City of Hoquiam Permit Review
40600-HS-PER-55038 Revision 1 Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance
Prepared for BHP Prepared by WSP USA
WA17.0202.00 31 July 2019
40600-HS-PER-55038 Revision 1 Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance
Hoquiam, Washington
Submitted to:
City of Hoquiam Hoquiam, Washington USA
Applicant:
BHP 130 Third Avenue South Saskatoon, SK S7K 1L3 Canada
Submitted by
WSP USA 210 East 13th Street, Suite 300 Vancouver, Washington 98660
A17.0202.00
LAND USE AND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM COMPLIANCE
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility Hoquiam, Washington
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Project Overview ...... 1 Request ...... 3 Other Approvals and Permits ...... 3 1.3.1 Federal Approvals/Permits ...... 3 1.3.2 State Approvals/Permits ...... 4 1.3.3 Local Approvals/Permits ...... 4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 5 Project Site ...... 5 2.1.1 Site Overview ...... 5 2.1.2 Site Access...... 5 2.1.3 Existing Structures/Topography ...... 6 2.1.4 Existing Land Uses ...... 6 2.1.5 Adjacent Land Uses ...... 6 2.1.6 Archaeological Resources ...... 7 IDD#1 Site ...... 7 2.2.1 Site Overview ...... 7 2.2.2 Site Access...... 7 2.2.3 Existing Structures/Topography ...... 7 2.2.4 Existing Land Uses ...... 8 2.2.5 Adjacent Land Uses ...... 8 2.2.6 Archaeological Resources ...... 8 3.0 CRITICAL AREAS AND SHORELINES ...... 9 Project Site ...... 9 3.1.1 Wetlands ...... 9 3.1.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas ...... 9 3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ...... 11 3.1.4 Frequently Flooded Areas ...... 17 3.1.5 Shoreline Master Program (HMC 11.05) ...... 18 IDD#1 Site ...... 20 3.2.1 Wetlands ...... 20 3.2.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas ...... 20 3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas ...... 20 3.2.4 Frequently Flooded Areas ...... 21 3.2.5 Shoreline Master Program (HMC 11.05) ...... 22 4.0 PROPOSED SITE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS ...... 23 Marine Structures ...... 23 Railcar Unloading Facility ...... 24 Product Storage Building ...... 24
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page ii of vii
Shiploading ...... 25 Administration and Maintenance Building ...... 25 Concrete/Asphalt Pavement and Gravel Surfacing ...... 26 Fueling Station ...... 26 Vehicle Site Access ...... 26 Utilities ...... 26 Rail Improvements ...... 27 Stormwater Management ...... 28 Dredging ...... 28 Conveyor System ...... 28 Compensatory Mitigation ...... 29 4.14.1 IDD#1 Site – Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Creation and Rehabilitation ...... 29 4.14.2 Terminal 4 Pile and Overwater Structure Removal ...... 30 4.14.3 Hoquiam River Preservation Site – Wetland and Forest Buffer Preservation ...... 30 5.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE...... 30 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ...... 32 Wetland Impacts ...... 32 Aquatic Impacts ...... 33 Transportation ...... 39 6.3.1 Vehicle ...... 40 6.3.2 Rail ...... 40 6.3.3 Marine Vessel ...... 41 Federal Aviation Administration Evaluation ...... 42 Air ...... 43 Noise ...... 44 Lighting ...... 44 6.7.1 Fixture Details ...... 44 6.7.2 Shiploader ...... 45 6.7.3 Light Shed ...... 45 6.7.4 Glare ...... 45 6.7.5 Nighttime Lighting ...... 45 7.0 IMPACT AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION ...... 45 Minimization Measures ...... 47 General Best Management Practices ...... 48 Construction Best Management Practices ...... 48 7.3.1 In, Over, and Near Water BMPs ...... 48 7.3.2 Pile Removal BMPs ...... 49 7.3.3 Pile Installation BMPs ...... 49 7.3.4 Overwater Concrete Placement Minimization and BMPs ...... 50 7.3.5 Dredging BMPs ...... 50 7.3.6 Dredge Material Placement BMPs ...... 50 Operation Best Management Practices ...... 51 Compensatory Mitigation ...... 51 7.5.1 Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation ...... 52
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page iii of vii
7.5.2 Aquatic Habitat Mitigation ...... 56 8.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ...... 58 Land Use Conditional Use Permit ...... 58 8.1.1 Conditional Use Permits (HMC 10.07.130) ...... 59 Critical Areas Review ...... 63 8.2.1 General Provisions (HMC 11.05.810) ...... 64 8.2.2 Wetlands (HMC 11.05.820) ...... 66 8.2.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas (HMC 11.05.840) ...... 68 8.2.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (HMC 11.05.850) ...... 71 8.2.5 Frequently Flooded Areas (HMC 11.05. 860) ...... 77 Shoreline Master Program Compliance ...... 77 8.3.1 Allowed Shoreline Uses (HMC 11.05.430) ...... 78 8.3.2 Shoreline Master Program Policies and Regulations ...... 81 8.3.3 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (HMC 11.05.730-1) ...... 125 8.3.4 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (HMC 11.05.730-2) ...... 126 8.3.5 Shoreline Variance (HMC 11.05.730-3) ...... 130 9.0 CONCLUSION ...... 136 10.0 REFERENCES ...... 136
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Site Information ...... 2 Table 2. Species Listed or Proposed for Listing under the ESA that Could Potentially Occur within or Near the Project Site ...... 13 Table 3. Species Listed or Proposed for Listing under the ESA Not Likely to Occur within or Near the Project Site ...... 14 Table 4. Wetland and Wetland Buffer Impacts ...... 33 Table 5. Aquatic Impacts ...... 34 Table 6. Aquatic Impacts by Tidal Zone ...... 34 Table 7. Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Summary ...... 54 Table 8. Aquatic Habitat Mitigation Summary ...... 58
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page iv of vii
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS *Additional studies and reports may be found online at the BHP Digital Information Room at https://www.bhp.com/environment/regulatory-information/potash-export-facility-at-grays-harbor/digital- information-room
Appendix A: Sheets Appendix B: Permit Application Forms Appendix C: SEPA Checklist Appendix D: JARPA Appendix E: Critical Areas Assessment The following reports are provided as appendices to the Critical Areas Assessment: Mitigation Plan Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation and Assessment, Project Site Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation and Assessment, IDD#1 Site Eelgrass Survey and Tier 1 Delineation Report Geotechnical Engineering Report Appendix F: Biological Evaluation for Endangered Species Appendix G: Dredged Material Disposal Suitability Determination Appendix H: Cultural Resources Report – Project Site Appendix I: Archaeological Monitoring Results for Mitigation Areas Appendix J: Noise Assessment Appendix K: Visual Analysis Appendix L: Traffic Impact Analysis and Rail Considerations Memorandum Appendix M: Site Flooding Assessment, Including Sea Level Rise Appendix N: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page v of vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APE area of potential effect BMPs best management practices BUG Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (rating methodology) CFR Code of Federal Regulations CUP Conditional Use Permit DAHP Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation DIM Dredge Impact Model DNR Washington Department of Natural Resources DOH Washington Department of Health DPM diesel particulate matter Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology ELLW extreme low low water ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GHG greenhouse gas GHNWR Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge GIS geographic information system HMC Hoquiam Municipal Code IDD#1 Industrial Development District Parcel No. 1 KCl potassium chloride LWD large woody debris MLLW mean lower low water mtpa million metric tons per annum NEHRP National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA Fisheries NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHWM ordinary high water mark ORCAA Olympic Region Clean Air Agency PHS Priority Habitats and Species PM particulate matter PSAP Puget Sound and Pacific Railroad RCW Revised Code of Washington SCUP Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SEPA State Environmental Policy Act SMA Shoreline Management Act SMP Shoreline Master Program SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasures SR State Route
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page vi of vii
SSDP Shoreline Substantial Development Permit SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan TIA traffic impact analysis UPRR Union Pacific Railroad USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WAC Washington Administrative Code WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WQC Water Quality Certificate
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page vii of vii
LAND USE AND SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM COMPLIANCE PROPOSED GRAYS HARBOR POTASH EXPORT FACILITY HOQUIAM, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Project Overview BHP (the applicant) proposes to redevelop the Port of Grays Harbor’s (Port) existing Terminal 3 facility and adjacent parcels in the City of Hoquiam, Washington (City), for the Grays Harbor Export Facility, a bulk potash export facility (proposed project). The site is located on the southeast corner of State Route 109 (SR 109)/West Emerson Avenue and Paulson Road in the City. The site is composed of multiple tax parcels.1 See Sheet 1 (Vicinity Map) and Sheet 2 (Parcel Map) in Appendix A (all sheets, Sheets 1 through 38, are located in Appendix A). The site of the proposed potash export facility is herein referred to as the “Project Site.”
Wetland and aquatic habitat mitigation for the proposed project will be conducted at the Port’s Industrial Development District Parcel No. 1 site. This site is referred to herein as the “IDD#1 Site.” The IDD#1 Site is located in the City of Hoquiam, along Earley Industrial Way on the north shore of Grays Harbor and along the west bank of the Hoquiam River, in Sections 11 and 12, Township 17 North, and Range 10 West, north of the Willamette Meridian. The IDD#1 Site is located on tax parcels 056400600102, 056400400100, and 056400400100.
Additional compensatory mitigation will occur at two sites known as Terminal 4 and the Hoquiam River Preservation Site. No permits are required from the City for mitigation activities at these two sites as they are located outside of city limits and/or the activity does not require a permit. Information on the proposed mitigation at these sites is included in this narrative, where appropriate, in order to provide complete mitigation information to the City for their evaluation of the project.
Sheet 1 (Vicinity Map) shows the locations of the Project Site and mitigation sites. Table 1 provides a summary of location information for the Project Site and the IDD#1 Site, including the legal description, site address, general location, tax parcel numbers, approximate area, and setting.
1 The Project Site is located on portions of tax parcels (056401000102, 517100331005, 517100331007, 056401000101, 056401000102, 517101021001, 517101012001, 517101011001, 056401000600, 517101011004, 056401000501, 056401000801, 056401000400, 056401000301, 056401000201, 056401100204, 056401100202, 056401100100, 056401000302, and 056401100203) located in portions of Sections 3 and 10, Township 17 North, Range 10 West of the Willamette Meridian.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 1 of 140
Table 1. Site Information Topographic Map Project Site/IDD#1: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 7.5 minute, Hoquiam, Washington, topographic map, 2014 Site Address(es) Project Site: 100 Airport Way, 400 Airport Way, and 615 Airport Way, Hoquiam, WA 98550 IDD#1: No associated address. General Location Project Site: In the City of Hoquiam, on the shoreline of Grays Harbor west of the Hoquiam River and adjacent upland IDD#1: In the City of Hoquiam, on the shoreline of Grays Harbor west of the mouth of the Hoquiam River and adjacent upland Abbreviated Legal Description Project Site: HOQ TDLDS TAX R3 (OUT OF TRS 10- 11); HOQ TDLDS LOT 6 & LOT 7 LS 176’ OF E 176’ TR 10; HOQ AC LOT 1 LS RY RW LS PT OF TAX 2 LS TAX 3 & 4; LOT 2 S OF RY RW LS TAX 1 IDD#1: HOQ TDLDS LOT 1; LOT 2 LS E 40' OF N 50' LS TAX 5, LOTS 3-5,LOT A LS N 50' OF W 40.54' TGW ALL VAC RR AVE ADJ TR 4 Approximate Area Project Site: 212 acres upland; 26 acres in-water IDD#1: 45 acres upland Geologic Setting Puget-Willamette Lowland - Chehalis River Basin Nearest Surface Water Bodies Project Site: The Project Site includes portions of Grays Harbor. IDD#1: Grays Harbor lies to the south of the site, and Hoquiam River lies to the east. Approximate Ground Surface Approximately 20 feet above mean sea level Elevation Soil and Geologic Conditions Project Site: Site soil generally consists of very loose to very dense fill over estuarine and alluvial deposits IDD#1: Soils generally consist of a layer of dredged sands, over a layer of native sands, silts, and clays.
The proposed project consists of redeveloping the existing Terminal 3 industrial site and portions of adjacent parcels for unloading and storage of potash transported to the site via rail from the Jansen Mine in Saskatchewan, Canada, (see Sheet 3 for the proposed site plan and Sheets 9 and 10 for the proposed marine terminal), for shipment to international markets via oceangoing vessels. The upland portion of the proposed Project Site will include rail unloading and a product storage building, a conveyor system for transferring potash from the rail unloading area to the storage building or directly to the shiploader, and administrative and maintenance buildings. The shiploader and new berth facility will be located directly west of the existing Terminal 3 dock in Grays Harbor. Details on the proposed site facilities are provided in section 4.0 of this document.
The potash will be transported from the mine to the export facility via rail. Canadian Pacific/Canadian National rail will be used within the boundaries of Canada. The
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 2 of 140
proposed project would be served by two Class 1 rail carriers: BNSF and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). The trains would be transferred to the Puget Sound and Pacific Railroad (PSAP) from those carriers for transport the final 60 miles into Grays Harbor and to the proposed Project Site. These carriers will be used to aid in transporting the potash from the mine to the export facility.
Request Development at the Project Site and IDD#1 is regulated by the City of Hoquiam and is required to be consistent with the Hoquiam Municipal Code (HMC), including the City’s Land Development Ordinance (HMC Title 10), Shoreline Master Program (SMP) (HMC 11.05), and Critical Areas Ordinance (HMC 11.06).
BHP is requesting the following City permits and approvals at this time for the proposed project. • Critical Areas Review (for the Project Site and IDD#1 site) • Land Use Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (for the Project Site) • Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SCUP) (for the Project Site)* • Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) (for the Project Site and IDD#1) • Shoreline Variance (for the Project Site)* *The SCUP and shoreline variance are subject to final approval by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology).
This narrative demonstrates compliance with City land use plans and policies, including the City’s Comprehensive Plan, SMP, and Critical Areas and Zoning ordinances. The narrative also addresses the proposed project’s consistency with state codes and regulations, including the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), Washington Administrative Code (WAC), and Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
This document and associated attachments comprise the submittal materials for these City permits and approvals. Completed and signed application forms are included as attachments to this document. Non-City permits required for the proposed project are identified below.
Other Approvals and Permits In addition to the permits requested from the City and addressed in this application, the proposed project is anticipated to require the following federal, state, and local permits and authorizations.
1.3.1 Federal Approvals/Permits • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act Permit, and Section 404 Wetland Fill Permit including analysis for compliance with applicable federal requirements including but not limited to
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 3 of 140
− National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
− Section 408 (project is subject to review but likely will not require a permit).
− Section 106 Cultural Resources Review.
− USACE Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO) – Dredged Material Disposal Suitability Determination and approval of open-water disposal of dredged materials (February 19, 2019).
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – Endangered Species Act (ESA) Consultation • NMFS – Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) -- Marine Mammal Incidental Harassment Authorization • U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)-- Private Aids to Navigation Review • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) -- Aviation Obstruction Evaluation
1.3.2 State Approvals/Permits • Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) – 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), Coastal Zone Management Act Consistency Determination, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Variance, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit and Industrial Stormwater Permit • Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) – Hydraulic Project Approval • Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) – Aquatic Lands Authorization • DNR – Use Authorization (dredged material placement) • Washington State Department of Historic Preservation (DAHP) – Review
1.3.3 Local Approvals/Permits • City of Hoquiam –Floodplain Permits, Construction Permits (Grading, building and trades, etc.), Binding Site Plan, Street Vacation. • Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) – Notice of Construction (NOC) Order of Approval • Port of Grays Harbor – Approval of Option Agreement and a Lease Agreement • City of Aberdeen – shoreline and critical areas authorization (for proposed mitigation activities at Terminal 4)
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 4 of 140
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Project Site
2.1.1 Site Overview The Project Site includes both upland and in-water areas. The upland portion of the site is approximately 212 acres comprising parcels owned by the Port, the City, and private entities (Sheet 2). The upland portion is bounded by SR 109/West Emerson Avenue to the north, Airport Way/Moon Island Road to the south, Paulson Road to the west, and to the east by a relatively undeveloped area that extends east from the site to South Adams Road.
The southeast upland portion of the site and the existing Terminal 3 dock are currently used by Willis Industries, a wood chip facility. The City parcel on the southwest upland corner of the site is occupied by the City’s former wastewater lagoon. The City is currently filling the lagoon with dredged material from the Chehalis River and Grays Harbor, landslide materials, and excess soil from other local projects. The northeast upland corner of the site (also known as the Lamb property) is occupied by a whiskey distillery. The remaining upland areas within the site have been cleared of vegetation in the past and are unused or undeveloped.
The in-water portion of the site is approximately 26 acres and located west of and adjacent to the existing Port Terminal 3 dock, a deep-water marine terminal located in Grays Harbor. The proposed shiploader and mooring facility will be located on parcels owned by the Port, the City, and the DNR. A portion of the shiploader and mooring facility berth (including the area requiring dredging to accommodate ships at berth) is located on DNR-owned aquatic land.
The Project Site is zoned “Industrial” and designated “Industrial” by the City’s Comprehensive Plan (Sheets 13 and 14). A small portion of the site is within the Waterfront Overlay District, as shown on Sheet 13. The general purpose of the Industrial zone is to provide a variety of manufacturing and marine-related uses in limited areas, which, if located elsewhere, would be unacceptable. The purpose of the Waterfront Overlay District is to recognize the unique character of the waterfront area and allow a wide variety of development along the shoreline.
2.1.2 Site Access The existing primary vehicular access to the Project Site is at the intersection of Moon Island Road, Paulson Road, and Airport Way. A secondary access point is located on Paulson Road, north of Airport Way. These are two-lane paved public roads. SR 109 is to the north of the Project Site and provides the main east-to-west access through the city of Hoquiam. SR 109 connects to U.S. Highway 101 through Aberdeen, which runs north to the Olympic Peninsula and south to Astoria, Oregon.
The PSAP main line is located east of Paulson Road (east of the site) with at-grade crossings located on local streets: South Adams Street, Fifth Street, and Eighth Street. An existing spur extends along the north side of the Project Site.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 5 of 140
2.1.3 Existing Structures/Topography The Project Site is generally flat (less than 5 percent slopes). The shoreline bank is generally about 5 feet high and is armored with rock riprap. The shoreline slope ranges from approximately 25 to 50 percent.
Existing structures on the proposed Project Site include the following. • Willis Enterprises: one maintenance shed, one weigh station office, and one security gate (not in use). • Tax Parcels 056401000600 and 517101011001: three warehouses (one of which is signed “Bellweather Yard Rack and Bottle”) and a storage area for wooden barrels. • Tax Parcel 056401000400: three abandoned and dilapidated warehouses and one abandoned weigh station and associated office building.
Other miscellaneous structures, appurtenances, and materials include pad-mounted transformers, pole-mounted transformers, dumpsters, fill materials, and uncontained debris and refuse.
2.1.4 Existing Land Uses The Project Site was originally a historical tideflat that was filled during the early twentieth century with dredged material from the Chehalis River and Grays Harbor. The northeast corner of the site was developed and used as a machinery manufacturing facility for pulp and paper equipment from 1971 through 2001. That area is now occupied by the whiskey distillery. The Port Terminal 3 portion of the site (central and west areas) was historically used as a log yard and log export facility by Rayonier Grays Harbor from 1981 through 1999. The Port purchased the site from Rayonier in 1999.
A 25-acre portion (upland) and the Terminal 3 dock are currently used by Willis Enterprises, a log storage and wood chip facility. A 20-acre portion on the southwest corner (upland) is a former City of Hoquiam wastewater treatment lagoon. The lagoon is no longer in operation and is currently in the process of being filled in by the City. A 4-acre portion of the site in the northeast corner of the upland portion of the site (also known as the Lamb property) is occupied by a whiskey distillery. The remaining upland areas within the site are unused or undeveloped.
2.1.5 Adjacent Land Uses The Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge (GHNWR) is located north of the airport and west of the Project Site. A railroad track traverses the northern boundary of the site. Farther north are forested lands, private residences, and commercial businesses, as well as Hoquiam High School, John Gable Community Park, and a foundry across West Emerson Road to the north. Located east of the site are commercial properties, a lumber yard, mini storage, and private residences. On the east side of South Adams Road are wetland areas, residential uses, and a chemical handling facility. South of the upland portion of the site are Grays Harbor and the Port’s Terminal 3 pier. The City’s wastewater treatment facility is located immediately adjacent to the west.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 6 of 140
Bowerman Airport is located approximately 1,300 feet west of the Project Site and west of the wastewater facility.
