcommittee
11 7/31/2014 Amy Carey A.2
SoundAction
12 7/31/2014 Christina Martinez WSDOT Inquiry only
13 8/1/2014 Jane Lamensdorf-Bucher King County A.1.2
14 8/1/2014 Daniel Mathis Federal Highways Administration A.1.7
15 8/1/2014 Larry Johnson Natural Resource Conservation A.1.3
Service
16 8/1/2014 William Rehe Port of Tacoma A.2
17 8/1/2014 Megan White Washington State Department of A.3
Transportation
18 8/3/2014 Bruce Beatty A.2
19 8/4/2014 Diana MacDonald Cowlitz PUD #1 A.2
Appendix A – Hydraulic Code Rulemaking SPEIS Comment Responses Page A-3
Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Supplemental Programmatic EIS Appendices

COM-
MENT DATE FPEIS APPENDIX A
NO. RECEIVED NAME REPRESENTING RESPONSE SECTION
20 8/7/2014 Sue Chickman A.2
21 8/7/2014 Jim Whitbread Stevens County Public Works A.1.2; A.1.8; A.2;
A.3
22 8/11/2014 Harry Branch A.2
23 8/11/2014 Victor Woodward Habitat Bank et al. A.2
24 8/12/2014 Kimberly Cauvel Skagit County Herald Inquiry only
25 8/14/2014 Calhoun, Rory Washington Recreation and A.2
Conservation Office
26 8/14/2014 Peter Haase A.2
27 8/15/2014 Kirk Kirkland Tahoma Audubon A.2
28 8/16/2014 Kit Rawson A.2
29 8/17/2014 Laurel Kuehl A.1.8
30 8/26/2014 Don Russell A.1.6
31 8/28/2014 Anonymous A.1.8
32 9/2/2014 Richard Jahnke Admiralty Audubon A.1.8
33 9/2/2014 Mike Racine Washington Scuba Alliance A.2
34 9/3/2014 Alan Richards & Ann A.2
Musche`
35 9/4/2014 Craig Zora A.2
36 9/5/2014 Don Russell A.2
37 9/8/2014 Dan & Gloria Clark Spokane Chapter Citizens’ Alliance A.1.8; A.2
for Property Rights
53 9/10/2014 Mike McCormick A.1.8
73 9/10/2014 Patricia Pyle A.1.8; A.2
74 9/10/2014 Marc Hutchinson A.2
79 9/10/2014 Ralph Wood A.1.8
118 9/10/2014 Jack Tull A.2
122 9/10/2014 Don Russell A.2
124 9/10/2014 Peter Schrappen Northwest Marine Trade A.1.3;A.1.4; A.1.8
Association
125 9/10/2014 Peter Schrappen Northwest Marine Trade A.2
Association
137 9/11/2014 Anne & Vincent Murray A.1.8
138 9/11/2014 John Anderson A.2
143 9/11/2014 Trina Bayard Audubon Washington A.2
144 9/11/2014 Art Swannack Whitman County A.1.2; A.1.8; A.2;
A.3
145 9/11/2014 Andrew Lee Bellevue Utilities A.2
147 9/12/2014 Megan White Washington State Department of A.3
Transportation
Appendix A – Hydraulic Code Rulemaking SPEIS Comment Responses Page A-4
Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Supplemental Programmatic EIS Appendices

COM-
MENT DATE FPEIS APPENDIX A
NO. RECEIVED NAME REPRESENTING RESPONSE SECTION
149 9/12/2014 Rosendo Guerrero Trout Unlimited A.1.2; A.1.8; A.2;
A.3
150 9/12/2014 Regional Forum Regional Forum Permit A.3
Subcommittee
151 9/12/2014 Regional Forum Regional Forum Permit A.1.7
Subcommittee
152 9/12/2014 Regional Forum Regional Road Maintenance Forum A.1.2; A.1.5; A.1.8;
Permit Subcommittee A.3
154 9/12/2014 Tom Wilbert Chevron Products A.2
155 9/12/2014 John Shultz Skagit Dike Dists 1 & 12 A.1.2; A.1.5; A.1.8
157 9/12/2014 Christine Brewer Avista A.1.2; A.1.3; A.1.8;