2.1.6 Archaeological Resources A cultural resources investigation (ICF February 2018) was completed for the Project Site (see Appendix H). No places or objects at or next to the site are listed on or proposed for national, state, or local preservation registers. None of the buildings in the area of potential effect (APE) are historically significant because, based on a review of historic aerial images and shoreline data, it was determined that the on-site buildings were constructed in the 1980s and thus not age eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) cut off age eligibility of 50 years. Additionally, none of the on-site buildings have achieved significance of special importance as part of an eligible historic district. Based on the results of the cultural resources study of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and a finding of no cultural or historic resources impacted under SEPA.
IDD#1 Site
2.2.1 Site Overview IDD#1 is approximately 45 acres in size and is located on the north shore of Grays Harbor, on the right (west) bank of the Hoquiam River at its mouth. Most of the site surface is flat, though depressions on the surface of the site have formed that have allowed depressional wetland areas to form over time.
IDD#1 is former tidelands of inner Grays Harbor that were filled with dredge materials in the 1970s and is planned and zoned for industrial activities. Beginning in the 1960s, the tideflats in the vicinity of the Project Site were filled with dredged material, and a levee and dike system was established as part of an urban renewal project. The mitigation project will restore tidal hydrology to the site by removing fill and excavating tidal channels to create a mosaic of tidal channels, salt marsh, palustrine emergent wetland, and enhanced scrub-shrub and forested buffer habitat at the site.
Like the Project Site, IDD#1 is zoned and designated “Industrial”. The site is also within the Waterfront Overlay District (Sheets 13 and 14).
2.2.2 Site Access IDD#1 is accessed from the east terminus of Earley Industrial Way (on the west side of the property) or from the east terminus of K Street (on the north side of the property). The existing informal access to the northwest corner of IDD#1 would be formally established, and the informal trail would be modified from its existing condition, and improved with pervious surfacing atop a berm that would be established on the northern and western portions of the site.
2.2.3 Existing Structures/Topography There are no existing structures on IDD#1. A City of Hoquiam pump station is located in the northern portion of the property, outside the boundary of the proposed mitigation site. There are also power lines that run along the northern boundary of the
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 7 of 140
site. The Port maintains a gravel access path around the top of the outer berm, and the site is currently used by the public as an informal (and currently unauthorized) access to the shoreline for recreational purposes. Inside the constructed levee most of the site surface is flat, though depressions on the surface of the site have formed that allowed depressional wetland areas to form over time.
2.2.4 Existing Land Uses IDD#1 is zoned for industrial development and has been the subject of several potential development proposals in the years since it was filled. However, there is no current industrial activity at the site. A City of Hoquiam pump station is located in the northern portion of the property, outside the boundary of the proposed mitigation site. Power lines also run along the northern boundary of the site. The site is currently used by the public for informal (and currently unauthorized) recreational purposes.
City stormwater drains eastward to the Hoquiam River via a series of two excavated ditches located along the northern boundary of the site. The outlet from the stormwater conveyance is controlled by a small tidegate. There is a third ditch located along the northwestern corner of the study area. This ditch may have formerly connected to the tidal inlet west of the site, but there is currently no surface connection. There is a culvert and tidal water control structure located in the berm along the eastern boundary of the site. This structure is located at the outlet of a shallow ditch, which drains the central interior portion of the site. The structure consists of two culverts inside an excavated basin that keeps tidal water from entering the site except during higher high tides. One of the culverts associated with this structure is blocked and no longer functions.
2.2.5 Adjacent Land Uses The PSAP rail line runs along the northern boundary of the site, and it is bounded to the east by the Hoquiam River, to the south by the waters of Grays Harbor, and on the west by a tidal inlet and shallow drainage that separate the site from adjacent vacant industrial land.
2.2.6 Archaeological Resources A cultural resources survey (ICF June 2019) was completed for IDD#1. There are no existing buildings or structures on site. The area contains a previously documented, but unevaluated site. ICF determined that, based on the NRHP eligibility criteria, the site is not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP and the proposed mitigation activities at IDD#1 would not encounter any previously documented or undocumented archaeological resources.
ICF recommended a finding of no historic properties affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and a finding of no cultural or historic resources impacted under SEPA if efforts are made to avoid possible intact components of the recorded site at IDD#1 during future project activities. The applicant will comply with the mitigation measures identified in the report in order to avoid possible intact components of the recorded site. If ground-disturbing excavations need to occur below the depth where these deposits may occur, archaeological monitoring would take place.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 8 of 140
3.0 CRITICAL AREAS AND SHORELINES Critical areas regulated by the City include wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and frequently flooded areas. The City regulates activities in designated critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction under HMC 11.06, and critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction under HMC 11.05 Article VIII.
A preliminary site assessment confirmed that critical areas are present on the Project Site and IDD#1. A Critical Areas Assessment was prepared for these sites and is included as Appendix E.2 Additional details on the shoreline and critical areas at both sites, including the wetland and waterbody delineations, mitigation plan, and geotechnical engineering report, are provided as appendices to the Critical Areas Assessment.
Project Site Regulated critical areas on the Project Site include wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and frequently flooded areas. 3
3.1.1 Wetlands A wetland and waterbody delineation identified the presence of three wetlands at the Project Site that meet the criteria to be considered jurisdictional under the City’s critical areas regulations (see Sheet 22). Several man-made stormwater- and wastewater-treatment facilities were identified at the site that do not meet the criteria for wetlands.
The City’s SMP (HMC 11.05) establishes protective buffers for all regulated activities conducted adjacent to regulated wetlands. Base buffer widths are established based on the total point score from the wetland rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use. Because the proposed project represents a high- intensity land use, Wetlands A, B, and C all have a 150-foot base buffer width. Ditches are exempt from regulation as wetlands under the SMP and, as such, they do not have a regulatory buffer.
See the critical areas assessment and mitigation plan (attached) for complete details on impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers, and the proposed mitigation to ensure no net loss.
3.1.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas A Geotechnical Engineering Report (Shannon & Wilson July 2019) was conducted for the Project Site (included as an attachment to the Critical Areas Assessment, Appendix E). The City regulates development activities within designated
2 Terminal 4 and the Hoquiam River Preservation Site are located outside of City limits and are not subject to the City of Hoquiam’s critical areas or shorelines regulations. 3 There are no critical aquifer recharge areas within city limits.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 9 of 140
geologically hazardous areas to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. HMC defines the following types of geologically hazardous areas.
Erosion Hazard – areas identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service as having a “severe” rill and inter-rill erosion hazard and areas subject to impacts from lateral erosion related to moving water, such as river channel migration and shoreline retreat. Landslide Hazard – areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. They include any areas susceptible because of any combination of bedrock, soil, slope (gradient), slope aspect, structure, hydrology, or other factors. Seismic Hazard Areas – areas subject to severe risk of damage because of earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. Areas subject to other geological events such as tsunamis, coal mine hazards, and volcanic hazards, including mass wasting, debris flows, rockfalls, and differential settlement. Soils mapped at the Project Site by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are rated as having a slight potential for erosion hazard, which indicates a low level of risk of erosion. Similarly, the risk of landslide hazards, mass wasting events, debris flows, and rockfalls at the Project Site are low because of the relatively flat nature of the site. For these reasons, the site is not considered an erosion or landslide hazard area. A map of soils may be found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
According to the DNR Natural Hazards online mapper, the Project Site has a moderate to high liquefaction susceptibility, and is a National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) site class D to E. Layer information for NEHRP seismic site class states “Site classes C, D, and E represent increasingly softer soil conditions which result in a progressively increasing amplification of ground shaking.” The site is therefore considered a seismic hazard area. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes maps of liquefaction zones and areas susceptible to earthquake damage.
The DNR Natural Hazards mapper indicates that the nearest faults are located west of the Project Site, near the mouth of Grays Harbor, and to the northwest near Ocean Shores; therefore, the likelihood of surface faulting or fault rupture at the site is relatively low. The mapper also indicates that the sites could potentially be affected by volcanic ash; however, the sites are not considered as within a volcanic hazard area under WAC 365-190-120.
Although the City does not designate tsunami events as a type of seismic hazard, WAC 365-190-120 provides that “areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of…tsunamis” be considered seismic hazard areas. The potential impact of a tsunami at the Project Site was considered according to the Tsunami Hazard Maps of Southwest Washington prepared by the Washington Geological Survey and modeled
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 10 of 140
on a L1 Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake scenario (Eungard et al. 2018). During this event, modeled inundation at the site appears to be mostly between 0 to 5 feet. South of the Airport Way roadway, inundation is predicted to be as high as 15 feet. Currents at the site from are mapped as high at the shoreline (>9 knots) but mostly 0 to 3 knots across the Project Site (Ausenco February 2019). Therefore the Project Site and IDD#1 Site are within a tsunami hazard area. The Grays Harbor County 2018 Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (July 2018) defines and identifies “critical facilities and infrastructure” which warrant further consideration over tsunami hazards; the Proposed Project is not a critical facility according to the hazard mitigation plan.
3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Designated fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (WAC 365-190-130) include: • Areas with which endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; • Habitats and species of local importance; • Commercial and recreational shellfish areas; • Kelp and eelgrass beds; herring and smelt spawning areas; • Naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; • Waters of the state and their associated riparian areas; and • State natural area preserves and natural resource conservation areas.
The following sections detail the fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas identified within the boundaries of the Project Site. The following areas are not present and are not addressed further in this report: naturally occurring ponds under 20 acres, habitats or species of local importance (outside of federal and state priority species that are addressed below), and state natural area preserves or natural resource conservation areas.
The technical reports developed to support the project’s compliance with fish and wildlife habitat conservation area regulations include the Critical Areas Assessment, the Mitigation Plan, and the Biological Evaluation, which are provided as appendices.
3.1.3.1 Federal and State Priority and Listed Species This section discusses the ESA-listed species and critical habitat known to occur, or with the potential to occur, within the vicinity of the Project Site, which includes a portion of Grays Harbor.
Information regarding listed species was obtained from the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2019a), the WDFW databases Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web and SalmonScape (WDFW 2019b and WDFW 2019c), and NOAA Fisheries Northwest Region website (NOAA Fisheries
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 11 of 140
2019a). Table 2 identifies the species listed under the ESA that have the potential to occur within or near the Project Site.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 12 of 140
Table 2. Species Listed or Proposed for Listing under the ESA that Could Potentially Occur within or Near the Project Site Species Name ESA Listing Common Name Scientific Name ESU or DPS* Status Critical Habitat Fish Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus Lower Columbia River Threatened Designated, but not tshawytscha) ESU* in project area Upper Willamette Threatened Designated, but not River ESU in project area Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus Columbia River ESU Threatened Designated, but not keta) in project area Bull trout (Salvelinus Coastal Puget Sound Threatened Designated confluentus) DPS* Pacific eulachon (Thaleichthys Southern DPS Threatened Designated, but not (smelt) pacificus) in project area North American (Acipenser Southern DPS Threatened Designated green sturgeon medirostris) Marine Mammals Humpback (Megaptera NA Endangered Not designated or whale novaeangliae) Proposed Killer whale (Orcinus orca) Southern Resident Endangered Designated, but not DPS in project area Fin whale (Balaenoptera NA Endangered Not designated or physalus) Proposed Sei whale (Balaenoptera NA Endangered Not designated or borealis) Proposed Blue whale (Balaenoptera NA Endangered Not designated or musculus) Proposed Sperm whale (Physeter NA Endangered Not designated or microcephalus) Proposed Right whale (Eubalaena North Pacific DPS Endangered Designated, but not japonica) in project area Marine Turtles Leatherback (Dermochelys NA Endangered Designated, but not sea turtle coriacea) in project area Birds Marbled (Brachyramphus NA Threatened Designated, but not murrelet marmoratus in project area marmoratus) Western snowy (Charadrius NA Threatened Designated, but not plover alexandrinus in project area nivosus) Streaked (Eremophila NA Designated, but not Threatened horned lark alpestris strigata) in project area Yellow-billed (Coccyzus Western DPS Designated, but not Threatened cuckoo americanus) in project area *ESU = Evolutionarily Significant Unit; DPS=Distinct Population Segment; NA = Not Applicable
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 13 of 140
The species listed below in Table 3 and/or their designated critical habitat may have ranges that overlap with the Project Site, IDD#1, Terminal 4, the Hoquiam River Preservation Site, and/or the vicinity based on USFWS species lists.4 However, these species are not likely to be present at the Project Site or proposed mitigation sites because of a lack of suitable habitat. These species are therefore unlikely to be affected by the proposed project.
Table 3. Species Listed or Proposed for Listing under the ESA Not Likely to Occur within or Near the Project Site Species Name Common Name Scientific Name ESA Listing Status Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened (USFWS) Short-tailed Albatross Phoebastria albatrus Endangered (USFWS) Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene hippolyta Threatened (USFWS) Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta Endangered (NMFS) Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened (NMFS) Olive Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Threatened (NMFS)
In addition to the species described above, WDFW’s PHS database also identifies the following non-ESA-listed priority species and habitats as occurring or potentially occurring within or near the Project Site: • Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) • Steelhead Salmon (Oncorhynchus mykiss) • Resident Coastal Cutthroat Salmon (Oncorhynchus clarkii) • Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (non-ESA-listed evolutionarily significant unit [ESU]) • Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) (non-ESA-listed ESUs) • Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
WDFW PHS database also identifies the following priority habitats and avian concentrations mapped within or near the Project Site. • Freshwater emergent wetlands • Estuarine and marine wetlands • Freshwater forested/shrub wetlands • Shorebird and waterfowl concentrations
In addition to the above-mentioned species, portions of Grays Harbor also provide habitat for a variety of avian species that are identified as either State Species of Concern listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red-list, or on the 2016 watch list published by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative.
4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) database. Accessed 9 July 2019 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 14 of 140
Many of these species use habitats within the vicinity of the Project Site and the IDD#1 Site, in particular, the intertidal habitats at the Project Site and IDD#1 Site, as well as the extensive salt marsh and intertidal habitats that are present on the GHNWR to the west of the Project Site. In addition to the ESA-listed whale species identified previously, several non-ESA-listed species of marine mammals are present within the waters of Grays Harbor. The most common marine mammal species within Grays Harbor are California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). Harbor seal haul-out sites are located throughout the estuary, primarily in the north and central bays. The nearest haul outs to the Project Site are located on the mid harbor flats and shoals that are exposed at low tides, approximately 4 miles southwest of the Project Site. Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) are also occasionally present in Grays Harbor as well as in offshore coastal waters. Other non-ESA-listed whale species that may occur in the waters off Grays Harbor include the pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps), minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), and gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), which is a state-listed sensitive species.
Dungeness crab (Cancer magister) is listed as a priority species by the state as a Species of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance. Dungeness crab is a commercially important species in Grays Harbor, and is also an important tribal treaty resource of the Quinault Indian Nation (Quinault). Grays Harbor is an important nursery for juvenile Dungeness crab. At any time, the waters of Grays Harbor support populations of maturing larvae, developing juveniles, and adult crabs moving out of the estuary. Habitat suitability at the Project Site is limited for adult Dungeness crabs, but larval and juvenile crabs likely use shallow nearshore waters at the site.
3.1.3.2 Critical Saltwater Habitat Designations The SMP and critical areas ordinance designate and protect critical saltwater habitats, including: kelp and eelgrass beds; spawning and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt, and sand lance; subsistence, commercial, and recreational shellfish beds; mudflats and intertidal habitats with vascular plants; and areas with which priority species have a primary association.
An evaluation of the presence of the each of the above-listed critical saltwater habitats is provided below.
Kelp and Eelgrass Beds A review of the Washington State Coastal Atlas Map (Ecology 2019) indicated that patchy eelgrass beds are present on the GHNWR west of the site and south of the site approximately 0.34 mile from the shoreline, across the navigation channel.
HMC 11.05.850 specifies that where an inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, over water and nearshore developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to complete a habitat assessment of site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 15 of 140
functions. The methods and extent of the inventory shall be consistent with WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(C). The city will work with WDFW to define this area.
Two types of eelgrass (Zostera spp.) are known to occur within the general project vicinity: native eelgrass (Z. marina) and non-native Japanese eelgrass (Z. japonica). Of these, only native eelgrass is considered a priority species or habitat with management protections in Washington. Non-native Japanese eelgrass is listed as a Class C noxious weed in California and Washington (it is not listed on the federal invasive species list).
Per WDFW guidance, eelgrass is to be protected as a saltwater habitat of special concern identified under the WAC. Under WAC 220-660-320, saltwater habitats of special concern include “Seagrasses (Zostera marina, Ruppia maritima, and Phyllospadix spp.) beds.” In WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species List (updated January 2019), the WDFW states that “subtidal areas consisting of rocky substrate, native vegetation (e.g., eelgrass, macroalgae) … are of particular importance,” but specifies that this “excludes Zostera japonica.”
In addition, USACE guidance (Components of a Complete Eelgrass Delineation Report) states that “criteria for bed thresholds apply only to the native eelgrass Z. marina.” Therefore, non-native eelgrass is not considered a saltwater habitat of special concern by the WDFW. The presence/absence of non-native eelgrass was included in the survey in order to provide complete and thorough results in establishing the presence/absence of native eelgrass.
An eelgrass survey and Tier 1 delineation consistent with the requirements of an “Advanced Survey” described in the WDFW Eelgrass/Macroalgae Habitat Interim Survey Guidelines (WDFW 2008) and a “Tier 1 Delineation Survey” as described in the USACE Components of a Complete Eelgrass Delineation Report (USACE 2018), was completed by WSP from 18 June to 20 June 2019 on the in-water portion of the Project Site and at the proposed mitigation site, IDD#1 (WSP 2019). The results of the survey and delineation document that there are no native eelgrass beds present at the Project Site. There is patchy non-native Japanese eelgrass distributed throughout the upper intertidal zone at the Project Site between approximately +3 to +6 feet mean lower low water (MLLW), and patchy macroalgae distributed in a relatively narrow band above +6 feet MLLW. See Sheet 26.
Forage Fish Habitat Grays Harbor and adjacent nearshore marine areas provide habitat for a variety of forage fish. The Forage Fish Spawning Map of Washington State shows sand lance, smelt, and herring spawning areas south and west of the project area, at the mouth of and within Grays Harbor approximately 9.5 miles west from the Project Site; however, no forage fish spawning areas are mapped within or near either site. The project will not affect forage fish habitat, and will result in no net loss of function for forage fish.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 16 of 140
Subsistence, Commercial, and Recreational Shellfish Beds There are no known subsistence, commercial, or recreational shellfish beds within the Project Site or immediate vicinity. A review of the Washington Department of Health (DOH) Office of Environmental Health and Safety Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer, shows that commercial shellfish harvesting in the eastern portion of Grays Harbor (including the Project Site) is prohibited because of a wastewater treatment plant outfall in the vicinity (DOH 2019a). Additionally, the Office of Environmental Health and Safety Shellfish Safety Information Map indicates that the same area is closed to recreational shellfish harvest because of water quality (DOH 2019b). Approved commercial growing areas are located approximately 4.7 miles west of the project area and throughout the western portion of Grays Harbor. The nearest public beach open to recreational shellfishers is Bottle Beach, approximately 8.75 miles southwest of the Project Site. Only the southern portion of this beach is open to shellfishing.
Mudflats and Intertidal Habitats The intertidal habitats of Grays Harbor support of variety of invertebrates, including mollusks, crustaceans, worms, nematodes, copepods, and amphipods. These species provide forage for area shorebirds and fish, including juvenile salmonid that inhabit the estuary. The shoreline of the Project Site is armored with riprap; however, the shallow nature of the shoreline waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) means that there is a relatively wide, shallow intertidal mudflat that extends for approximately 700 feet to the edge of the Grays Harbor Navigation Channel. There is also extensive mudflat and intertidal habitat on the GHNWR west of the Project Site.
Areas with which Priority Species have a Primary Association As described in earlier in this section, the aquatic habitats at the Project Site provide suitable habitat for a number of ESA-listed and state priority aquatic species. Therefore, these areas would be considered saltwater habitats of special concern.
3.1.4 Frequently Flooded Areas Only a small portion of the northern end of the Project Site is mapped within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) effective 100-year floodplain (Sheet 20). Northern portions of the site may be impacted by 100-year or larger flood events (1-percent annual exceedance probability), which could inundate areas below elevation 13.45 feet.
Frequently flooded areas are regulated under HMC Chapter 11.16 – Floodplain District. According to the code, areas of special flood hazard are those identified by the FEMA Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled “The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Hoquiam, Washington” along with accompanying flood insurance rate maps (FIRM). The currently published FEMA FIRM (Panels 53027C0881D, and 53027C0882D effective February 3, 2017) identify the portions of the project that are within the 100- year floodplain at the Project Site (Sheet 20).