A.2; A.3
158 9/12/2014 Gary Jones A.1.2
159 9/12/2014 Jim Matthews Yakama Nation Fisheries A.1.3; A.1.6; A.1.8
160 9/12/2014 Matthew Baerwalde Snoqualmie Indian Tribe A.2
162 9/13/2014 Judy Murphy Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve A.1.3
Citizen Stewardship Committee
163 9/13/2014 Janine Schutt Kitsap Audubon A.1.8; A.2
164 9/14/2014 Don Russell A.2
165 9/14/2014 Robert Cunningham A.1.3
169 9/15/2014 Kathleen Collins Pacific Power A.1.2; A.1.8; A.2;
A.3
170 9/15/2014 Amy Carey SoundAction et al. A.1.2; A.1.8; A.2;
A.3
171 9/15/2014 Larry Johnson Natural Resource Conservation A.1.8
Service
172 9/15/2014 Rochelle Goss Washington Department of Natural A.1.5; A.1.8; A.2
Resources
173 9/15/2014 Gary Rowe Washington State Association of A.1.2; A.1.7
County Engineers
174 9/15/2014 Timothy Manns Skagit Audubon A.1.3; A.2
175 9/15/2014 Tim Hyatt Skagit River Systems Cooperative A.1.6; A.1.8; A.2
176 9/15/2014 Mike Maudlin Nooksack Tribe A.1.6; A.1.8; A.2
177 9/15/2014 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Tribe A.1.6; A.1.8; A.2
178 9/15/2014 Jim Bolger Puget Sound Partnership A.1.7; A.2
179 9/15/2014 Dan Holdenmeyer Chevron Lubricants A.2
180 9/15/2014 Allen Gibbs Pilchuck Audubon A.1.8
181 9/15/2014 Mary & Brian Jokela A.1.8; A.2
182 9/15/2014 Ramiro Chavez Thurston County Public Works A.3
183 9/15/2014 Jim Weber Northwest Indian Fisheries A.1.4; A.1.5; A.1.6;
Commission A.1.8; A.2
Appendix A – Hydraulic Code Rulemaking SPEIS Comment Responses Page A-5
Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Supplemental Programmatic EIS Appendices

COM-
MENT DATE FPEIS APPENDIX A
NO. RECEIVED NAME REPRESENTING RESPONSE SECTION
184 9/15/2014 Jon-Paul Shannahan Upper Skagit Tribe A.1.4; A.1.6; A.1.8
185 9/15/2014 Peter Ojala French Slough Flood Control A.1.5; A.1.8
District
186 9/15/2014 Kevin Tyler Clark County A.1.2; A.1.8; A.2
187 9/15/2014 Stephanie Williams Phillips 66 A.2
189 9/15/2014 Timothy Ibbetson SNR Co. A.1.2; A.1.5; A.1.7;
A.1.8
190 9/15/2014 Bill Thomas A.1.8
191 9/15/2014 Henry Lippek Stillaguamish Flood Control District A.1.8
192 9/15/2014 Wes McCart Stevens County Board of A.1.3; A.1.8; A.2
Commissioners
193 9/15/2014 Grant County PUD Grant County PUD Commissioners A.1.2; A.1.5; A.1.8;
A.2; A.3
195 9/15/2014 Karen Terwilleger Washington Forest Practices A.1.2; A.1.7; A.1.8;
Association A.2
196 9/15/2014 Karen Walter Muckleshoot Tribe A.1.8
197 9/17/2014 Ross Hendrick Grant County PUD A.2
* Gaps in Comment Number sequence are covered on Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-B.
A.1.1.1 Individuals Sending Form Letters
WDFW received 90 copies of a short form letter and 16 copies (or adoptions) of a longer form letter. The
short form letter expressed preference for Alternative 3 in the EIS and requested decreased impacts to
fish life, as follows:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on WDFW’s Hydraulic Code Proposed Rulemaking and
SPEIS.
I appreciate the effort that WDFW has made to incorporate provisions into the update that may decrease
potential impacts from hydraulic projects, but believe that the SEPA preferred alternative likely will not
protect fish life (currently defined as “prevention of loss or injury to fish or shellfish, and protection of the
habitat that supports fish and shellfish populations”). For example, the proposed rules will not be able to
prevent loss or injury to fish or protect their habitats because it does not require the denial of a Hydraulic
Project Approval in any particular instances, instead directing applicants to “avoid and minimize” impacts. In
practice, the ambiguity in this phrase can lead to the selection of a project alternative that causes impacts,
even where decreased, rather than an alternative that would avoid those impacts. Given the low likelihood of
success and long-term cumulative impacts associated with compensatory mitigation efforts, we encourage
WDFW to establish an implementable, firm decision making hierarchy that requires the avoidance of impacts
to saltwater habitats of special concern and denies projects that will lead to unavoidable impacts unless
approval is mandated by the Hydraulic Code. Specifically WDFW should:
· Retain the existing definition for the “Protection of fish life” meaning the “prevention of loss or injury to fish
or shellfish, and protection of the habitat that supports fish and shellfish populations,” rather than amending
proposed rule language to define it as “avoiding and minimizing impacts to fish life and fish habitat through
mitigation sequencing.” We urge WDFW to avoid this heavy reliance on the mitigation sequence because
WDFW studies have found that HPAs have difficulty compensating for impacts.
· Eliminate general and model HPAs
· Protect forage fish spawning areas
Appendix A – Hydraulic Code Rulemaking SPEIS Comment Responses Page A-6
Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Supplemental Programmatic EIS Appendices

· protect against impacts from shoreline hard armoring
· Amend the proposed definition of “No Net Loss” to clearly reflect a meaningful definition of the term- that
existing conditions of shoreline ecological functions remain the same as before a development action is
implemented.
I support Alternative 3 in the proposed rulemaking.
The long form letter contained more detailed comments, primarily addressing the impacts of marine
shoreline modifications, under the following headings:
Proposed rulemaking:
Correct Key Definitions
Strengthen General Provisions
Correct Gaps in Mitigation Requirements
Provide Appropriate Protections for Forage Fish
Protect Nearshore Habitats from Unnecessary Armoring Impacts
Protect Nearshore Habitats from Overwater structure Impacts
Establish Clear Directives and Requirements to Protect Habitat
Supplemental Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SDPEIS)
Names of individuals submitting form letters to WDFW are provided on Table A-2.
Table A-2 Individuals Submitting Form Letter Comments
Comment
Comment Numbers Commenters Category
38, 39, 40, 41, 42, Jim McRoberts, Dennis & Martha Taylor, Wendy Feltham, Candice A.1.8, A.2
43, 44, 45, 103, Boyd, Jill Janow, Monika Wieland, Diane Sonntag, Linda Edson, Rein
153, 161, 163, 167, Attemann, Maradel Gale, Rick Clark, Janine Schutt (Kitsap Audubon),
174, 188, 194 Brooke Nelson, Timothy Manns (Skagit Audubon), David Proctor,
Whitney Neugebauer
46, 47, 48, 49, 50, Jana Wiley, Kimberly Leeper, Sherri Cassuto, Elizabeth Taylor, Michael A.1.8, A.2
51, 52, 54, 55, 56, Bluske, Angela Kelly, Ryan Swanson, Christi Damico, Ellen Kissman,
57, 58, 59, 60, 62, Mark Myers, Shelley Cort, Donna Maupin, Brian Gunn, Melodie
63, 64, 65, 66, 67, Martin, Timothy Keeler, Donna Hendrix, Janette Cunningham, Bob
68, 69, 70, 71, 72, Triggs, Judy Burnstin, Kevin Jones, Elizabeth Hauser, James Day, Dick
75, 76, 77, 78, 80, Jacke, Brian Larson, Carmen Edwards, Justin Hahn, Mike Sherman,
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, Anna Porter, Ed Fickbohm, Richard Heggen, Codi Hamblin, Liz White,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, Thomas Fawell, Marita Graube, Tracy Diederich, David Mayer, Janna