BHP prepared a flooding assessment for the site, including sea level rise analysis (Amec Foster Wheeler February 2018). The Project Site is subject to both riverine
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 17 of 140
and coastal flood hazards. Per the assessment, the area of potential flood impact appears to be less than expected from the FEMA Flood Hazard Zone map, based on more topographic data not available when FEMA originally developed the map. Without modifying existing site grades, flooding may potentially affect operations at the northernmost building (covered storage area).
When sea level rise is considered, the extent of inundation at the northern end of the site would increase because of flooding from the Hoquiam River. Additionally, coastal flooding would increase along the southern edge of the Project Site, inundating both Moon Island Road and Airport Way.
Portions of the project will require construction within the mapped 100-year floodplain at the Project Site. The proposed project will secure permits for development within the area of special flood hazard, per the requirements of HMC 11.16.240, and will meet the applicable design standards and provisions of HMC 11.16.250 and 11.16.270. The proposed project will therefore result in no net loss of floodplain function.
3.1.5 Shoreline Master Program (HMC 11.05) The upland portion of the Project Site is designated as High Intensity. The purpose of this designation is to “provide for high intensity water-oriented commercial, industrial and port, mixed-use, transportation, and navigation uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in shoreline jurisdiction that have been degraded.”
Areas below the OHWM are designated as Aquatic. The stated purpose of the Aquatic designation is “to protect, restore, and manage the unique characteristics and resources of shoreline jurisdiction waterward of the OHWM.”
The SMP shoreline environment designation map identifies the preliminary limits of shoreline jurisdiction within the City (Sheet 15). However, the SMP states that the actual lateral extent of shoreline jurisdiction shall be determined on a case-by-case basis established by the location of the OHWM, the floodway (defined by the adopted FEMA floodway), adopted floodplains, and the presence of associated wetlands.
A wetland and OHWM delineation was conducted at the Project Site (BergerABAM June 2018). Because the wetlands at the Project Site are located in close proximity to Grays Harbor, have some surface water connections, and are located in filled areas, they are assumed to be considered associated wetlands and subject to the jurisdiction of the SMP. The applicant identified additional wetlands (Wetlands B and C as shown on Sheet 22) on the Project Site that are considered shorelines subject to the SMP but are not depicted on the official Shoreline Map. The application assumes that Wetland C is a shoreline waterbody (with a defined OHWM and direct connection to Grays Harbor) and Wetland B as an associated wetland that are both subject to the SMP. Wetlands B and C should be designated as High Intensity based on the designation criteria per the SMP, as listed below.
A. Purpose
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 18 of 140
The purpose of the High Intensity shoreline environment designation is to provide for high intensity water-oriented commercial, industrial and port, mixed-use, transportation, and navigation uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in shoreline jurisdiction that have been degraded. B. Designation Criteria 1. Assign the High Intensity shoreline environment designation to the areas of shoreline jurisdiction that currently support high intensity uses related to commerce, industry, public facilities, transportation, or navigation, or are suitable for high intensity water-oriented uses. The areas of shoreline jurisdiction assigned this designation should have the following characteristics: a. Can support high-intensity uses without degradation to existing shoreline function; b. Designated by the city’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning for high intensity, commercial, industrial, public, transportation, navigation, or mixed-use development; and c. Have few biophysical limitations to development such as floodways, floodplains, steep slopes, or landslide hazard areas. 2. Allow for non-water-related uses within this designation where water- dependent uses are not possible, such as where there is a developed roadway between the OHWM and the proposed use.
Wetlands B and C should properly be designated as High Intensity under the SMP as a lateral extent of the shoreline designation of the remainder of the site pursuant to HMC 11.05.050(e). In addition, the area is consistent with the High-Intensity designation criteria listed above.
3.1.5.1 Project Elements within the Shoreline Jurisdiction Boundaries Based on the wetland delineation and the City’s shoreline jurisdiction map, Sheet 16 identifies the actual shoreline jurisdiction boundaries at the Project Site, and identifies what proposed facilities would be located in the shoreline and subject to the SMP. The following project elements at the Project Site will occur within the High Intensity shoreline designation. • Rail track • Access and maintenance roadway • Portion of access overpass • Portion of the product storage building • Portion of overhead conveyor system • Portions of the railcar unloading facility • Stormwater Pond 3 • Portions of the trestle
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 19 of 140
Project elements noted below will occur waterward of the Ecology OHWM on the Project Site and within the Aquatic shoreline designation: • Access trestle • Shiploading conveyor • Dual-quadrant shiploaders • Catwalks • Berth structure, including a service platform, quadrant supports, pivot structures, and transfer tower platform • Breasting dolphins • Mooring dolphins • Dredging
IDD#1 Site Regulated critical areas on the site include wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and frequently flooded areas.
3.2.1 Wetlands The wetland delineation identified the presence of four wetlands and wetland buffers at IDD#1 that meet the criteria to be considered jurisdictional under the City’s critical areas regulations (Sheet 23). A detailed discussion of wetlands at the site can be found in the mitigation plan and the wetland delineation report for IDD#1, included in the Critical Areas Assessment (Appendix E).
3.2.2 Geologically Hazardous Areas The soil mapping at IDD#1 is generally representative of soil conditions historically present at the site prior to fill placement. The same geologically hazardous areas are present at the Project Site and IDD#1. See the geologically hazardous areas discussion under the Project Site, above (section 3.1.2).
3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas at the IDD#1 Site are similar to those present at the Project Site and include the presence of habitats for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species, and critical saltwater habitats.
The Mitigation Plan provides a comprehensive (quantitative and qualitative) assessment of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation relative to the state’s no net loss standard for fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Below is a discussion of these areas at IDD#1.
3.2.3.1 Federal and State Priority and Listed Species Section 3.1.3.1 discusses the ESA-listed species and critical habitat known to occur, or with the potential to occur, within the vicinity of both the Project Site and IDD#1, which includes a portion of Grays Harbor.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 20 of 140
3.2.3.2 Critical Saltwater Habitat Designations
Kelp and Eelgrass Beds Patchy non-native Japanese eelgrass was documented as distributed in the vicinity of the IDD#1 Site. The eelgrass survey and Tier 1 delineation documented patchy non- native eelgrass in the upper intertidal portion of the tidal inlet, and along the southeastern boundary of the site.
The delineation also identified two small beds of native eelgrass, adjacent to the western boundary of the IDD#1 Site. These two native eelgrass beds are located outside of the site but within the study area for the delineation. Bed A is approximately 39.70 square feet in size with a density of approximately 20 shoots/0.25m2. Bed B is approximately 61.61 square feet in size with a density of approximately 20 shoots/0.25m2.
Forage Fish Habitat Grays Harbor and adjacent nearshore marine areas provide habitat for a variety of forage fish. The Forage Fish Spawning Map of Washington State shows sand lance, smelt, and herring spawning areas south and west of the project area, at the mouth of and within Grays Harbor approximately 11 miles west from IDD#1; however, no forage fish spawning areas are mapped within or near either site. The project will not affect forage fish habitat, and will result in no net loss of function for forage fish.
Subsistence, Commercial, and Recreational Shellfish Beds There are no known subsistence, commercial, or recreational shellfish beds within the Project Site or immediate vicinity. See section 3.1.3.2.
Mudflats and Intertidal Habitats See section 3.1.3.2 for a discussion of the intertidal habitats of Grays Harbor. The IDD#1 Site supports a shoreline of intertidal mudflats. An approximately 2-acre tidal mudflat along the western boundary of the IDD#1 Site is exposed at low tides.
Areas with which Priority Species have a Primary Association As described in earlier in this section, the aquatic habitats at the IDD#1 Site provide suitable habitat for a number of ESA-listed and state priority aquatic species. These areas would therefore be considered saltwater habitats of special concern.
3.2.4 Frequently Flooded Areas Per FEMA FIRM Panel 53027C0882D, the IDD#1 Site is located in an area of minimal flood hazard because the levee serves to enclose the site (Sheet 21). The City will issue a floodplain permit as part of the grading permit needed to construct the IDD#1 mitigation site. Appropriate technical analysis will be provided at that time to support the floodplain permit. The proposed compensatory mitigation will remove a portion of the existing levee at the IDD#1 Site to restore tidal influence to the site as part of restoration efforts. The levee at the IDD#1 Site serves to enclose the site and does not provide flood protection to the City of Hoquiam (Panel 53027C0882D). The Grays Harbor Flood Insurance Study 53027CV000A indicates the primary cause of flooding in Hoquiam is the Hoquiam River and not Grays Harbor or the Chehalis
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 21 of 140
River. The location of the IDD#1 Site is such that it will not influence flooding in the City. The proposed mitigation actions at the IDD#1 Site, including excavation of tidal channels and rehabilitation of salt marsh habitats, will return approximately 37.32 acres to elevations below the existing 100-year floodplain elevation.
3.2.5 Shoreline Master Program (HMC 11.05) As with the Project Site, the upland portion of IDD#1 is designated as High Intensity, and areas below the OHWM are designated as Aquatic. The wetland delineation for IDD#1 provides the basis for determining the actual lateral extent of shorelines on site. Because the wetlands at IDD#1 are located in close proximity to Grays Harbor and the Hoquiam River, have some limited surface water connectivity, and are located in an area of former filled tidelands, they are assumed to be considered associated wetlands and subject to the jurisdiction of the SMP. See Sheet 17 for a map of the shoreline jurisdiction boundaries on the IDD#1 Site. Compliance with all applicable shoreline regulations is detailed in section 8.3.
The only activities that would occur within the Aquatic shoreline designation on IDD#1 would consist of minor grading below the existing OHWM at the two proposed channel openings, in order to open up the interior of the site to the waters of the estuary. All other ecological restoration activities and recreational uses will be in the High Intensity designation.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 22 of 140
4.0 PROPOSED SITE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS The proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility (proposed project) will include construction of the following features and associated site improvement activities.
• Marine shiploading structures and ship berth • Railcar unloading facility, including railcar unloading facility gates, hoppers, and equipment • Potash storage building • Administration building, maintenance building, and associated roadways and parking • Fueling station • Site access gate • Site entry overpass at south entrance from Airport Way for vehicular traffic • Utilities (water, electricity, sewer, and stormwater) • Electrical substation(s) (up to three to support operations at the site) • Rail improvements, including an 8,500-foot rail loop with two inbound tracks, one outbound track, and one unloading track • A perimeter rail track maintenance road • Stormwater management ponds • Dredging to accommodate and maintain new berth pocket • Covered conveyors, dust collectors, and other transfer facilities • Compensatory mitigation
A detailed description of these project elements and their operational function, where applicable, follows. The project facility is illustrated on Sheets 1 through 12.
Marine Structures The proposed marine structures include an in-water access trestle with wharf conveyor, dual quadrant pile-supported shiploader with steel trusses, mooring dolphins, catwalks, shiploader support structures, and a maintenance access/platform (Sheets 9 and 10). In-water work will only occur during designated in-water work windows discussed in section 5.0.
The existing Terminal 3 dock will remain and will likely be used during construction and future maintenance of the facility. Anchorage in the inner harbor or offshore is not presently considered in the operations plan as current practice is for vessels to maintain a holding pattern offshore.
Steel piles with steel pile caps, steel beams, and steel deck with grating will support the mooring structure. Steel up-stands will support the pivot loads for the quadrant loaders. The quadrant beams will consist of steel beams with extended flanges for walkways on both sides of the crane rail.
The berthing dolphins will be steel pile-supported structures with steel pile caps and are equipped with mooring bollards for ship mooring lines and fendering systems. The two mooring dolphins are pile-supported structures with steel pile caps and
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 23 of 140
quick-release hooks for lines (Sheets 9 and 10). Mooring dolphins are accessed via steel catwalks. The catwalk decks will be grated to allow light penetration.
A combination of vibratory hammer and impact hammer will be used to install the in- water steel piles. It is anticipated piles will be vibrated to a depth near the design tip elevation, followed by impact hammer to the design tip elevation. The characteristics of the substrate and the location of the pile driver will determine the extent to which the pile is advanced by the vibratory method. An impact pile driver will complete driving the pile to the specified depth and load. An impact pile driver will also be used to proof a portion of the piles (approximately 25 percent) after they are driven to design depth with a vibratory hammer. Piles will be driven open-ended.
The marine terminal will require approximately 199 48-inch-diameter steel piles with reinforced concrete pile caps, precast box beams, and composite concrete deck topping. This pile total includes approximately 40 piles as a contingency for the final design.
Construction may also require up to 48 temporary piles. Temporary piles may be installed for the mooring of a work barge during the construction and as templates to aid in the installation of the pile groupings. Temporary pile use will depend on the method of construction for support platforms, transfer tower platforms, access support platform, and pivot supports, as they are located in shallow water and may not be accessible by barge. Temporary piles will likely be 24-inch-diameter, open-ended steel pipes, driven solely with a vibratory pile driver. The temporary piles will be removed using vibratory equipment after construction of the relevant feature is completed. Please see section 7.0 for discussion of how impacts to water and marine life will be addressed.
Railcar Unloading Facility The railcar unloading facility (Sheet 6) will consist of an enclosed concrete receiving structure measuring approximately 32 feet wide by 190 feet long by 35 feet deep (below grade) topped by an approximately 26 feet high concrete and steel building of the same footprint. Trains will progress continuously through the railcar unloading facility at about 0.3 mile per hour. The rail cars will be covered when within the facility. The bottom gates on rail cars will be opened to unload the potash into an enclosed receiving hopper and closed when complete before leaving the unloading facility. The entire unloading operation will occur under cover.
Product Storage Building An enclosed storage building will be constructed on the north side of the Project Site to store and protect potash from the elements while waiting for shipment (Sheets 3 and 5). The storage building will be constructed of a steel frame with tensioned fabric cover designed to keep moisture and precipitation away from the potash product. The product storage building will be approximately 245 feet wide, approximately 141.5 feet high at the apex, and approximately 1,550 feet long. The storage volume of the building will be a maximum of 265,000 tons of potash. The building will be supported by a concrete slab on a steel and timber pile foundation. The storage
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 24 of 140
building will be surrounded by a concrete wall encircling the building. The wall will be 5 feet high and will serve to protect the building and product stored there in the event of flooding. The wall will prevent stormwater/floodwater from coming into contact with the potash product, dissolving, and/or entraining potash into surface water.
Shiploading Potash will be transported to the ship at the berth directly from the railcar unloading facility or from the product storage building via conveyor. The shiploader will be designed to reduce dust emissions and prevent spills, thereby maintaining water quality. The shiploader will include belt covers, covered transfers, and a telescoping chute to prevent product spills and emission of fugitive dust during operations. The shiploader will also include instrumentation, such as radar, lasers, etc., which, combined with the automated control system, will prevent conveyors from operating unless they are over a vessel hold, thereby preventing accidental discharge of potash into the environment. Operations will require belts to be completely discharged into vessel holds prior to removing the shiploader booms from over a vessel.
There will be 4 vessels per week at the facility and up to 220 vessels per year. Vessel loading will take place over approximately 14 hours, on average, with individual vessels remaining at berth for an average of approximately 18 hours. The facility will accommodate the loading of one vessel at a time.
Shiploading systems (Sheets 9 and 10) will be designed for loading vessels with capacities of 20,000 to 82,000 dead-weight tonnage. Larger vessels may not be fully loaded based on berth and channel water depths. The average shiploading rate is estimated to be approximately 4,000 tons per hour. Conveyor systems will be inspected prior to start-ups to determine that no fugitive product is on the conveyance as it passes over the water from the shiploader to the vessel hold. All conveyors are covered, up to the shiploader loading spouts. Vessels will be inspected and secured prior to the beginning of shiploading operations. The dual quadrant nature of the shiploader allows up to two vessel holds to be loaded concurrently as operations allow. The loading spout(s) will be placed over the holds designated by the individual vessel's loading plan. Shiploader cascade chutes will be used to minimize dust by curtailing freefall of the product. The bottom of the chutes will be positioned as low as possible in the ship containers to further minimize free fall and associated dust. Loading by a shiploader will pause while shiploaders are repositioned to the various holds to provide controlled and level loading of the vessel.
Administration and Maintenance Building The administration and maintenance buildings (Sheet 3) will each consist of one approximately 38,000 square-foot, one-story (30 feet high) building. The administration building will house administrative offices, washrooms, change rooms, and lunchrooms. The proposed maintenance building will house maintenance equipment, supplies, parts replacement storage, and repairs.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 25 of 140
At this time, it is estimated that the workforce for the proposed project —including management, system and equipment operators, and maintenance trades—will be approximately 40 to 50 people comprising fulltime and casual positions.
Concrete/Asphalt Pavement and Gravel Surfacing A parking lot a will be constructed adjacent to the administration building on the southeast portion of the site. The access roadways, parking lot, and walkways will be constructed using asphalt pavement and/or gravel.
Fueling Station A fueling station will be located to the northeast of the maintenance building (Sheet 3). The fueling station will be used to fuel onsite equipment (e.g., emergency generator) and vehicles, as needed. The fueling station will meet federal and Ecology standards, as well as the stormwater control provisions in the facility’s stormwater pollution prevention plan. Double walled aboveground tanks will be used and will be located within a concrete secondary containment area. The fueling island pad adjacent to the tanks will be impervious and graded with a center drain that will convey to a dead-end sump with capacity for potential spills. The fueling area will be covered under a metal roof supported by steel stanchions to minimize corrosion of the fuel pump equipment and protect electrical connections. Additionally, the roof will be equipped with fire-suppression equipment.
Vehicle Site Access The site will be accessed from a driveway on Airport Way on the south side of the Project Site. A new grade separation will be constructed for vehicles to pass over the rail loop (Sheet 7). The grade separation will be located at the south end of the site.
Emergency access will be through the Project Site via a perimeter rail track maintenance road, allowing access to areas south of the PSAP rail corridor between the Hoquiam River Bridge and the Project Site when trains are entering and leaving the site.
Utilities The site is served by existing utilities necessary to support facility operations. Utilities include potable water (City), sanitary sewer (City), storm sewer (Port), electrical (Grays Harbor Public Utility District), and communications services. Services will tie into the existing utilities serving the site. Electrical conduits will either be underground or run along the conveyance structures. Up to three onsite substations will be constructed to support the operations at the facility. No new above-ground electrical lines are proposed for the project.
Sewage from the maintenance building will be discharged by gravity to a lift station and pumped to the existing sanitary sewer main for disposal and treatment via the City of Hoquiam public wastewater system. All utility providers will be responsible for completing their required regulatory permits/applications.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 26 of 140
Rail Improvements The project includes installation of a rail loop on site consisting of multiple tracks: two inbound tracks, one outbound track, and one unloading track. This track configuration under normal operations allows the site to accommodate a fully loaded train onsite at any time onto one of the arrival tracks and then have an outbound track available for that unit train once it departs the unloading track that it used during train unloading operations. The extra inbound track provides additional capacity for non- typical train sequencing events where an additional train has arrived early and it then becomes necessary to accommodate an additional loaded train onsite while still unloading the previous, not-yet-departed train. The rail loop size and configuration were designed to accommodate the entire unit train on site during delivery of potash and during unloading operations to maintain security and minimize the train’s off-site traffic impacts. The proposed project is designed for unloading of potash from one unit train at a time on a single track. Potash is transported by unit trains as it is the most efficient and cost effective movement of trains within the rail corridors. This is because the entire product on a unit train goes to a single destination and does not require stops at other facilities to offload railcars or require the separation of cars from the train during normal loading or unloading operations. Potash unit trains will consist of 177 rail cars requiring a minimum of 8,500 feet of track to safely accommodate the entire train on site during arrival, unloading, and departure. The approximately 11-degree turning radius of the track was designed to accommodate the unit trains on site and to allow the placement of the support structures (storage building, conveyors, administration building, etc.) within the rail loop and away from overwater and wetland areas, minimizing product spill risk and impacts to wetlands as much as practicable while remaining in compliance with the FAA regulatory air space restrictions.
Each railcar will carry approximately 114 tons of potash for a total train shipment size of 20,000 tons of potash per unit train. The facility will generate an average of 1.25 trains per day (roughly 2.5 train trips entering or exiting the Project Site per day) and 8 to 10 trains per week (16 to 20 train trips per week). Railcars conveying the potash to the facility will be fully enclosed to protect the product from precipitation and other contaminants.
The new rail loop tracks will be constructed on the site using both wood and/or concrete ties, as determined by the specific use of the track. Grading will be required for track bed construction and a new access/inspection road located along side of the tracks. Clean crushed rock and sand subballast and ballast will be imported from an approved commercial source and will provide a structural base for track installation. Approximately 62,000 cubic yards of subballast and ballast will be used.
In an action related to the project, the City of Hoquiam approved an ordinance on June 10, 2019 to vacate an existing section of Airport Way/Paulson Road (Ordinance No. 2019-03) in the southwest corner of the Project Site (Sheet 3).
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 27 of 140
Stormwater Management Stormwater discharge will occur through existing outfall facilities or on-site infiltration. On-site infiltration is only planned for those areas where infiltration currently occurs that will remain unchanged after construction. Stormwater management will include construction of four new large-sized retention ponds and five small retention ponds located adjacent to the storage feed and direct load conveyors as shown on Sheet 3.
Dredging The proposed berth and dredging will be located west of, and adjacent to, the existing Terminal 3 dock as shown on Sheets 11 and 12. The new berth will align with and be adjacent to the Terminal 3 berth and extend to the north side of the navigation channel. The face of the new mooring structure will align with the face of the Terminal 3 existing dock to minimize dredging, ease ship berthing, and provide increased access to deep water.
Characterization of the proposed dredged material has been completed in accordance with the USACE Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) to determine suitability for in-water disposal at an authorized placement site (e.g., the DNR Point Chehalis or South Jetty disposal sites). The DMMO issued a suitability determination on February 19, 2019. All of the dredged material was determined to be suitable for open-water placement.
The proposed action also includes maintenance dredging activities for a period of 10 years (based on the duration of the USACE Section 10/404 permit for the project, when obtained) within the new berth basin. The volumes and frequency of maintenance dredging events will vary based on the rate of sedimentation. Maintenance dredging at the new berth, to -43 feet MLLW (plus 2 feet of overdredge), will likely be required annually for the proposed project based on the requirements at Terminal 3. The maintenance dredging will consist of dredging up to 70,000 cubic yards per event based on the permitted maintenance dredge volume at the Terminal 3 berth and the fact that the new berth will be maintained 2 feet deeper (-43 feet MLLW plus 2 feet of allowable overdredge) than the existing Terminal 3 berth. The maintenance dredging will be completed in the same manner as that used for construction of the berth. Dredging is will be conducted using mechanical methods (clamshell bucket dredging equipment) and disposed at the Point Chehalis or South Jetty disposal sites if judged suitable for open water placement by the DMMP. The maintenance dredge material will require re-characterization 6 years after receiving a suitability determination due to the DMMP ranking the site as “low- moderate.”
Complete details on the proposed dredging are provided in the Biological Evaluation (Appendix F).
Conveyor System Potash will be transported via a covered conveyor system from the railcar unloading facility to the product storage building and from the product storage building to the
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 28 of 140
shiploader, or from the railcar unloading facility directly to the shiploader. Certified scales will be situated between the railcar unloading facility and the product storage building and between the product storage building and shiploader for monitoring and inventory control purposes. The conveyor system will be covered to prevent rainwater from coming into contact with and dissolving the potash.
Conveyors will be of conventional design with belts, covers, side skirts, spill pans, and maintenance walkways on both sides (Sheet 4). The conveyors will be 60 inches wide except for the reclaim conveyor located within the storage building, which will be 72 inches wide. Gravel or paved access roads for maintenance will be located beneath each conveyor. Conveyor transfers will minimize vertical drops and direct impact of material at transfer points, and will be equipped with skirting systems to minimize spillage. Transfer points will be equipped with dust collection.
Conveyors will be fully automated, starting up and shutting down in a controlled sequence, and will be instrumented to confirm normal operation and provide warning of potential fault conditions.
Compensatory Mitigation A mitigation sequencing process has been applied throughout the design of the project, consistent with federal, state, and local regulatory guidance. This process consists of a sequence of steps that begins with avoiding impacts to the extent practicable, minimizing and/or rectifying impacts, and finally providing compensatory mitigation for wetland and aquatic impacts. The project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources and other sensitive habitat features to the greatest extent practicable, and these impact avoidance and minimization measures are summarized in this document.
The proposed compensatory mitigation for the project has been designed and sited consistent with USACE, Ecology, WDFW, and City policies and guidance on compensatory mitigation for wetland and aquatic impacts. These compensatory mitigation actions are summarized in section 7.5 of this narrative. A mitigation plan has been prepared and is provided as an attachment to the Critical Areas Assessment (Appendix E). The mitigation plan describes the proposed mitigation actions in detail, and establishes the specific goals, objectives, and performance standards for the plan as well as long-term maintenance and monitoring obligations.
4.14.1 IDD#1 Site – Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Creation and Rehabilitation Mitigation will be constructed on an area of developed industrial land east of the Project Site at the mouth of the Hoquiam River, known as the IDD#1 Site (Sheets 1 and 29). The mitigation project at the IDD#1 site will create approximately 10.75 acres of wetland and rehabilitate approximately 23.49 acres of existing low-quality emergent wetland to high-quality salt marsh. It will also create approximately 5.17 acres of enhanced forested and scrub-shrub wetland buffer at the site by establishing and planting a 110-foot buffer along the northern and western boundaries of the site.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 29 of 140
4.14.2 Terminal 4 Pile and Overwater Structure Removal The applicant will remove approximately 1,368 piles from nearshore waters of Grays Harbor in the vicinity of the Port of Grays Harbor’s Terminal 4 near the mouth of the Chehalis River (Sheets 1 and 37). Pile and structure removal will provide both in-kind mitigation for benthic habitat and overwater coverage impacts associated with the new terminal as well as out-of-kind habitat mitigation in the form of water quality improvements.
The proposed pile and overwater structure removal will occur within Port-owned lands at the Terminal 4 site, or within lands within the Port Management Area established at that location. Approximately 203 of the pilings are currently located within the Port Management Area. The remaining 1,165 piles located east of the Terminal 4 site are on aquatic land currently owned by Washington State DNR but are expected to become part of the Port’s Port Management Area after the Port’s purchase of the adjacent site is completed (the process is currently underway and is expected to be complete in 2020).
4.14.3 Hoquiam River Preservation Site – Wetland and Forest Buffer Preservation The applicant will preserve an approximately 71.5-acre parcel of high quality floodplain wetlands and forested buffer on the Hoquiam River, approximately two miles north of the mouth of the River (referred to herein as the “Hoquiam River Preservation Site”) (Sheets 1 and 38). This will preserve approximately 59.9 acres of Category I wetlands. Preservation of the wetlands at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site will provide out-of-kind mitigation for indirect wetland impacts at the Project Site, by protecting these wetlands from a direct and present development threat. These include threats from timber harvest, industrial development, residential development, agriculture and hobby farming, and high-intensity recreation
5.0 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Construction of the project is proposed to start in 2020 and end in 2024/2025. Operations are proposed to start in 2024/2025 upon completion of construction.
While there is no proposed phasing for the project, some of the construction work will need to take place at specific times of the year. Work below the mean higher high water (MHHW) elevation will be conducted only during the in-water work window that is ultimately approved for the project, which includes the following timing restrictions.
• Work below OHWM will be conducted between July 16 (12:01 am) and February 14 (11:59 pm) • Impact pile driving will only occur between October 1 (12:01 am) and February 14 (11:59 pm) to protect eulachon and green sturgeon • No nighttime dredging will occur between October 1 (12:01 am) and November 30 (11:59 pm)
This work window is consistent with the approved work window for marine waters of Grays Harbor – Tidal Reference Area 16 (all saltwater in Grays Harbor easterly of
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 30 of 140
123 degrees 59 minutes W longitude and westerly of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge across the Chehalis River). This work window also includes additional restrictions to the timing of impact pile driving and nighttime dredging, which were developed in coordination with the Quinault.
Construction activities with the potential to affect nesting migratory birds, such as tree and vegetation removal, would also be conducted consistent with the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which requires that nests of migratory birds be removed only at times when nests are inactive. Tree and vegetation removal would be conducted outside the active nesting season to the extent practicable. If any tree or vegetation removal is required within the time when nests could potentially be active (generally January to August), pre-disturbance nest surveys would be conducted to document whether any trees or vegetation to be removed contain active nests.
Construction of the compensatory wetland and aquatic mitigation site, and the proposed overwater structure and pile removal activities, would be conducted concurrently with construction activities at the Project Site, to minimize temporal loss of wetland or aquatic habitat function.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 31 of 140
6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS Please see the attached Mitigation Plan for a detailed analysis of project impacts.
Wetland Impacts
6.1.1.1 Permanent Direct Wetland Impacts While wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable (as discussed above), the proposed project will result in permanent direct impacts (fill) to on-site wetlands and ditches. These include impacts associated with the construction of portions of the rail loop, railcar unloading facility, product storage building, conveyors, and stormwater treatment and conveyance facilities. The proposed project will result in a total of 15.53 acres of direct permanent impacts to wetlands, which includes approximately 0.24 acre of wetland impact at the IDD#1 Site, which will occur as a result of compensatory mitigation activities. The project will also result in 2.83 acres of impacts to ditches on site. This represents a net total of 18.36 acres of permanent indirect impact to wetlands and ditches. See Sheet 24.
6.1.1.2 Permanent Indirect Wetland Impacts The proposed project will also result in indirect impacts to wetlands, which will result from further fragmentation of the existing wetland network at the site and the associated reduction in buffer for those wetland areas that have been avoided by the proposed project. While indirect wetland impacts will not result in a net loss of wetland acreage, they have the potential to reduce wetland function. The project will result in a total of 21.56 acres of permanent indirect impacts to wetlands at the Project Site. Ditches at the site are already artificial structures excavated into upland fill material at the site and providing limited function, and as such will not be indirectly affected.
6.1.1.3 Temporary Wetland Impacts The project will also result in 25.09 acres of direct temporary wetland impacts, associated with the construction of the compensatory mitigation at the IDD#1 Site. Portions of the existing wetlands on the IDD#1 Site will be graded and recontoured to establish the finished grades within the mitigation site. Existing vegetation, both native and invasive, will be removed during this process, and soils will be temporarily disturbed. These areas will be planted with native vegetation consistent with the mitigation plan and will be restored to a more highly functioning wetland condition (Sheets 35 and 36). The minor temporary loss of wetland function will be offset by these proposed enhancements.
6.1.1.4 Wetland Buffer Impacts The City’s SMP (HMC 11.05) establishes protective buffers for all regulated activities conducted adjacent to regulated wetlands. Base buffer widths are established based on the total point score from the wetland rating form, and the intensity of the proposed land use. Because the proposed project represents a high- intensity land use, Wetlands A, B, and C at the Project Site all have a 150-foot base buffer width. Ditches are exempt from regulation as wetlands under the SMP and, as such, they do not have a regulatory buffer.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 32 of 140
Base buffer widths only apply to functioning buffers. HMC 11.05.820 clarifies that protective buffers do not include those areas functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland, such as by a road or other structures. Most of the upland portion of the Project Site is a developed industrial site consisting of paved and/or compacted fill surfaces and/or roadways. Therefore, the functional portion of the buffers extend only from the wetland boundary to the toe of the existing fill or development that establishes the upland portion of site. The proposed project will impact approximately 12.27 acres of existing wetland buffer at the Project Site.
Table 4 summarizes the wetland and wetland buffer impacts that would occur from the project.
Table 4. Wetland and Wetland Buffer Impacts Impact Type Identifier Wetland Rating Impact (acres) Wetland A III 13.09 Wetland B III 2.08 Permanent/Direct Wetland C II 0.12 (Wetlands) IDD#1-A III 0.24 Wetland Subtotal 15.53 Permanent/Direct Ditches NA 2.83 (Ditches) Permanent Direct Impact Totals 18.36 Wetland A III 19.82 Permanent/Indirect Wetland B III 1.70 Wetlands) Wetland C II 0.04 Permanent Indirect Impact Totals 21.56 Temporary Wetland Impacts 25.09 Wetland Buffer Impacts 12.27
Aquatic Impacts Impacts to aquatic habitats will occur from the construction of the new marine structure and shiploader (overwater coverage and benthic impacts associated with new piling), and from the dredging required to accommodate the new berth. See Sheet 25. Tables 5 and 6 provides a full accounting of all the aquatic impacts associated with the project. The impacts are discussed in detail in the subsections below.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 33 of 140
Table 5. Aquatic Impacts Area of Overwater Number of Piles Benthic Terminal Component Dimensions (ft.) Coverage (sf) Impact 48-inch 24-inch (sf) Solid Grated Steel Steel Permanent Mooring Dolphins (4) W: 21.32’ L: 32.80’ 2,799 -- 24 - 302 Berthing Dolphins (2) W: 22.96’ L: 26.24’ 1,206 -- 16 - 201 Quadrant Supports (14) W: 5.24’ L: 13.12’ 975 -- 28 - 352 Transfer Tower Platform (1) W: 57.41’ L: 50.85’ 2,920 -- 9 - 113 Support Platforms (10) W: 26.24’ L: 32.80’ 6,889 -- 48 - 604 Service Platform (1) W: 41.01’ L: 62.33’ 2,556 -- 12 - 151 1 at: 29.52’ x 42.65’ Pivot Supports (2) 3,584 -- 12 - 151 1 at: 39.37’ x 59.05’ Access Support Platform W:32.80’ L: 39.37’ 1,292 -- 6 - 75 (1) Variable Access Trestle Spans (14) W: 14.75’ to 16.00’ 25,893 -- 4 - 50 L: 97.17’ to 133.92’ Variable Walkways (20) W: 3.25 to 4.92 -- 4,279 - - - L: 28.24’ to 142.71’ Contingency Piles (40) N/A -- -- 40 - 503 Total Permanent 48,114 4,279 199 0 2,502 Temporary Temporary Piles (48) N/A -- -- - 48 151 Total Temporary -- -- - 48 151
Table 6. Aquatic Impacts by Tidal Zone Area of Overwater Coverage (sf) Piles Dredging # 48-inch # 24-inch Benthic Dredge Prism Habitat Zone Solid Grated Steel Steel Impact (sf) (sf) Permanent Intertidal (above 35,360 0 81 0 1,020 18,770 ELLW) Subtidal (below ELLW) 12,754 4,279 118 0 1,482 0 Total Permanent 48,114 4,279 199 0 2,502 18,770 Temporary Intertidal (above 0 0 0 * * 0 ELLW) Subtidal (below ELLW) 0 0 0 * * 307,494 Total Temporary 0 0 0 48 151 307,494 * Specific locations of temporary piles are not known. Temporary piles will be located somewhere within the established project footprint, and within the bounds of the completed eelgrass survey.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 34 of 140
6.2.1.1 Overwater Shading The project will result in a total of approximately 48,114 square feet of new solid overwater coverage associated with the construction of the new shiploader. The shiploader has been designed such that as much of the structure is located in deepwater habitats as is practicable to minimize impacts to intertidal habitats where the effects of overwater shading can be more pronounced. Approximately 35,360 square feet (0.81 acre) of the new solid overwater coverage will be located over intertidal habitats at the Project Site.
The primary effects to aquatic habitat function associated with shading from overwater structures are the potential for (1) effects to aquatic vegetation and reduced primary productivity, and (2) reduced habitat suitability for aquatic species, particularly juvenile salmonids (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a). Overwater structures also represent a potential where predatory species, such as piscivorous birds or other bird species, can perch.
Reduced sunlight penetration to benthic surfaces can reduce photosynthetic activity and lead to reduced habitat suitability for aquatic vegetation. The bulk of primary productivity in Grays Harbor is generated in intertidal habitats (Thom 1981). Intertidal habitat at the Project Site is largely unvegetated with the exception of sporadic macroalgae, such as leafy green sea lettuce (Ulva lactuca) and rockweed (Fucus distichus) and patchily distributed non-native Japanese eelgrass in the upper intertidal zone. (Note that no native eelgrass was found at the Project Site during the eelgrass delineation [WSP July 2019]).
Overwater shading also affects aquatic habitat suitability for fish, in particular for migrating and rearing juvenile salmonids. Juvenile salmonids rely on nearshore habitats during migration and rearing. Nearshore shading can affect patterns of movement and can also provide habitat for predatory fish species.
A number of factors can reduce the potential effects to aquatic habitat function that could otherwise occur associated with overwater shading. These include the height of the structure, the orientation of the structure, the density of the piling, and the piling material and reflectivity (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a).
Increased marine structure height diminishes the intensity of shading by providing a greater distance for light to diffuse and refract around the marine structure surface. The deck of the shiploader structure will be located at approximate Elevation +22 feet (NAVD88) and the height of conveyance over water will range from approximately +26 feet (NAVD88) to approximately +83 feet (NAVD88). A north-south marine structure orientation has also been shown to increase underwater light availability by allowing varying shadow periods as the sun moves across the sky (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a). A 3-D Overwater Shading Model has been prepared for the project, and the results of the model show that the shading created from the proposed structure is constantly moving, extends outside of the footprint of the structure (e.g., not directly below the structure at or near sunrise and sunset), and the shape and intensity of the shading is not a solid dark area but a more diffuse irregular shape at
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 35 of 140
various times of day (e.g., at or near sunrise and sunset). This reduces the extent of the functional impact of the shading.
An open-pile structure also reduces the effect to aquatic habitat function (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a). Large numbers of densely spaced piling (e.g., adjacent Terminal 3 pier) increase the shade cast by piling on the underwater environment, whereas open structures allow for more light penetration. Piling material (i.e., concrete, wood, or steel) also affects underwater light transmission as concrete and steel piling refract more light than light-absorbing wood piles (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001a). A shiploader that uses a minimal number of steel piling (as opposed to a more densely spaced arrangement of smaller diameter concrete or timber piles) minimizes the extent of the functional impact to aquatic habitat impacts.
The project also will result in approximately 4,279 square feet of new, grated overwater coverage associated with walkways to the proposed mooring dolphins. However, the grating and the position of these walkways over subtidal areas will not result in impacts to primary productivity or other aquatic habitat function, and no compensatory mitigation is required or proposed for these grated elements.
6.2.1.2 Benthic Habitat Loss from Piling Approximately 199 48-inch steel piles will be placed for the proposed shiploader and trestle structure as summarized in Table 6 above. The total includes a contingency of approximately 40 piles to accommodate the potential need for additional piles as the structural design is finalized. This will represent a total of approximately 2,502 square feet of new permanent benthic habitat impact associated with new pile footprints. Of the total, 81 new piles representing approximately 1,020 square feet of benthic habitat impact will be located within intertidal habitats at the Project Site.
The pile footprints will represent a loss of physical benthic substrate for species that rely on aquatic habitats at the Project Site, both intertidal and subtidal. The extent of the impact to aquatic habitat function is tempered by the levels of aquatic habitat function that are currently provided by habitats at the site. Aquatic habitat function at the Project Site has been modified from its natural condition by the degree of human alteration of the system. The intertidal sandflats that were once closely associated with an extensive salt marsh at the Project Site are now isolated from adjacent riparian and upland habitats by historic fill placement that occurred to develop the upland areas currently present at the site.
Construction may also require up to 48 temporary piles. Temporary piles will consist of 24-inch-diameter, open-ended steel pipe piles, driven solely with a vibratory pile driver. Temporary piles may be installed for the mooring of a work barge during the construction and as pile installation templates. The temporary piles will be removed after construction of the relevant feature is completed and, because of their transient nature, any impacts to aquatic habitat will be short-lived in nature. The localized, short-term nature of the impacts associated with temporary pile installation and removal will result in no net loss of aquatic habitat function. No compensatory mitigation is required or proposed for temporary piles.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 36 of 140
6.2.1.3 Benthic Habitat Modification from Dredging The project will result in modification of benthic habitat as a result of initial dredging of the expanded berth. Approximately 110,000 cubic yards of material will be dredged from an area approximately 7.49 acres in size to provide sufficient draft for vessels. The proposed berth will be approximately 4.72 acres in size. Most of this activity would be conducted outside of intertidal areas, and the majority of the dredge prism would be located in areas already deeper than -30 feet. However, dredging would convert an area approximately 18,770 square feet (0.43 acre) in size from an intertidal condition to a shallow subtidal condition, which would represent a modification of habitat condition.
The primary impacts associated with dredging in estuarine waters are those temporary effects associated with construction, including the potential for entrainment, temporarily increased turbidity, direct injury, and disturbance associated with construction noise. Long-term effects of dredging include the potential for effects associated with disposal of contaminated materials and changes in habitat characteristics, such as a conversion from intertidal to subtidal habitats (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b).
Conversion of approximately 18,770 square feet (0.43 acre) of intertidal habitat to subtidal habitat will represent a permanent conversion from one habitat type to another. It has the potential to affect primary productivity by reducing the degree of light transmission to the benthic substrate. This has the potential to affect the specific plant and animal assemblages that can occur in that location and reduces the ability of that area to provide habitat for species that rely on intertidal conditions. This habitat conversion represents an impact to intertidal habitat function but does not represent a complete loss of habitat. The maximum extent of deepening within the intertidal portion of the dredge prism would be 4 feet. Subtidal habitats will continue to provide aquatic habitat function at the Project Site, comparable to those provided by existing subtidal habitats at the site.