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, Rolland, Vicki Elledge, Joy Kosola, Connie Segal, Richard Horner, Jane
96, 97, 98, 99, 100, Steadman, Mary Keeler, John Lee, R Gamboa, Judith Cohen, Gerald
101, 102, 104, 105, Burnett, Adele Reynolds, Rebecca Beener, Gary Murrow, Marcia
106, 107, 108, 109, Kilbane, Mary Gallagher, Michael & Barbara Hill, Carolyn Savage,
110, 111, 112, 113, Jeanne Dodds, Gordon Padelford, Dorothy Moritz, David R Hirst,
114, 115, 116, 117, Allycia Godbee, Stuart Mork, Heather Murawski, Gail Lassman, Emily
119, 120, 121, 123, Lubahn, Ted Steege, Kate McClure, James Murphy, Kathryn Connelly,
126, 127, 128, 129, Ross Baker, Kiwibob Glanzman, Nan McMurry, Tim Rymer, Kathleen
130, 131, 132, 133, Kemper, Shannon Markley, Jerry Liszak, Scott Sebelsky, Terry
134, 135, 136, 139, Nightingale, Conor Corkrum, Scott Fortman, Ed Chadd, James Michel,
Appendix A – Hydraulic Code Rulemaking SPEIS Comment Responses Page A-7
Hydraulic Code Rule Changes Supplemental Programmatic EIS Appendices

140, 141, 142, 146, Tara Demers, Colleen Cunningham, Stephen Condit, Terrill Chang,
148, 166, 168 Larry Phillips, Valerie Rose, Ron Sikes, Vanessa Woo, Laura Scott
A.1.1.2 “Sound Action et al.” Letter Signers
Comment item 170 was submitted by SoundAction on behalf of several key advocates within the
environmental community. Signers to the letter are:
Amy Carey, Executive Director, Sound Action
Kurt Beardslee, Executive Director, Wild Fish Conservancy
Stephanie Buffum, Executive Director, Friends of the San Juans
Crina Hoyer, Executive Director, RE Sources
Anne Shaffer, Executive Director, Coastal Watershed Institute
Mark Powell, Puget Sound Program Director, Washington Environmental Council
Pat Dickason, 1st Vice President, Action Chair, League of Women Voters of Washington
Sam Merrill, Chair Conservation Committee, Black Hills Audubon Society
Krystal McArthur Kyer, Executive Director, Tahoma Audubon Society
Howard Garrett, Executive Director, Orca Network
Brian Windrope, Executive Director, Seattle Audubon
Gail Gatton, Executive Director, Audubon Washington
Sue Patnude, Executive Director, Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team
A.1.2 Statutory authority and geographic jurisdiction
Several comments were received regarding WDFW’s statutory authority. Many expressed concern that
WDFW’s proposed rules, along with WDFW’s application of science guidance, extend the rules beyond
the authority of chapter 77.55 RCW. A number of commenters addressed the geographic extent of
WDFW’s authority directly.
RCW 77.55.011(11) defines a “hydraulic project” as “the construction or performance of work that will
use, divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or bed of any of the salt or freshwaters of the state.”
Based on this definition, a hydraulic project can include construction or performance of work landward of
the ordinary high water line if the project will change the natural flow or bed. Although both “waters of
the state” (RCW 77.55.011(25)) and “bed” (RCW 77.55.011(1)) are defined as land or waters waterward of
the “ordinary high water line” (RCW 77.55.011(16)), hydraulic projects that occur landward of the
ordinary high water line can affect the “bed” and/or “natural flow”. For this reason, the department will
continue to regulate hydraulic projects that occur landward of the ordinary high water line.
Hydraulic projects that occur landward of the ordinary high water line include the construction,
replacement, repair, and maintenance of dikes, levees, bank protection, outfalls, and bridges. These
projects can adversely impact fish life if they are not properly designed and constructed. For example,
stream bank protection alters the bed and the physical processes that form and maintain habitat that
supports fish life. Direct loss of habitat may include loss of cover, spawning beds, large woody material,
riparian zone function, and floodplain connectivity as well as alteration of the channel/beach. These
losses and alterations decrease the complexity and diversity of habitat. The permit issued by the
department is the only construction permit specifically issued to ensure hydraulic projects are designed
and constructed in a manner that protects fish life.
Appendix A – Hydraulic Code Rulemaking SPEIS Comment Responses Page A-8