Dredging and material placement activities in subtidal habitats have the potential to result in short-term, temporary impacts to benthic organisms and their habitat, but these temporary impacts are not expected to result in permanent effects to aquatic habitat function that would require compensatory mitigation. The potential for and extent of any temporary effects to aquatic habitat function will be offset by the implementation of operational best management practices (BMPs) during construction. While subtidal benthic substrates will be disturbed during construction, they are expected to recolonize rapidly, and the temporary disturbance to subtidal habitats will result in no net loss of aquatic habitat function.
BHP has committed to the use of clamshell methods for all dredging associated with the project to minimize impacts to the aquatic community, particularly Dungeness crab. The USACE published a study in 1992 (Wainwright et al. 1992) that assessed impacts to Dungeness crab associated with the dredging of the Grays Harbor Federal Navigation Channel. The study documented that trailing suction hopper dredges (the preferred dredging method for the Grays Harbor Navigation Improvement Project),
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 37 of 140
can entrain and/or kill juvenile and adult crabs and may also temporarily disrupt crab habitat through removal of food and benthic debris that provide shelter for young crabs. The USACE and researchers at the University of Washington developed a Dredge Impact Model (DIM), which is used in calculating the compensatory mitigation need for USACE dredging projects in Grays Harbor.
The DIM predicts the number of crabs that are expected to be entrained and killed by dredging activity, then uses that prediction to forecast the anticipated loss to the fishery and establishes the target production goals to mitigate for those losses. The specific compensatory mitigation activity that the USACE employed to offset dredging impacts consisted of placing a layer of oyster shells on intertidal mud flats in the inner harbor. Larval crabs settle in the intertidal oyster shell plots, which provide cover and food during critical early stages of growth. After approximately two to three months, juvenile crabs leave the intertidal flats for deeper subtidal waters at a size that is better suited to survive to maturity. The shell mitigation concept is designed to provide effective habitat during a critical phase of Dungeness crab life history in order to increase the number and size (carapace width) of individuals entering the subtidal population.
The DIM relies on inputs of dredge volume, methodology, timing, and location, as well as crab density data, and these factors are discussed briefly below.
Dredging Methodology The DIM is built upon data that evaluates both the likelihood of entrainment (different dredging methodologies entrain adult crabs at different rates), and the likelihood of mortality (not all crabs that are entrained will be mortally injured). It is estimated that 26 percent of crabs in the hopper dredge path become entrained (Wainwright et al. 1992). Of these, the modeling indicates that mortality is highly variable (ranging between approximately 5 percent and 86 percent), and is dependent upon size and age class and time of year.
By comparison, during clamshell dredging, entrainment is estimated at only approximately 5 percent of the entrainment that occurs with a hopper dredge. In addition, mortality occurs in only approximately 10 percent of that fraction (Wainwright et al. 1992). Wainwright et al. (1992) concluded that “the clamshell dredge (which moves slowly and does little mechanical damage to organisms) had insignificant impact in all seasons and areas”.
Timing Wainwright et al (1992) describes the temporal distribution affects the model as follows: The spring season (April and May) reflects the start of settlement of the 0+ age-class and a period of migration into the estuary by age 1+ coastal crab; summer (June-September) is a period of continued settlement, rapid growth, and steady mortality for 0+ crab and relative stability for older age-classes. Fall (October-December) and winter (January-March) are periods for which we have little sampling data, but
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 38 of 140
both are periods of general population decline, migration from intertidal to subtidal areas within the estuary by 0+ crab, and emigration from the estuary by older age-classes.
The in-water work window in which the dredging for the berth would be conducted avoids the larval settlement and early growth periods, but does overlap with the time when juvenile crabs are developing and adult crabs are moving into deeper subtidal areas, and toward the ocean. Between approximately September and January, adult crab density throughout the harbor is greatly reduced (Armstrong et al. 1982).
Location The accuracy of the outputs of the model is dependent upon having accurate and site- specific data regarding the density of harvestable adult Dungeness crabs within the area that would be affected. In the absence of site-specific survey data, reasonable estimates can be extrapolated from the historic data. Armstrong et al. (1982) reports that adult crab densities are highest in the outer harbor and are lowest in the inner harbor, closer to the mouth of the Chehalis River.
The Project Site is located within what is referred to as the Moon Island Reach, which is in the inner harbor. Sampling conducted in 1981 within this reach of the harbor never exceeded a peak density of 9 adult crabs per 100 square meters (1,000 square feet), compared to sampled peak densities between 40 and 80 crabs per 100 square meters in the outer harbor (Armstrong et al. 1982).
Model Results The DIM model was used to evaluate the potential impacts and mitigation need for the project. The model inputs included the proposed dredge volume (110,000 cubic yards), location (Hoquiam Reach), methodology (clamshell and/or hopper dredge), and dredge timing (July 16 to February 14 in-water work window).
The results of the model reflect the difference in potential effects from different dredge methodologies. When a hopper dredge is included in the model, the modeled impact to the Dungeness crab fishery is equivalent to a loss of approximately 1,012 harvestable adult crabs. By comparison, when only clamshell dredging is proposed, the model calculates a total impact to 7 harvestable adult crabs.
The results of this model strongly support the conclusion that the commitment to restrict dredging to clamshell methods will further reduce the extent of impact to a de minimis that does not require further compensatory mitigation to achieve no net loss of aquatic habitat function.
Transportation A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was completed to help understand potential transportation infrastructure investments needed to support the facility (Kittelson & Associates [Kittelson] November 2017). The proposed project’s rail impacts on the section of the rail corridor from the Hoquiam River east to Centralia were assessed relative to cumulative impacts from other projects, namely the Contanda Terminal
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 39 of 140
Expansion, in a separate memorandum (Kittelson July 2019). These reports are provided in Appendix L.
6.3.1 Vehicle The TIA identifies traffic operations at key study intersections under existing conditions, future opening year conditions without and with the facility, and long- term 20-year future conditions without and with the facility.
The Traffic Impact Analysis concludes that the proposed export facility can be constructed and operated without creating a significant impact on the transportation system from the additional vehicular traffic and no specific mitigation measures were identified to accommodate the traffic volumes associated with the Project Site.
The following measure was identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis and will be implemented by the applicant to address specific conditions related to vehicular traffic.
• As part of facility site planning, on-site landscaping as well as any above ground utilities and signage will be located and maintained at the proposed site driveway on Airport Way during the site design phase to provide adequate intersection sight distance in accordance with A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition and/or as per City requirements.
There will be no transportation impacts to the mitigation sites, and no measures are proposed at these locations. BHP commits to completing a construction traffic management plan and will coordinate with the City and other interests on the preparation and review of the plan.
6.3.2 Rail The proposed project will contain sufficient loop tracks to fully accommodate the project related trains on the Project Site extending beyond the Project Site onto PSAP tracks. Trains arriving in Centralia will only be dispatched to the Project Site if there is sufficient room to accommodate them on the Project Site. Once dispatched trains will move continuously to the facility and will not stop unless an unforeseen circumstance arises along the track. This will serve to reduce vehicles delays from stropped trains at roadway crossings.
As discussed in the TIA (Kittelson November 2017), the rail line is currently operating under capacity and can accommodate the project's added rail traffic. BHP is in continued coordination (starting in early 2018) with PSAP with regards to the additional rail traffic that will result from the proposed project.
Based on the impacts anticipated, mitigation measures are identified to address both BHP Project as well as cumulative effects due to the Contanda Project. The mitigation measures below are further detailed in the Rail Considerations Memorandum (Kittelson August 2019).
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 40 of 140
• BHP will coordinate with emergency services providers to provide emergency vehicle access via the perimeter rail track maintenance road through the BHP site. • BHP will coordinate with PSAP to establish procedures with the Hoquiam Fire Department and other applicable emergency service providers to identify actions in the case of a train blocking grade crossings west of Hoquiam River. • BHP will coordinate with PSAP to ensure that changes to the existing traffic control devices at the three existing grade crossings west of the Hoquiam River are addressed prior to the start of operations of the proposed project. • BHP will coordinate with PSAP to avoid dispatching BHP Project trains to the Project Site if there is insufficient space to accommodate the additional train within the Project Site.
6.3.3 Marine Vessel Additional ship traffic associated with the project will follow established rules and protocols for navigation in Grays Harbor. This includes mandatory pilotage and compliance with federal navigation rules. BHP has committed to working with the Grays Harbor Safety Committee to establish procedures regarding vessel arrival and departures. In general navigation rules restrict recreational vessels, small boats and vessels engaged in commercial fishing from impeding vessels that can only operate in the navigation channel. Therefore these vessels would need to make way for the vessels serving the facility. This situation already occurs due to existing vessel traffic and vessel operators are already of this and are used to accommodating commercial vessel traffic.
Occasional weather delays may extend the loading period for vessels at BHP’s export terminal. In that event, the Port of Grays Harbor has vessel management and navigation protocols that dictate the steps BHP must follow to provide notice of vessel calls and to manage vessel traffic within the harbor. BHP will work with the Port of Grays Harbor and the Harbor Safety Committee to continue to update and improve these protocols as needed. Weather delays will not have a significant impact on vessel traffic in Grays Harbor.
The following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize impacts from the vessel traffic associated with the proposed potash facility.
• BHP will work with the Grays Harbor Safety Committee, including the USCG, Port of Grays Harbor, and tribal contacts to establish procedures to announce project-related vessel traffic arrivals and departures over a designated Very High Frequency marine radio channel at least 1 hour before arriving and departing, which will minimize the potential for vessel collisions and interference with tribal fishing and recreational fishing. • BHP will coordinate with the Port of Grays Harbor to manage waiting times for vessel arrivals or departures to minimize idling vessels. • Vessels traveling to and from the facility would adhere to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972, Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, Navigation
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 41 of 140
and Navigable Waters (Subchapter E: Inland Navigation Rules), and Washington State Pilotage Act (RCW 88.16).
Federal Aviation Administration Evaluation The Project Site is located approximately 0.25 mile east of Bowerman Airport in Hoquiam, Washington. The airport is a public use airport that is located on the Moon Island peninsula south of the GHNWR and Airport Way. The airport is owned and managed by the Port and subject to FAA regulatory requirements limiting obstructions to safe navigable airspace (Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]: Title 14, Part 77). These requirements limit structure height and provide guidelines for safety lighting and markings on structures proposed on or near an airport based on FAA “imaginary surfaces”; the dimensions (slope, height, width, etc.) of which are based on the type of airport that is near the Project Site.
Bowerman Airport is a general aviation airport that consists of two runways, 6 and 24, with an average of 38 aircraft operations per week (based on 2016 data [most recent publicly available]). [1] Runway 6 is a non-precision approach facility while Runway 24 is an instrument precision approach runway. The airport is an “instrument-approach” facility based on the classification of Runway 24 and, as such, subject to specific FAA regulations based on facility type.
Bowerman Airport’s Runway 6/24 approach and transitional surfaces are directly above the proposed Project Site. The CFR 14 Part 77 surface protection requirements for a precision runway (Runway 24) apply to this project. The FAA does not allow any penetrations of the runway approach surface and rarely allows limited penetration of transition surfaces.
Various alternatives have been considered for the proposed potash export facility layout to minimize impacts (e.g., to wetlands, buffers, etc.) at the Project Site and to avoid penetration of the FAA surfaces. The layout for the proposed project has been identified to avoid FAA surface penetration by the proposed facility structures and limit other impacts to the extent practicable (Sheets 3, 10 and 16). The storage building has been moved to the north side of the site with the axis of the building running roughly east-southeast and west-northwest to avoid penetration of the FAA surfaces by the high point (141.5 feet from grade) of the building roof.
The FAA completed their Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis of the export facility, and issued a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation in 2018. The taller structures at the site (including the storage building, shiploader, and tallest transfer towers [between 65 and 120 feet tall]) will be equipped with FAA-approved lighting specified in FAA regulations and the determinations that have been issued for the project.
[1] AirNav.com, https://www.airnav.com/airport/KHQM accessed July 29, 2019.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 42 of 140
Air Emissions associated with the proposed project would consist of emissions generated during construction activities (e.g., combustion emissions from petroleum-fueled vehicles and equipment and dust emissions) and operations (e.g., equipment, locomotive, and vessel emissions). The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analyses report evaluated existing air quality relative to project emissions as they relate to applicable air quality regulations. The report also included an assessment of GHG emissions and air quality impacts from diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions attributable to stationary and mobile sources associated with the proposed project (Ramboll July 2019). Generally, the operational air impacts from the project are as follows.
• PM (particulate matter) and visible emissions would be emitted during facility, vehicle, and vessel operations, but would not violate ambient air quality standards. • Stationary source DPM would be emitted by diesel engines powering the emergency generator and the emergency fire water pumps, but the capacities of these engines are less than ORCAA’s threshold for emergency engines and were therefore not reviewed by ORCAA. However, diesel engine DPM emissions would be less than the statewide regulatory screening threshold. The emergency generator and the diesel engines (which power the emergency fire water pumps) would only be used in the event of an emergency (e.g. power outage) or during required emergency readiness testing • Mobile source DPM emissions would result from diesel-powered locomotives and marine bulk vessels traveling to and from the Project Site to deliver and receive potash. Combined stationary and mobile source DPM emissions associated with the project would exceed the statewide screening threshold, but impacts would not exceed the statewide acceptable human health risk increase thresholds. • Total GHG emissions from the proposed project would represent minor contributions to local and global GHGs but would not be a significant source of emissions when compared to standard benchmarks. • Modeled ambient air concentrations of PM would be less than all applicable standards. • Analyses of combined stationary and mobile source emissions predict that no significant impacts would occur as a result of criteria pollutant emissions, which will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any ambient standard, and toxic area pollutant emissions are sufficiently low to protect human health and safety from potential carcinogenic or toxic effects.
The study concluded that project emissions evaluated will be sufficiently low and will not result in impacts to “human health and safety from potential carcinogenic and/or other toxic effects” and “not cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard.” The estimated cumulative concentrations of pollutants (PM10 and PM2.5, NO2, SO2) in the existing background air quality and operational increases are all estimated to be less than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards criteria.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 43 of 140
The project is subject to Air Quality Permitting through ORCAA, including compliance with standards for particulate-matter emissions. Emissions during operation are expected to be classified as a “minor source” with stationary source emissions below ORCAA thresholds (WAC 173-401-530). The air quality analysis is provided as Appendix N.
Trains and marine vessels delivering potash to the terminal will be operated by third parties, not BHP. Emissions from trains are regulated as mobile sources by the EPA, and locomotives will be required to comply with EPA rules (40 CFR Part 1033, 1065, and 1068). Vessels will be subject to international and United States standards for emissions, including emissions standards for U.S. vessels (40 CFR Part 80, 89, 94 and 1042) and the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex VI (see also 40 CFR Part 1043).
Noise The Project Site is located within the limits of the City, and noise regulations promulgated by the City will apply to the project. HMC Chapter 10.05 identifies development standards for land uses. HMC 10.05.120 specifies that the noise level standards identified in WAC Chapters 173-60 and 173-62 apply to activities in the City.
A noise assessment conducted for the project indicates that the construction and operational noise will comply with the City’s noise ordinance (Ramboll December 2017). The noise assessment is provided as Appendix J.
Lighting Light and glare from the finished project would not create a safety hazard or interfere with views. Details on the proposed lighting are provided below.
6.7.1 Fixture Details Due to the size of the site, it is difficult to show fixture detail on plans. In summary, fixture details are as follows. • Streetlight (ATB2): along road and side of product storage building (50-meter spacing) • Floodlight (PLLED): on shiploader spout • Wallpacks (W4G): at building personnel entrance • Stanchion-/ceiling-mounted lights (PLED2): along conveyor walkways (9-meter spacing) • Exterior building lights used for vehicle and worker traffic, rail unloading facility lighting, and shiploader lighting would be in use when shiploading operations extend into nighttime hours.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 44 of 140
6.7.2 Shiploader • Shiploader Spout: 4 x 250 W LED floodlights (PLLED) mounted 15 meters above deck level and pointed straight down • Walkways and Stairs: 20 x 94 W LED (PLED2) stanchion-mounted lights (20 meters off ground, average)
6.7.3 Light Shed • Lights will be generally aimed downward and back towards site if close to property line, thus reducing spillage. • Lighting will have shields to reduce backlight if the light is close to a property boundary. • Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) rating of U0 (to up light) have been chosen for this project. • Roadway lighting is designed for safety and to meet criteria to RP8 for large trucks and vehicles. • Fixtures will be designed to point into site to light railway and service roads. • Lighting on buildings and the shiploader will need to be consistent with FAA requirements because of the site’s proximity to Bowerman Airport and will minimize glare and be designed in accordance with safety requirements associated with airport traffic.
6.7.4 Glare • Glare is controlled by prismatic glass options; glass and diffuse options reduce glare by 95 percent. • Calculations include consideration for glare options. The BUG rating for every IES file and fixture must be within limitations; all fixtures chosen meet this requirement. • For lighting within the criteria of RP8 and Industrial RP7, lighting levels will be adjusted to be within safety guidelines and achieve even lighting (no hot spots).
6.7.5 Nighttime Lighting • Directional lighting and other features such as those for Light Zone 1 (LZ1), Dark Zone, as defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society of America (IESNA) RP-33 standard would be implemented. • Lighting power densities would not exceed American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers /IESNA Standard 90.1. Areas would only be lighted as necessary for safety and comfort. • Yellow light sources will be used on site to minimize light pollution sky-glow.
7.0 IMPACT AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION The SMA and SMP require mitigation for shoreline impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological function in the shoreline jurisdiction. Please see the Mitigation Plan (included with Appendix E) for a complete and detailed analysis of impact avoidance,
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 45 of 140
minimization, and mitigation. Applicants are counselled to take the following actions in sequence of preference. 1. Avoid impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts on an action. 2. Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. 3. Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment. 4. Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. 5. Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. 6. Monitor the impact and take appropriate corrective measures.
This section documents the project’s compliance with the mitigation sequencing required for impacts to wetlands, aquatic areas, and habitat conservation areas. Although not specifically subject to the mitigation sequence, other critical areas on site (geologically hazardous and frequently flooded areas) have been avoided and impacts minimized to the extent practicable. Avoidance and minimization of impacts associated with geologically hazardous areas and frequently flooded areas are detailed in sections 8.2.3 and 8.2.5, respectively.
The project design has avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands, buffers, shoreline buffers, aquatic habitats, and other environmentally sensitive habitats to the extent practicable, while still accommodating the necessary features to meet the project purpose and need.
The administration and maintenance buildings, associated parking areas, and the vehicular site access infrastructure have been located in developed portions of the site and would not result in impacts to wetlands, aquatic resources, and associated buffers. The railcar unloading facility is located in an area where fill has previously been placed, which further reduced wetland impacts in that location.
The layout of the upland portion of the facility has undergone several iterative modifications in an effort to minimize impacts to waters of the State/U.S. and to regulated species and habitats, and to accommodate design requirements and site constraints. The layout and configuration of the rail loop is dictated by the track curvature (11 degrees) needed to accommodate unit trains and placement of structures within the rail loop and the length of the unit train (8,500 feet) that will be used at the site, and it is not possible to avoid wetland impacts and still achieve the project purpose. Similarly, the location of the building and other structures at the site are dictated in part by the FAA clear zone requirements for the approach to Bowerman Airport. The height of the building has been shortened to the extent possible (141.5 feet at its peak) and still enable the building to accommodate the conveyance and design storage capacity. The product storage building must be located in the north portion of the site due to the FAA height restrictions limiting the available locations
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 46 of 140
at the site for the building. The FAA-regulated transitional surface in that area of the site has a height limit of 167 feet MSL in that portion of the site. The FAA height restrictions elsewhere on the site are even more restrictive (see Sheet 3).
The layout of the site was also designed so that noisier equipment (e.g., unloading facility) is sited on the opposite side of the facility from the GHNWR, and the parking and administration and maintenance buildings are all located on the southeast corner of the site near the site's main entrance, minimizing cross-site traffic and potential associated interactions with wildlife. The unit trains on site will travel at very slow speeds (less than 6 mph), which will minimize train-related noise and reduce the potential for any wildlife interactions.
The size and configuration of the marine terminal structures have also been kept to the minimum necessary to support their needed functions. The terminal has been designed such that the shiploader and berth are sited in deep water, which minimizes the potential for effects to aquatic habitats. The project has also been modified to eliminate a gabion mat, which had originally been proposed to stabilize a portion of the surface of the post-dredge berth but was subsequently determined unnecessary upon further evaluation of the dredge design. BHP has also committed to restrict the dredging to clamshell methods only to minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, in particular to minimize impacts to benthic species, including Dungeness crab.
Structures in and over deeper water habitats have less impact to function than those in shallow water areas, because they have less effect on primary productivity, and deeper water habitats are of less critical importance to sensitive species. Ship berthing and maneuvering activities will also occur in deep water, reducing impacts to habitat from vessel operations, such as scour from propellers and thrusters. Overwater walkways will be grated to further minimize shading. Additionally, the shiploader comprises relatively narrow trestles supported between small, pile-supported platforms with relatively few piles overall. Because the shiploader and access trestles are relatively narrow structures, they do not result in a substantial benthic footprint, and the impacts associated with overwater shading is relatively low compared to that which would be associated with a monolithic structure.
New piles for the marine terminal will be installed primarily with a vibratory hammer, to minimize noise-related impacts to aquatic species. A bubble curtain or other similarly effective noise attenuation device will be employed during all impact pile proofing or installation.
Minimization Measures The proposed project will include in-water activity associated with pile installation, dolphin construction, shiploader construction, conveyor construction, dredging, and mitigation activities. These activities have the potential to result in short-term effects, including temporary water quality impacts, temporarily elevated turbidity levels, temporarily elevated underwater and terrestrial noise, and direct habitat impacts.
The proposed project has adopted a list of impact minimization measures and BMPs to reduce, eliminate, or minimize the effects of the project to listed species or habitat.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 47 of 140
The minimization measures and BMPs listed below will be used for construction and operation of the proposed project.
General Best Management Practices • In-water work will be conducted only during the approved in-water work window as described in section 5.0. • Project construction will be completed in compliance with Washington State Water Quality Standards (WAC 173-201A), including − Petroleum products, fresh cement, lime, concrete, chemicals, or other toxic or deleterious materials will not be allowed to enter surface waters or onto land where there is a potential for reentry into surface waters. − Fuel hoses, oil drums, oil or fuel transfer valves, fittings, etc., will be checked regularly for leaks, and materials will be maintained and stored properly to prevent spills. • An SPCC plan will be prepared by the contractor and used during all in-water demolition and construction operations. A copy of the plan will be maintained at the work site. − The SPCC plan will outline BMPs, responsive actions in the event of a spill or release, and notification and reporting procedures. The plan will also outline management elements, such as personnel responsibilities, Project Site security, site inspections, and training. − The SPCC plan will outline the measures to prevent the release or spread of hazardous materials found on site and encountered during construction but not identified in contract documents, including any hazardous materials that are stored, used, or generated on the construction site during construction activities. These items include, but are not limited to, gasoline, diesel fuel, oils, and chemicals. − Applicable spill response equipment and material designated in the SPCC plan will be maintained at the job site.
Construction Best Management Practices
7.3.1 In, Over, and Near Water BMPs Typical construction BMPs for working in, over, and near water will be applied, including activities such as the following. • Checking equipment for leaks and other problems that could result in the discharge of petroleum-based products or other material into waters of Grays Harbor. • Corrective actions will be taken in the event of any discharge of oil, fuel, or chemicals into the water, including − Containment and cleanup efforts will begin immediately upon discovery of the spill and will be completed in an expeditious manner, in accordance with
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 48 of 140
all local, state, and federal regulations. Cleanup will include proper disposal of any spilled material and used cleanup material. − The cause of the spill will be ascertained and appropriate actions taken to prevent further incidents or environmental damage. − Spills will be reported to the Ecology’s Southwest Regional Spill Response Office, pursuant to WAC 173-303-145 and WAC 173-182-260. • Work barges will not be allowed to ground out. • Excess or waste materials will not be disposed of or abandoned waterward of ordinary high water and will not be allowed to enter waters of the state. Waste materials will be disposed of in an appropriate manner consistent with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. • Demolition and construction materials will not be stored where wave action or upland runoff can cause materials to enter surface waters. • Oil-absorbent materials will be present on site for use in the event of a spill or if any oil product is observed in the water.
7.3.2 Pile Removal BMPs Pile removal BMPs will be applied, including activities such as • Removal of creosote-treated piles will be conducted consistent with the BMPs established in EPA Region 10, Best Management Practices for Piling Removal and Placement in Washington State, dated February 18, 2016 (EPA 2016). • While creosote-treated piles are being removed, a containment boom will surround the work area to contain and collect any floating debris and sheen. Any debris will be retrieved and disposed of properly. • The piles will be dislodged with a vibratory hammer when possible and will not be intentionally broken by twisting or bending. • The piles will be removed in a single, slow, and continuous motion in order to minimize sediment disturbance and turbidity in the water column. • If a pile breaks above or below the mudline, it will be cut or pushed in the sediment consistent with agency-approved BMPs. • Removed piles, stubs, and associated sediments (if any) will be contained on a barge. If piles are placed directly on the barge and not in a container, the storage area will consist of a row of hay or straw bales, filter fabric, or similar material placed around the perimeter of the barge. • All creosote-treated material, pile stubs, and associated sediments (if any) will be disposed of by the contractor in a landfill approved to accept those types of materials.
7.3.3 Pile Installation BMPs Pile installation BMPS to be applied will include the following.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 49 of 140
• A vibratory hammer will be used to drive steel piles to the extent possible to minimize noise levels. • A bubble curtain or other similarly effective noise attenuation device will be employed during all impact pile proofing or installation. • Pile installation will be conducted during the approved in-water work window for Tidal Reference Area 10 (July 16 to February 14, midnight). This period was established to minimize impacts to aquatic species. All in-water work will be completed within the work window when ESA-listed species are least likely to be present.
7.3.4 Overwater Concrete Placement Minimization and BMPs On-site concrete placement will follow appropriate BMPs, including • Wet concrete will not come into contact with surface waters. • Forms for any concrete structure will be constructed to prevent leaching of wet concrete. • Concrete process water will not be allowed to enter the bay. Any process water/contact water will be routed to a contained area for treatment and will be disposed of at an upland location.
7.3.5 Dredging BMPs • Construction activities will be conducted in compliance with Surface Water Quality Standards for Washington (WAC 173-201A), or other conditions as specified in the Water Quality Certificate (WQC). • Appropriate BMPs will be employed to minimize sediment loss and turbidity generation during dredging. BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following. − No stockpiling of dredged material below mean higher high water, − Smooth closure of the bucket when at the bottom, − Slowing the velocity (i.e., cycle time) of the ascending loaded clamshell bucket through the water column, − Pausing the dredge bucket near the bottom while descending and near the waterline while ascending, and/or − Placing filter material over the barge scuppers to clear return water. • If sediment is placed on a barge for delivery to the placement area, no spill of sediment from the barge will be allowed. The barge will be managed such that the dredged sediment load does not exceed the capacity of the barge. The load will be placed in the barge to maintain an even keel and avoid listing.
7.3.6 Dredge Material Placement BMPs • Dredging will be conducted using mechanical methods (clamshell bucket) only, and material will be disposed at the DNR-managed Point Chehalis or South Jetty disposal sites located near the mouth of Grays Harbor. The dredged material was characterized in accordance with DMMO guidelines and criteria and was found to
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 50 of 140
be suitable for open water disposal based on the chemical analytical results from that characterization (DMMO Suitability Determination dated February 19, 2019). • Visual water quality monitoring and, if necessary, follow-up measurements will be conducted during dredging in accordance with a project-specific water quality monitoring plan and associated permit conditions. • Sediment placement will occur using methods that minimize sediment loss and turbidity to the maximum extent possible. • The placement activities will be visually monitored to ensure placed sediment is contained inside of the specified boundaries.
Operation Best Management Practices • The site will have a facility-specific SPCC plan and spill kits throughout the site to prevent, minimize, and respond to spills that may result from day-to- day operations at the site. • The facility includes a fueling station that will be constructed on a concrete pad within secondary containment appropriate to the size of the station. • The facility will control risks during operations by following the Industrial Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and SPCC plan to prevent liquid products from leaving the containment areas. Spill kits will be placed in strategic and easily accessible locations for use if small spills occur; containment, control, and cleanup procedures will be immediately implemented, including notifying Ecology and other resource agencies as required by law. • Stormwater treatment facilities will infiltrate stormwater runoff from new and existing impervious surfaces to the extent possible; or will be collected, treated, and discharged to the bay via existing outfalls. Stormwater treatment would comply with Ecology’s 2012 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, as amended in December 2014. • All conveyors will be covered to protect the potash from exposure to rain. • The potash will be transferred to the vessels at the berth via covered conveyors in order to avoid potash spillover from the conveyors. Spill pans and side skirts will contain spills or fugitive dust from the return belt.
Compensatory Mitigation The project will affect wetlands and associated buffers (through direct impacts from fill placement associated with construction of the upland portions of the facility) and aquatic habitats (by increasing the quantity of overwater shading and benthic habitat impacts from new piles and dredging to establish the new berth). Therefore, in addition to impact avoidance and minimization, the project incorporates several compensatory mitigation actions to offset impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers and aquatic habitats. These compensatory mitigation actions are summarized below.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 51 of 140
The Mitigation Plan provides a comprehensive discussion of the proposed compensatory mitigation actions proposed for the project, including an analysis of the site selection criteria, the specific goals and objectives and performance standards established for the site, and a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation relative to the no net loss standard established in the City’s SMP.
7.5.1 Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation 7.5.1.1 IDD#1 Site Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Mitigation A comprehensive compensatory wetland and aquatic habitat mitigation project will be constructed on an area of developed industrial land at the mouth of the Hoquiam River, known as the IDD#1 Site. The IDD#1 Site is approximately 45 acres in size and is located on the north shore of Grays Harbor, on the west bank of the Hoquiam River at its mouth.
The IDD#1 Site is former tidelands of inner Grays Harbor that were filled with dredge materials in the 1970s and has been zoned for industrial development. The mitigation project will restore tidal hydrology to the site by removing fill and excavating tidal channels to create a mosaic of tidal channels, salt marsh, palustrine emergent wetland, and enhanced scrub-shrub and forested buffer habitat at the site.
The mitigation at the IDD#1 Site will create approximately 10.75 acres of wetland and rehabilitate approximately 23.49 acres of existing low-quality emergent wetland to high-quality salt marsh. This includes the creation of approximately 5.59 acres of low salt marsh habitat, approximately 25.27 acres of high salt marsh, and approximately 3.43 acres of palustrine wetland as a transition zone to upland buffers. The salt marsh habitats created at the site are designed to be representative of those historically found in the inner Grays Harbor and are modeled after a reference marsh system in the Bowerman Basin on the GHNWR. The mitigation project will also create approximately 5.17 acres of enhanced forested and scrub-shrub wetland buffer at the site by establishing and planting a 110-foot buffer along the northern and western boundaries of the site.
The compensatory Mitigation Plan also includes the preservation of an approximately 71.5-acre parcel of high quality floodplain wetlands and forested buffer on the Hoquiam River, approximately two miles north of the mouth of the River at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site. This will preserve approximately 59.9 acres of Category I wetlands consisting of 45 acres of mature forested wetland, 8.9 acres of scrub-shrub wetland, 6 acres of emergent wetlands, along with 3.7 acres of forested uplands and an additional 7.9 acres of forested uplands and wetlands within a 150- foot buffer. A 0.3-acre remnant grove of old growth trees with Western red cedar, Douglas fir and Western hemlock is also located immediately adjacent to the wetland and lies within the area to be preserved.
Table 7 below documents the quantity of mitigation proposed for the wetland and wetland buffer impacts associated with the project.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 52 of 140
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 53 of 140
Table 7. Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Summary Mitigation Ratio Mitigation Quantity Impact Total Mitigation Impact Wetland Category (acres) Mitigation Type Ecology Guidance** Proposed Proposed (acres) 10.75 ac.* Wetland Creation (IDD#1) 2:1 1:1 10.75 Wet A III 13.09 2.34 ac.* Wetland Rehabilitation (IDD#1) 4:1 2:1 4.68 Permanent/ Wet B III 2.08 Wetland Rehabilitation (IDD#1) 4:1 2:1 4.16 Direct (Wetlands) Wet C II 0.12 Wetland Rehabilitation (IDD#1) 4:1 4:1 0.49 10.75 acres wetland creation (IDD#1); IDD#1-A III 0.24 Wetland Rehabilitation (IDD#1) 4:1 2:1 0.48 23.49 acres wetland rehabilitation Totals 15.53 20.73 (IDD#1); 13.60 ac.* Wetland Rehabilitation (IDD#1) N/A 1:1 13.60 Wet A III 19.82 59.90 acres wetland preservation Permanent/ Wetland Preservation (Hoquiam River 6.22 ac.* N/A >7:1 47.90 (Hoquiam River Preservation Site) Indirect Preservation Site) (Wetlands) Wet B III 1.70 Wetland Preservation (Hoquiam River Preservation Site) N/A >7:1 12.00 Wet C II 0.04 Wetland Rehabilitation N/A 2:1 0.08 Totals 21.56 73.35 Permanent/ Ditches N/A 2.83 minimum 1:1 area replacement in on-site drainage network N/A Self Mitigating Direct (Ditches) Temporary Wetland Impacts 25.09 Existing wetlands at mitigation site temporarily disturbed during construction. N/A Self Mitigating Enhanced Wetland Buffer Creation 5.17 acres enhanced wetland buffer 5.17* 1:1 1:1 5.17 (IDD#1) (110 ft. buffer) creation Wetland Buffer Impacts 12.27 Forested Wetland Buffer Preservation 7.10* N/A >1:1 7.90 7.90 acres forested buffer preservation (Hoquiam River Preservation Site) Wetland and Wetland Buffer Mitigation Summary 10.75 acres wetland creation; 23.49 acres wetland rehabilitation; 59.90 acres wetland preservation; 5.17 acres enhanced wetland buffer creation; 7.90 acres forested wetland buffer preservation
* = quantity of impact (in acres) that is mitigated for by each mitigation type. ** = Ecology’s guidelines assume mitigation with wetlands of the same Category and quality as the impacted wetlands.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 54 of 140
The size and quantity of the proposed wetland and wetland buffer mitigation have been established based on extensive discussion and coordination conducted between agency staff from the USACE, Ecology, WDFW, and the City between 2017 and 2019.
Ecology has established guidelines for mitigation ratios in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance (Ecology 2006). This guidance is established on a base assumption that the wetlands created or rehabilitated as compensatory mitigation are of the same Category and provide the same level of function as the impacted wetlands. The guidance specifically allows for reduced ratios in instances where the proposed mitigation actions will provide functions and values that are greater than those provided by the wetland being affected.
The IDD#1 Site provides a unique opportunity to conduct a high-quality restoration project within inner Grays Harbor in an area where nearshore estuarine salt marsh habitats have been largely eliminated. Whereas wetland impacts are primarily to moderate quality Category III wetlands, the proposed compensatory mitigation is expected to create a large contiguous area of high-quality Category II estuarine wetland. The net result will be a compensatory mitigation site that results in a net increase in water quality, hydrologic, and wildlife habitat function, which justifies the proposed mitigation ratios.
Created wetland areas will be graded to elevations that provide appropriate wetland hydrologic conditions, and will be planted and seeded with a suite of native emergent species to create and rehabilitate a natural mosaic of low and high salt marsh habitats at the site. Enhanced buffer areas will be planted with native tree and shrub species to provide natural functional buffering for the site.
The proposed wetland creation and rehabilitation, and enhanced wetland buffer creation will improve both terrestrial and aquatic habitat, water quality, and hydrologic functions in a sensitive estuarine habitat at the mouth of the Hoquiam River. The proposed native plantings will provide a biologically productive habitat that will be a source of insect and invertebrate fauna, leaf litter, detritus, and woody debris to the associated aquatic system. The establishment of native vegetation will improve habitat suitability for native birds and other terrestrial species that rely on these habitats. The net gain in wetland acreage at the mitigation site will increase water quality and hydrologic function, particularly in areas where currently impervious surfaces are converted to wetlands.
The wetland creation and enhanced wetland buffer creation will provide direct, in- kind mitigation for wetland and wetland buffer impacts associated with the proposed project.
7.5.1.2 Hoquiam River Preservation Site Wetland and Forested Buffer Preservation The compensatory mitigation plan also includes the preservation of an approximately 71.5-acre parcel of high-quality floodplain wetlands and forested buffer on the Hoquiam River, approximately two miles north of the mouth of the River (Sheets 1 and 38). This will preserve approximately 59.9 acres of Category I wetlands
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 55 of 140
consisting of 45 acres of mature forested wetland, 8.9 acres of scrub-shrub wetland, 6 acres of emergent wetlands, along with 3.7 acres of forested uplands and an additional 7.9 acres of forested uplands and wetlands within a 150-foot buffer. A 0.3- acre remnant grove of old growth trees with Western red cedar, Douglas fir, and Western hemlock is also located immediately adjacent to the wetland and lies within the area to be preserved.
The wetlands at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site and the Project Site are both freshwater wetland systems with forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent components. The wetlands at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site drain to a tidally influenced reach of the lower Hoquiam River, which empties into Grays Harbor at the location of the IDD#1 Site and within approximately 1.5 miles of the wetland impact site.
The wetlands at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site are under a high level of imminent threat of development, as described in the Mitigation Plan. These include threats from timber harvest, industrial development, residential development, agriculture and hobby farming, and high-intensity recreation. Preservation of the wetlands and uplands at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site, protected by a conservation covenant, will protect these wetlands from a direct and present development threat, thereby preserving the high level of function provided by these wetlands, and this preservation of wetland function will provide high-quality, out-of- kind mitigation for indirect wetland impacts to wetland function at the Project Site.
7.5.2 Aquatic Habitat Mitigation 7.5.2.1 Tidal Channel Habitat Creation and Enhancement The mitigation project includes the creation of approximately 5,941 linear feet and approximately 0.94 acre of new fish-accessible tidal channels5 at the IDD#1 Site. These new tidal channels will provide a network of low-energy side channel habitat within a mosaic of newly restored high and low salt marsh habitats.
The tidal channels have been designed based on conditions documented at a reference salt marsh in the upper Bowerman Basin on the GHNWR. This reference marsh is located immediately downstream of the Project Site, and has elevations comparable to those that historically occurred at the IDD#1 Site. A recent comprehensive data set was collected in this reference marsh as part of a 2015 USGS study on potential effects to salt marshes from sea level rise (Thorne et al. 2015). This data included topographic and bathymetric profiles and vegetation distribution information, which informed the design of the tidal channels and the rest of the IDD#1 Site.
The tidal channels will be excavated to final elevations such that they are inundated throughout the typical range of flows and tidal conditions throughout the year, and will not create pockets of standing water during low-flow conditions. A hydraulic, groundwater, and coastal process modeling and assessment has been conducted on the
5 Tidal channel acreage is in addition to, and separate from, the wetland creation and rehabilitation acreages reported in Table 6.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 56 of 140
proposed design of the tidal channels and associated salt marsh (Golder 2019), and the results of this modeling effort were used to refine the design and establish the final design of the site.
It is anticipated that the tidal channel will be largely unvegetated, as it will be regularly inundated throughout the majority of a typical tidal cycle. This is consistent with the conditions within tidal channels at the reference marsh. Over time, some desirable aquatic macroalgae species and other aquatic vegetation will likely become established. Adjacent low salt marsh will be both seeded and planted with plugs of desirable emergent salt marsh species.
Nine large woody debris (LWD) structures will be installed throughout the newly created intertidal habitats at the site. LWD structures are a restoration and mitigation component that helps build high-quality fish habitat, develops scour pools, and provides complex cover. These large wood structures will increase habitat complexity and overhead cover with interstitial spaces that will allow juvenile and adult salmonids and other native species to evade predation by mammals, birds, and fish. The structures also will provide foraging opportunities for juvenile salmonids.
Each LWD structure will be composed of large-diameter untreated logs, logs with rootwads attached, and small wood debris. Logs generally will have a minimum diameter of 20 inches and be 20 feet long. Logs comprising the structure will be dragged into place, arranged, and keyed into the soil as necessary to minimize the potential for movement. It is important to note that some movement, deterioration, and accumulation of additional woody debris is expected as these features function as part of the natural system.
The proposed tidal channel creation will provide both in-kind mitigation (for shoreline buffer impacts) as well as out-of-kind habitat enhancements to nearshore aquatic habitat (for impacts to aquatic habitats from new overwater structure and permanent benthic habitat impacts).
7.5.2.2 Pile and Overwater Structure Removal In addition to the proposed on-site compensatory mitigation, the applicant will remove approximately 1,368 piles from nearshore waters of Grays Harbor in the vicinity of the Port of Grays Harbor’s Terminal 4 near the mouth of the Chehalis River. These piles are estimated to range between 12 and 14 inches in diameter at the mudline. The applicant will also remove a derelict concrete overwater structure that is associated with one of the groups of piles.
The piles result in the direct loss of benthic habitat and reduce the quality of the habitat in the area. The piles serve as habitat for non-native species, including fish and bird species that prey on native salmonids and potentially represent a source of pollutants from chemicals used for treatment.
Removal of these piles will restore approximately 1,464 square feet of benthic habitat within an area approximately 4.35 acres in size. In addition, removal of the structure
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 57 of 140
will restore approximately 2,147 square feet of nearshore habitats. Pile and structure removal will provide both in-kind mitigation for benthic habitat and overwater coverage impacts associated with the new terminal, as well as out-of-kind habitat mitigation in the form of water quality improvements.
Table 8 below documents the quantity of mitigation proposed for the aquatic habitat impacts associated with the tidal habitat creation and enhancement and pile and overwater structure removal.
Table 8. Aquatic Habitat Mitigation Summary Impact & Quantity Compensatory Mitigation Overwater Structure Pile Removal Tidal Channel Creation Removal
Impact Quantity 2,147 sf (0.05 acre) 1,464 sf (0.03 acre) 40,950 sf (0.94 acre) Type (sf) Total Total Total Area Mitigation Area Mitigation Area Mitigation Ratio Ratio Ratio (sf) Accounted (sf) Accounted (sf) Accounted For (sf) For (sf) For (sf) 1:1 2,147 2,147 Overwater 35,360 Coverage 0.5:1 33,213 16,607 (solid) 12,754 0.25:1 12,754 3,189
Benthic 1,020 1:1 1,020 1,020 Habitat 1:1 1,038 1,038 Loss 1,482 1:1 444 444 Benthic 18,770 1:1 18,770 18,770 Habitat Modification (Dredge 307,494 Temporary Modification - No Compensatory Mitigation Prism) Totals 2,147 1,464 39,603
8.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE As previously noted, the applicant is requesting five approvals from the City: a Land Use CUP, an SSDP, a Shoreline Variance, an SCUP, and Critical Areas Review. The Shoreline Variance and SCUP are subject to approval from Ecology following the City’s decision. Of these permits/approvals, only the Critical Areas Review and SSDP are required for activities at both the Project Site and IDD#1; the Land Use CUP, Shoreline Variance, and SCUP are only required for activities at the Project Site. This section documents how the proposed project complies with the applicable City regulations established by the HMC and SMP.
Land Use Conditional Use Permit The applicant is requesting approval of a land use CUP as required for the height of the proposed product storage building and associated conveyance system. The product storage building will be approximately 141.5 feet in height above the adjacent ground level, which is the necessary height to provide adequate space for the
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 58 of 140
efficient storage of bulk materials. The conveyors will extend from upland areas overwater to the ship loading equipment at the trestle (Sheet 10). The Industrial district density and dimensional development standards are identified in HMC 10.03.100(3) and shown in the table below.
HMC 10.03.100(3) Maximum Density and Minimum Dimensional Standards for Land Use Districts Development Standard I Maximum Height 55* * Heights greater than fifty-five feet require a conditional use permit.
Because the proposed storage building and conveyor system will exceed the maximum height standard, a CUP is required as specified in the note to the table. A completed and signed CUP application form is included with this submittal. Pursuant to the application form, the narrative must address the criteria listed in HMC 10.07.130. Compliance with these criteria is addressed in the following section.
8.1.1 Conditional Use Permits (HMC 10.07.130) (1) The purpose of this section is to establish the procedures for granting conditional use permits for uses described in HMC 10.03.090(3). The land use hearing examiner may not grant a conditional use permit for uses not specifically listed in HMC 10.03.090(3). Response: The proposed CUP is for the height of the storage building and would not to allow a land use not specifically listed in HMC 10.03.090(3). The above citation of HMC 10.03.090(3) refers to the redacted table of permitted and conditional uses, which predates the 2010 zoning amendments. The current table of permitted and conditional uses for industrial zones is HMC 10.03.116, shown below. Both heavy and light industrial are specifically listed as permitted uses.
HMC 10.03.116 Permitted and Conditional Uses – Commercial, Industrial and Natural Resources Commercial, Industrial, and Natural I Resource Land Use Industry, heavy P Industry, light P
(2) It is recognized that certain uses possess unique and special characteristics with respect to their location, design, size, method of operation, circulation, and/or public facilities. Therefore, the land use hearing examiner may impose reasonable conditions on an applicant relating to a conditional use permit to protect the public health, safety and welfare and the best interests of the surrounding property owners or neighborhood. The land use hearing examiner may also require guarantees and evidence to ensure that the applicant complies with such conditions. In determining any conditions applied to the granting of a conditional use permit, the land use hearing examiner shall consider the following impacts by the application:
(a) Environmental hazards and pollution;
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 59 of 140
Response: The proposed CUP is for the height of the storage building. The additional building height will not pose any specific environmental or pollution hazards. The orientation and height of the project (including product storage building and conveyance system) have been evaluated in the context of the adjacent airport to show that the structures do not impact any approaches to the airport or present a hazard to air navigation.
Although not related specifically to building height, potash is a nonflammable/noncombustible product and is considered nontoxic to aquatic species, and all processes associated with the shipping and storage of potash will be designed to minimize any local impacts associated with noise, dust, and local traffic. Conveyor transfers will minimize vertical drops and will be equipped with skirting systems to minimize spillage. Main transfer points will be equipped with dust collection. The conveyor system and storage building will be covered to prevent rainwater from coming into contact with the potash.
(b) Traffic hazards and congestion; (c) Street and road capacities in the area; (d) Location and amount of off-street parking; Response: The proposed building height will not impact any of the above elements. Although not related specifically to building height, a Traffic Impact Analysis (Kittelson November 2017) was completed for the proposed project and is included as an attachment. The study indicates that the project will not result in traffic hazards or congestion and the existing roadway network is adequate to accommodate traffic generated by the project. Off-street parking will be provided in an amount adequate to serve the anticipated needs of the facility.
(e) Visual and auditory impacts; (f) Obtrusive visual blight; and/or Response: The proposed project will introduce new visual elements to the environment that will be visible from off-site locations. The applicant has completed a visual analysis to evaluate these impacts (Appendix K). The analysis assesses visual impacts on representative views of the project from within the City after the project is completed and was conducted in accordance with the City’s view corridor review process per HMC 11.05.440(2)(e).
The analysis provides visual simulations and additional information on the visual impacts from the project, and identifies where visual impacts would occur (namely Hoquiam High School and Circle Drive) and the nature of the impact. Existing views of the site are primarily blocked by existing development and/or vegetation. The views from the school and residences on Circle Drive would be impacted; however, existing views are of an industrial site and the nature of the views would not change.
The proposed project would be most visible to viewers from the north and from Grays Harbor to the south of the Project Site. From both locations, the proposed
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 60 of 140
project would be consistent with other development in the area and would not substantially alter the existing views from current conditions. The number of potential viewers from the north would be minimal because of the generally low level of development in the area. The view impacts will primarily affect workers at the Project Site or other nearby businesses and students and users of athletic fields at the high school to the north. From the south, the project would be consistent with other development along the coast.
Some views of the Project Site from Hoquiam High School will be altered. At present, the views of the site consist of existing trees and vegetation. Once constructed, the proposed potash storage building will be visible above the vegetation. The applicant will not remove any of the existing trees or vegetation, which provides some visual buffer for the storage building. The relatively level grade of the high school athletic fields ground plane closest to the site means that existing trees and vegetation will remain a predominant view when standing or driving closest to Project Site, particularly on the east where the distance between the road and the building increases. The building will be more noticeable as the landscape view increases for a viewer further north and further west on the high school site.
The grandstands at the athletic field and track are oriented toward eastward views, not the south or west views. Likewise, the stands at the baseball diamonds are oriented to primarily north- or east-facing views. The grade level of the site and the orientation of these land uses will lessen the number of users who have long duration views to the south that encompass the whole storage building façade. While the building will occupy a portion of the current view and would be prominent from the viewers’ perspective, it does not impair or destroy current views of landscape features.
The analysis concluded that the project will alter some views in the community, but will not impair or destroy any views and will have no impact on adjacent residential views of the shoreline.
HMC 10.05.120 specifies that the noise level standards identified in Chapters 173-60 and 173-62 of the WAC apply to activities in the City. The types of noises associated with this project would be construction equipment, rail traffic, vehicle traffic, dredging, and shiploading. Noise from daily operations—including rail traffic, vehicle traffic, and shiploading—could occur sporadically at any time of day. Terrestrial noise generated during operation is expected to be similar to levels of noise generated at the existing facility, which includes a wood chipping facility, heavy machinery, conveyors, and a shiploader. Per the noise assessment, the wood chipping facility is louder than the proposed export facility.
The majority of noise-producing activities will be enclosed in buildings (e.g., product storage building noise, railcar unloading, etc.) and the site layout has been designed to place noise-producing facilities away from the adjacent GHNWR. The facility is designed to avoid or minimize the need to couple/uncouple train cars, which will eliminate or minimize the loudest noises associated with on-site trains during
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 61 of 140
unloading operations. Noise will be minimized and/or mitigated where required by the following. • Putting noise attenuation devices on equipment (e.g., bubble curtains during pile driving) • Designing natural or engineered shielding for facility equipment (e.g., train unloading will take place within a covered structure) • Placing covers over powered equipment where required • Covering conveyors • Covering the train unloading facility • Locating noise-producing equipment (e.g., train unloading facility) away from the boundary with the GHNWR
When considering potential noise impacts from increases over existing levels, all noise sources, including trains arriving and departing the facility, were included in the noise assessment. The assessment found that project-related increases over existing sound levels are not expected to result in significant noise impacts. Most nearby receivers would experience no impacts in the future with the facility, while residences very near the off-site rail line may experience moderate noise impacts. The noise assessment completed for the project found that the project is expected to comply with the WAC noise limits at all nearby sensitive receiving properties (Ramboll 2017).
(g) Any other unusual impact associated with the proposed conditional use. Response: The height of the storage building is not anticipated to result in any other unusual impacts.
(3) Issuance of a conditional use permit shall not allow a variation from any of the specific or general provisions of this code. […] Response: Pursuant to HMC 10.03.100(3), heights greater than 55 feet are subject to a CUP. No other variations from the provisions of the code are requested to accommodate the proposed building and structure heights.
(7) An applicant granted a conditional use permit must complete all associated construction activities within one year of the notice of decision. Failure to meet this requirement shall render the conditional use permit void. Response: Construction of the facilities needed for the proposed Project is infeasible within a one-year timeframe. First, the approved in-water work window limits the amount of construction that can occur during a single year on certain proposed project facilities. The approved in-water work window for Tidal Reference Area 16 (the relevant portions of Grays Harbor), as determined in coordination with the Quinault, is July 16 to February 14. Certain construction activities (e.g., impact pile driving) will only occur during an even more limited window: between October 1 and February 14. It is estimated that completion of the proposed project, including dredging and construction of the trestle and ship-loading structures, will require two,
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 62 of 140
and possibly three, in-water work windows. Second, though not limited to a work- window, upland construction is also expected to require more than one year for completion. In addition to the improvements that need to be constructed for the proposed project, anticipated lead time for material procurement and construction of compensatory mitigation will likely increase completion time to three years.
Consolidated review of land use and shoreline permits is permitted by the Code. Here, the Project requires both a land use conditional use permit and a shoreline conditional use permit. The City of Hoquiam has adopted the time requirements of WAC 173-27-090 (HMC 11.05.750(1)). According to these time requirements, construction activities shall be commenced within two years of the effective of the permit and the authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of the permit (WAC 173-27-090(2), (3)). These time requirements also provide that the permit time periods do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals (WAC 173-27-090(4)). BHP requests that the longer construction window provided under the shoreline standards apply to its consolidated permits. In addition, because permits from agencies other than the City are required to complete the project, the applicant requests that the time frame to complete the project not begin until receipt of all necessary permits.
Critical Areas Review The City regulates activities in designated critical areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction under HMC 11.06, and critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction under HMC 11.05. Because the critical areas regulations for shoreline areas are generally equal to or more restrictive than those for areas outside of the shoreline, the criteria from HMC 11.05 are used in this section to demonstrate the project’s compliance with critical areas requirements. A Critical Areas Assessment was completed for the project in accordance with HMC requirements and is provided as Appendix E.
The proposed development at the Project Site does not qualify for an exemption under HMC 11.06.040, and is therefore subject to critical areas review. Some of the proposed mitigation work at IDD#1 is exempt from critical areas review as “Conservation, enhancement, restoration, or preservation measures or projects,” “Low intensity, passive recreational uses;” and “Public parks” are exempt activities in critical areas (HMC 11.06.040). The proposed grading associated with site preparation at IDD#1 is not exempt from critical areas regulations, and is therefore addressed in this compliance narrative. For those activities at IDD#1 that are exempt from critical areas review under the “Conservation, enhancement, restoration, or preservation measures” exemption, the activities must still comply with critical areas protections.
The following sections describe critical areas that are or may be present at the Project Site and IDD#1, summarize the regulatory considerations these critical areas may
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 63 of 140
have on the development of the proposed project, and demonstrate how the proposed project will comply with the City’s critical area regulations.
8.2.1 General Provisions (HMC 11.05.810) (1) Compliance with Critical Areas Protection. (a) All public and private land uses where critical areas are present in the city of Hoquiam’s shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with the requirements of this article as a condition to any project permit application granted under the SMP. (2) Technical Assessments. (a) Applications for a shoreline exemption, shoreline substantial development, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit shall indicate whether any critical area is located on or within three hundred feet of the site. The shoreline administrator or designated representative shall visit the site and, in conjunction with a review of the comprehensive land use plan, information provided by the applicant, and any other suitable information, make a determination as to whether or not sufficient information is available to evaluate the proposal. If it is determined that the information presented is not sufficient, the shoreline administrator shall notify the applicant to provide additional assessments before the issuance of a determination of completeness as provided under Article VII of this chapter. (b) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide the city with appropriate technical assessments and reports prepared by a qualified professional, if necessary, to fulfill the requirements of shoreline exemption, a shoreline substantial development, shoreline variance, or shoreline conditional use permit under Article VII of this chapter or any other city, state or federal laws. The applicant shall pay all expenses associated with the preparation of any technical assessment(s) required by the city. Technical assessments shall use BAS in accordance with RCW 36.70A.172. Response: Critical areas are present on the Project Site and IDD#1, as described in the Critical Areas Assessment, and the applicant is applying for several shoreline permits. In compliance with the above requirements, technical assessments evaluating these critical areas have been prepared and are submitted with this application. Geologically hazardous areas are evaluated in the Geotechnical Engineering Report (Shannon & Wilson July 2019), frequently flooded areas are evaluated in the Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise (Amec Foster Wheeler February 2018), and wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are evaluated in the wetland delineation reports (BergerABAM August 2018 and July 2019), Biological Evaluation for Endangered Species (WSP May 2019), and Mitigation Plan (WSP July 2019). These technical assessments were prepared by qualified professionals and used Best Available Science (BAS) in accordance with RCW 36.70A.172. (3) Mitigation
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 64 of 140
(a) Development activities affecting the function and value of a critical area may require mitigation. Before the city may approve such development activity, the applicant shall demonstrate through a technical assessment the inability to avoid impacts to the critical area and that the action minimizes those impacts to the greatest extent practicable. The technical assessment shall evaluate the development activity as to whether it is possible to: (i) Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (ii) Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts; (iii) Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (iv) Reduce or eliminate the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; Response: A mitigation sequencing process has been applied throughout the design of the project, consistent with federal, state, and local regulatory guidance. This mitigation sequencing process consists of the required sequence of steps that begins with avoiding impacts to the extent practicable, minimizing and/or rectifying impacts, and finally compensating to offset impacts. The inability to avoid any impact to aquatic resources and other sensitive habitat features is due to the required size and layout of the facility, which is restricted by the FAA requirements. The project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to these critical areas to the greatest extent practicable, and impact avoidance and minimization measures are summarized in section 7.0 of this narrative. These include operational BMPs that will serve to maintain the facility and provide ongoing minimization and control of potential impacts to the existing sensitive areas. Where impacts exist, the project will provide compensatory mitigation as discussed in section 7.5 and below. (v) Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and/or Response: The proposed mitigation activities at IDD#1, Terminal 4, and the Hoquiam River Preservation Site have been designed to compensate for impacts at the Project Site (identified in section 6.0) and to result in no net loss of ecological value, as summarized in section 7.0 and the Mitigation Plan.
(vi) Monitor the impact and take appropriate corrective measures. Response: Impacts at the Project Site will be monitored over time through compliance with industry standards, permit compliance, and regulations. These practices are outlined in section 7.0 and further detailed in the following response.
(4) Sureties for Mitigation Improvements.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 65 of 140
(a) The city may require the applicant to submit a surety for the construction, maintenance, and/or monitoring of any mitigation measures required under this article for a period not to exceed five years from the date of substantial completion of work. The city may release the surety earlier than assigned, if a technical assessment prepared by a qualified professional affirms that the mitigation measure is functioning in accordance with its design. (b) The value of a construction surety shall be not less than one hundred twenty- five percent of the contract cost for the mitigation improvement, as estimated by the city engineer. The value of a maintenance surety shall be not less than fifteen percent of the total value of the mitigation improvement as estimated by the city engineer. The surety shall meet the approval of the city attorney. (5) Responsibilities for Improvements. (a) The property owner, or his or her successors, shall be responsible for the monitoring and maintenance of any mitigation measure required under this article. Response: The applicant will comply with any reasonable sureties conditioned by the City as described above. See Part X of the Mitigation Plan for complete details on the proposed site protection and financial assurances.
(6) Monitoring. (a) The city may require annual monitoring reports from the property owner or his/her designated representative pertaining to the performance of any improvements required under this article. Response: Monitoring, maintenance, and adaptive management plans will be established for IDD#1, as detailed in the Mitigation Plan. A monitoring program will be implemented to track the development, persistence, and vitality of the vegetation and the establishment of appropriate hydrologic conditions within the mitigation site. The mitigation will be monitored annually in late May or June for a period of 10 years beginning in the first growing season following the installation of plants. Monitoring will be conducted in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10. See Part IX of the Mitigation Plan for complete details on the proposed monitoring.
The following sections discuss how the proposed project meets the requirements for mitigating impacts to critical areas.
8.2.2 Wetlands (HMC 11.05.820) (2) Buffers Required. (a) Wetland buffers shall be required for all regulated activities adjacent to regulated wetlands. Any wetland created, restored or enhanced as compensation for approved wetland alterations shall also include the standard buffer required for the category of the created, restored, or enhanced wetland.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 66 of 140
(b) The total point score from the wetland rating form shall determine the width of required buffers. Buffer widths are measured perpendicularly from the wetland boundary as determined through a field survey. Buffer widths shall not include those areas functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland, such as by a road or other structures. When a buffer lacks adequate vegetation, the city may increase the standard buffer, require buffer planting or enhancement, and/or deny a proposal for buffer reduction or buffer averaging. (c) Buffer Dimensions. Response: Wetland buffer dimensions were determined using the established criteria (above) and the results of the wetlands delineation and assessment. Wetland and wetland buffer impacts associated with the project are shown on Sheet 24 and detailed in section 6.1. The project will impact approximately 12.27 acres of existing wetland buffer at the Project Site. In accordance with the shoreline critical areas provisions, mitigation is required to completely offset these impacts to achieve no net loss of ecological function. Compliance with wetland mitigation requirements is discussed below.
(5) Wetland Mitigation.
(a) If an application for development activities makes it necessary to alter or eliminate a wetland, the applicant shall compensate the loss or alteration by one or more of the following actions:
(i) Restoring wetland acreage and functions to an area where those functions formerly occurred. (ii) Creating new wetland area and functions in an area where they did not previously occur. (iii) Enhancing functions at an existing wetland. (iv) Preserving an existing high quality wetland to protect it from future loss or degradation. (b) Altered wetlands shall require mitigation to ensure the same level of wetland function that existed at the time of the permit application. Table 11.06.170-1 sets mitigation ratios for the type of action taken: Response: The proposed project will alter wetlands at the Project Site as described in section 6.1. In accordance with the above criteria, the applicant is proposing to restore, create, and enhance wetland areas at the IDD#1 Site, and preserve existing high quality wetlands at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site.
The size and quantity of proposed wetland mitigation is based upon ratios established by Ecology in Wetland Mitigation in Washington State Part 1: Agency Policies and Guidance. Table 7 in section 7.5 documents the quantity of mitigation proposed for wetland and wetland buffer impacts associated with the project. The Mitigation Plan provides details on the analysis and development of the proposed mitigation,
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 67 of 140
including how the mitigation ratios were determined and applied in order to achieve no net loss.
8.2.3 Geologically Hazardous Areas (HMC 11.05.840) (1) Geologically Hazardous Areas Designation. Response: Once constructed, operations at the Project Site will be subject to the identified geologic hazards that are mapped for the general area, specifically liquefaction, seismic hazards, and tsunami hazard (see section 3.1.2 for a discussion of designated geologically hazardous areas on site). The Geotechnical Engineering Report details the geotechnical conditions on site and the proposed measures for the development and operation of the project.
(a) The city shall regulate development activities in geologically hazardous areas to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Development activities in geologically hazardous areas shall: (i) Minimize erosion and movement of sediment; (ii) Preserve or replace vegetation in erosion hazard areas; (iii) Prevent increased surface water discharge to adjacent properties; (iv) Prevent decreased slope stability on adjacent properties; (v) Design or mitigate projects in geologically hazardous areas to eliminate unsafe conditions to on-site and off-site property owners; and (vi) Be set back sufficiently to ensure that shoreline stabilization structures are not necessary during the life of the development. Response: In general, structures are required to meet the standard requirements of the International Building Code and other applicable city/state standards, which contain specific standards for addressing seismic risks. While not located in an erosion hazard area, erosion can occur with typical construction activities. Prior to commencement of development activities at the Project Site and IDD#1, erosion and sediment control measures will be established at the site consistent with the SWPPP for the project. These will likely include typical construction BMPs such as silt fences and stabilized construction entrances. Specific BMPs will be identified in the NPDES construction permit. Stormwater discharge during operations will be by existing outfall facilities or on-site infiltration, and there would be no increase in surface water discharge to adjacent properties. There are no steep slopes on adjacent properties, and therefore the project would not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties. As detailed in the technical reports, the project facilities have been designed in accordance with the recommendations from the Geotechnical Engineering Report in order to eliminate unsafe conditions and bring risks of building in the geologically hazardous areas to acceptable levels. HMC 11.05.250 defines shoreline stabilization as actions taken to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, buildings, or structures
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 68 of 140
caused by natural processes, such as current, flood, tides, wind, or wave action. These actions include structural measures such as bulkheads and nonstructural methods such as building setbacks. New stabilization measures include enlargement of existing structures. No shoreline stabilization structures are proposed. No shoreline stabilization is proposed at the Project Site or IDD#1. Some of the wetland buffer slopes at IDD#1 may be subject to minor wave action once constructed and could potentially be at risk of minor erosion under high tide and wave conditions. While some limited minor erosion is not undesirable in this natural system, portions of the wetland buffer slopes will be protected with vegetated riprap, to provide additional stability against potential wave action. The purpose of the riprap is not to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, buildings, or structures, and as such it does not meet this definition of shoreline stabilization.
(2) Technical Reports. (a) The city may require a technical assessment prepared by a qualified professional for development activities proposed in a geologically hazardous area. The report shall: (i) Determine the exact boundaries of all geologically hazardous areas affecting the site and the impact of the proposed development on the standards set forth under HMC 11.05.860(1); and (ii) Recommend mitigation measures or, if mitigation is not possible, recommendations for adequate buffers from the hazard or hazards to protect public health, safety, and welfare. Response: A geotechnical engineering report (Shannon & Wilson July 2019) was prepared to meet the City’s requirements, enumerated in HMC 11.05.840. The report examined potential unstable soils and identified appropriate mitigation measures for the project. The geotechnical recommendations contained in the report relate to the preliminary seismic design include strong ground motions, liquefaction potential, lateral spreading, and lateral pile resistance. The facility design was based in part on the recommendations summarized in this report, including ground improvement beneath the project storage building. Once constructed, operations at the Project Site will be subject to the identified geologic hazards that are mapped for the general area, specifically liquefaction, seismic hazards, tsunami hazard, and potential volcanic hazards. In general, structures are required to meet the standard requirements of the International Building Code and other applicable city/state standards that contain specific standards for addressing seismic risks.
The geotechnical recommendations and design standards are enumerated in Section 4 of the geotechnical report. The facility design was based in part on the recommendations summarized in this report, including ground improvement beneath the proposed storage building. Geotechnical investigations indicate that liquefaction risk is limited to offshore and nearshore facilities, and proposed marine structures will be designed to withstand loads from liquefied offshore soils, per ASCE 61-14.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 69 of 140
Administration and maintenance buildings will be designed per International Building Code, including required seismic criteria. Compliance with these standards will serve to protect human health and safety.
Specific engineering recommendations and standards were developed for the proposed structures that may be impacted by geotechnical hazards. More detailed building design measures to address liquefaction and seismic hazards will be determined during building design and permitting. Proposed structures will obtain required building permits and be constructed in a manner consistent with adopted building codes.
The proposed project will comply with Grays Harbor County’s Tsunami Warning Plan, which includes a variety of methods to warn of a tsunami and a detailed map of areas subject to tsunami hazards, evacuation routes, and assembly areas. Workers at the Project Site would respond to these warnings and follow established evacuation routes to areas of safety. Prior to operations, an emergency management plan will be created that includes plans for emergency situations, including tsunamis.
(iii) In addition to the basic report requirements, the technical assessment for a tsunami hazard area shall also meet the following requirements: (A) A site plan that shows all areas within two hundred feet of the project area that have potential to be inundated by wave action derived from a seismic event; (B) A hazards analysis that includes a discussion of the potential impacts of the tsunami hazard on the site; and (C) An emergency management plan that includes plans for emergency building exit routes, site evacuation routes, emergency training, notification of local emergency management officials, and an emergency warning system. Response: According to the Tsunami Hazard Maps of Southwest Washington— Model Results from an approximately 2,500-year Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake Scenario, the general project vicinity has the potential to be inundated by wave action derived from a seismic event.6
Proposed structures at the site could be damaged during a tsunami event, but the facilities (including the storage building, rail, and administrative and utility buildings) will be constructed at an elevation to protect against the FEMA-defined 500-year flood plus climate-change-based flood elevation. BHP evaluated the site for potential flooding mitigation needs (Ausenco January 2018) and found that the proposed elevation of the product storage building and location of the railcar unloading facility are above the 500 year-plus, climate-change base flood elevation. The only structure
6 Eungard, D. W.; Forson, Corina; Walsh, T. J.; Gica, Edison; Arcas, Diego, 2018, Tsunami hazard maps of southwest Washington—Model results from a ~2,500-year Cascadia subduction zone earthquake scenario: Washington Geological Survey Map Series 2018-01, 4 sheets, scale 1:48,000, 11 p. text.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 70 of 140
potentially impacted by flooding is the electrical room proposed at the site, which will be raised so that the floor level is approximately 7.9 feet above grade to mitigate for potential flood impacts. The storage building will include a concrete wall extending 5 feet above the concrete slab foundation, allowing the building to be sealed within the boundary wall in the event of a flood. This method of construction will likely also be protective against tsunami.
Grays Harbor County has an official Tsunami Warning Plan that includes a variety of methods to warn of a tsunami and a detailed map of areas subject to tsunami hazards, evacuation routes, and assembly areas. Workers at the site would respond to these warnings and follow established evacuation routes to areas of safety.
Operations at the Project Site would comply with industry and state requirements for safety and emergency management planning, which includes plans for emergency building exit routes, site evacuation routes, emergency training, notification of local emergency management officials, and an emergency warning system.
(3) Mitigation in Geologically Hazardous Areas. (a) Engineering, design, or modified construction or mining practices can reduce or mitigate some geological hazards so that risks to health and safety are acceptable. However, when technology cannot reduce risks to acceptable levels, building in geologically hazardous areas, excluding tsunami hazard areas, is prohibited. Response: Based on the results of the geotechnical analysis of the proposed onshore and offshore facilities, the engineers developed geotechnical recommendations for the marine facility, storage building, and dumper pit facility. These recommendations will reduce and mitigate the geological hazards, so the risks to health and safety are minor and acceptable.
8.2.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (HMC 11.05.850) (2) Standards for Protection of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation (a) Development activities occurring on lands and waters containing documented habitats for plant and animal species in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall result in no net loss of existing function. Response: The documented habitats and species and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas are identified in section 3.1.3. Species present on critical areas at the Project Site are located on an existing industrial site with limited habitat quantity and low quality, and are currently subjected to industrial activities, including noise and other impacts. The no net loss of existing function is detailed in the Mitigation Plan, as summarized in section 7.0.
(b) Development activities allowed in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas shall be consistent with the species located there and shall be regulated additionally by restrictions defined in applicable federal, state and local regulations regarding the species.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 71 of 140
Response: Consistency with federal, state, and local fish and wildlife regulations, including the federal ESA, WDFW Hydraulic Project Approval, and City critical areas regulations is detailed in this narrative, and in the Critical Areas Assessment and Mitigation Plan, as summarized in section 7.0.
(c) Habitat conservation areas may overlap with other identified critical areas. Likely areas of overlap include critical drainage corridors, geologically hazardous areas and wetlands. When habitat areas overlap with other critical areas, all the performance standards established for the overlaying critical area(s) shall apply. If multiple critical areas overlap in an area, the most restrictive conditions shall apply. Response: The geologically hazardous areas on the Project Site and IDD#1 overlap with some habitat conservation areas and wetlands. The project’s compliance with all critical areas regulations is detailed in this narrative. (3) Technical Reports – Habitat Management Plan. Response: The Mitigation Plan is a technical report meeting the requirements for a habitat management plan. The report includes a detailed description of existing vegetation, species of importance, direct and indirect impacts, and the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed. The plan also includes appropriate protections based on the WDFW species and habitat recommendations, and the proposed monitoring and maintenance plan. (4) Requirements for Development Along Shorelines. (a) Development activities occurring along shorelines in or adjacent to habitat conservation areas shall achieve no net loss of habitat function. Response: The project includes development along shorelines and in/adjacent to habitat conservation areas. The project will achieve no net loss of habitat function through mitigation activities at IDD#1 and Terminal 4, and preservation of high quality habitat at the Hoquiam River Preservation Site. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of impacts and mitigation to achieve no net loss is detailed in the Mitigation Plan. (b) The city requires buffer corridors along shorelines to retain areas of native vegetation and to allow for habitat connectivity. Development activities for Type S water shall meet the buffer standards provided in HMC 11.05.330(2). (c) Development along all other shorelines within the city not included in subsection (4)(b) of this section shall provide the following buffers by water type: (i) Type F water greater than ten feet wide: one hundred fifty feet; (ii) Type F water ten feet or less in width: one hundred feet; (iii) Type Np water: seventy-five feet; or (iv) Type Ns water: fifty feet.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 72 of 140
Response: The upland portion of the Project Site is situated within a High Intensity shoreline environmental designation. Table 11.05.330-1 indicates that a 150-foot shoreline buffer is required for non-water-oriented structures and uses and a 75-foot buffer is required for water-related and water-enjoyment mixed-use structures and uses within High Intensity shoreline environmental designations. No buffer is required for water-dependent structures and uses within High Intensity shoreline environmental designations. A shoreline variance is required to locate water-related structures (e.g., the rail loop and storage building) in the 75-foot buffer. Section 8.3.5 of this narrative details the requested variance and the project’s consistency with variance approval criteria. HMC 11.05 permits a reduction to the shoreline buffer for the following: (i) A legally established road or railroad, excluding a private driveway; (ii) The expansion of existing roads and railroads; or (iii) The construction of new roads or railroads related to cargo handling and freight mobility, whether included as a portion of a large development or submitted as an individual project. The shoreline administrator may reduce the standard shoreline buffer width to the waterward edge of the improved road or railroad. This reduction may only be granted if a qualified professional documents that the part of the standard shoreline buffer on the upland side of the road or railroad: (iv) Does not provide additional protection for the waterbody; and (v) Does not provide significant biological, geological, or hydrological functions for the waterward portion of the shoreline buffer adjacent to the OHWM of the waterbody. Airport Way runs east and west immediately north of the harbor and landward of the OHWM, effectively isolating the upland portions of the site from the aquatic portions of the site. The developed upland portions of the site provide limited biological, geological, or hydrological functions because of the highly modified and industrialized nature of the site. South of Airport Way, functional shoreline buffer is limited to a few forested patches that would likely provide some small amount of habitat for animals that can tolerate a wide range of habitat conditions (e.g., ground squirrels, rabbits, opossum, raccoons, coyote, deer, and common rodent species), as well as migratory and resident songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors.
A functional shoreline buffer is present in the northwestern corner of the site adjacent to the tidal portion of Wetland C. This buffer extends into the site to the south and east a maximum distance of 150 feet. Impacts to approximately 2.68 acres of shoreline buffer will result from the construction of rail improvements as shown on Sheet 24.
Impacts to shoreline buffers would be fully offset by the proposed mitigation activities. The proposed tidal channel creation will provide both in-kind mitigation
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 73 of 140
(for shoreline buffer impacts) as well as out-of-kind habitat enhancements to nearshore aquatic habitat (for impacts to aquatic habitats from new overwater structure and permanent benthic habitat impacts). The net result will be an increase in both the quantity and habitat function of available aquatic habitat in inner Grays Harbor.
(5) Critical Saltwater Habitats Designation. (a) Critical saltwater habitats include all kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt and sandlance; subsistence, commercial and recreational shellfish beds; mudflats, intertidal habitats with vascular plants, and areas with which priority species have a primary association. Critical saltwater habitats require a higher level of protection due to the important ecological functions they provide. (b) Where inventory of critical saltwater habitat has not been completed, over water and nearshore developments in marine and estuarine waters shall be required to complete a habitat assessment of site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions. The methods and extent of the inventory shall be consistent with WAC 173- 26-221(2)(c)(iii)(C). The city will work with WDFW to define this area. Response: Critical saltwater habitats present on the Project Site and IDD#1 site include mudflats and intertidal habitats and areas with which priority species have a primary association. An eelgrass survey and Tier 1 delineation consistent with WDFW and USACE requirements was completed on the in-water portion of the Project Site and at IDD#1. Two native eelgrass beds were delineated in the tidal inlet adjacent to the western boundary of the IDD#1 Site. These two native eelgrass beds are located outside of the site but within the study area for the delineation (Sheets 27 and 28). No native eelgrass beds were identified at the Project Site.
(6) Standards for Protection of Critical Saltwater Habitats. (a) Critical saltwater habitats shall be protected and restored. (b) The management of shorelands as well as submerged areas shall be integrated by the city, as ecological functions of marine shorelands can affect the viability of critical saltwater habitats. Response: Critical saltwater habitats will be protected through the project’s compliance with critical areas provisions, including the proposed avoidance and minimization efforts, as well as the proposed mitigation and preservation activities (detailed in section 7.0). The Mitigation Plan addresses all applicable critical saltwater habitats (eelgrass beds, mudflats/intertidal habitats, and areas with which priority species have a primary association) as well as the associated upland shorelands. Activities on the shorelands will be managed through compliance with the SMP, as detailed in this narrative. (c) The city should include state resource agencies, the Port of Grays Harbor, Grays Harbor County, and affected tribes in critical saltwater
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 74 of 140
habitat planning efforts and determine which habitats and species are of local importance. Response: State resource agencies, including the Port, County, Ecology, WDFW, and the Quinault have been engaged in the identification of critical saltwater habitats and species of importance, the determination of impacts to these resources, and in the development of mitigation to achieve no net loss. An eelgrass and macroalgae survey and delineation was conducted at the request of the EPA, USACE, and the Quinault.
(d) The city shall protect kelp and eelgrass beds, forage fish spawning and holding areas, and priority species habitat identified by WDNR’s aquatic resources division, WDFW, Ecology, and affected tribes as critical saltwater habitats. Response: There are no kelp beds or forage fish spawning or holding areas in the project vicinity. The eelgrass and macroalgae surveys at the Project Site and the IDD#1 Site (included in the Critical Areas Assessment) documented the presence of patchy non-native Japanese eelgrass and patchy macroalgae in the upper intertidal zone at the Project Site and the IDD#1 Site. Two native eelgrass beds were delineated in the tidal inlet, adjacent to the western boundary of the IDD#1 Site. These two native eelgrass beds are located outside of the site but were within the study area for the delineation. The native eelgrass beds at IDD#1 will not be impacted as detailed in the survey and report. Priority species habitat will be protected through the proposed mitigation and preservation activities at Terminal 4, IDD#1, and the Hoquiam River Preservation Site. The project will result in no net loss to critical saltwater habitats as detailed in the Mitigation Plan. (e) Comprehensive saltwater habitat management planning should identify methods for monitoring conditions and adapting management practices to new information. (f) The inclusion of commercial aquaculture in the critical saltwater habitat definition does not limit its regulation as a use. Response: The Mitigation Plan details the monitoring program to be implemented to track the development, persistence, and vitality of the vegetation and the establishment of appropriate hydrologic conditions at IDD#1. The extent of appropriate tidal hydrology at the site will be documented through the vegetation monitoring, as it will document the extent and distribution of salt- tolerant vegetation throughout the site. Maintenance measures would be implemented as part of the mitigation plan, and are identified in Part IX of the Mitigation Plan. In addition, the plan includes an adaptive management plan that identifies additional contingency measures that could be implemented if the results of annual monitoring indicate the need for modifications to site management. While changes in hydrology at the site associated with the mitigation could over time affect the small eelgrass patches, the activities at IDD#1 are expected to
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 75 of 140
result in a net beneficial effect to eelgrass habitat in the intertidal portions of the site. There are no commercial aquaculture uses present in the project vicinity.
(7) Requirements for Protection of Critical Saltwater Habitats. (a) Docks, piers, bulkheads, bridges, fill, floats, jetties, utility crossing, and other structures shall not intrude into or over critical saltwater habitats except when the conditions below are met: Response: The proposed berth facility would extend into critical saltwater habitat. HMC 11.05.850 allows the intrusion of structures and/or development in or over areas identified as critical saltwater habitat only where the following conditions are met.
(i) Public need is clearly demonstrated and the proposal is consistent with protection of the public trust, as embodied in RCW 90.58.020. Response: The provisions of RCW 90.58.020 (Legislative findings—State policy enunciated—Use preference) are adopted by reference into the City’s SMP. The proposal’s compliance with the SMP and consistency with the applicable policies is demonstrated and detailed throughout this document and its attachments.
(ii) Avoidance of impacts to critical saltwater habitats by an alternative alignment or location is not feasible or would result in unreasonable or disproportionate cost to accomplish the same general purpose. Response: The berth facility must extend into the harbor as a necessity of its function and purpose (to moor vessels during shiploading operations).
(iii) The project, and any required mitigation, will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical salt water habitats. Response: The project and proposed mitigation will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with critical saltwater habitat, as detailed in the Mitigation Plan, and summarized in section 7.5.
(iv) The project is consistent with the state’s interest in resource protection and species recovery. Response: The proposed project location is a previously developed industrial site, with low habitat quality, and adjacent to a navigation channel. Locating an export facility at this site allows for the preservation of non-industrial lands in other locations that are not suitable for this type of development.
The proposed tidal channel creation will provide both in-kind mitigation (for shoreline buffer impacts) as well as out-of-kind habitat enhancements to nearshore aquatic habitat (for impacts to aquatic habitats from new overwater structure and permanent benthic habitat impacts). Additionally, the proposed pile and structure
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 76 of 140
removal will provide both in-kind mitigation for benthic habitat impacts and overwater coverage impacts associated with the new facility, as well as out-of-kind habitat mitigation in the form of water quality improvements. These aquatic habitat enhancements will fully offset any potential adverse impacts to aquatic habitat function at the site.
(b) Private, noncommercial docks for individual residential or joint use (community use) may be permitted if it is infeasible to avoid impacts by an alternative alignment or location and the project including any required mitigation will result in no net loss of ecological functions associated with the critical saltwater habitat. (c) Until an inventory of critical saltwater habitat has been done, the SMP shall condition all over water and nearshore developments in marine and estuarine waters with the requirement for an inventory of the site and adjacent beach sections to assess the presence of critical saltwater habitats and functions. (i) The methods and extent of the inventory shall be consistent with accepted research methodology. (ii) At a minimum, the city should consult with Ecology technical assistance materials for guidance. Response: No private noncommercial marine structures are proposed. An inventory (survey and delineation) was conducted to establish the absence or presence of eelgrass and microalgae at the in water portions of the Project Site and IDD#1. The report was conducted consistent with WDFW and USACE technical guidance.
8.2.5 Frequently Flooded Areas (HMC 11.05. 860) Per HMC 11.05.860, frequently flooded areas are regulated under HMC 11.05.340 and HMC Chapter 11.16 – Floodplain District. Code requirements are addressed in section 8.3.2.4.
Shoreline Master Program Compliance The following section discusses the policies and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the City of Hoquiam SMP (codified as HMC Chapter 11.05) that apply to the proposed project, and how the proposed project is consistent with the policies and meets the required regulations. The applicant is applying for three shoreline permits. An SSDP is requested to construct the project facilities and improvements within shoreline jurisdiction (as listed in section 3.1.5 and shown on Sheet 16), and to permit mitigation activities at IDD#1 within shoreline jurisdiction (Sheet 17). An SCUP is requested to permit the proposed marine terminal and associated moorage structures (Sheet 16) to be located in the Aquatic and High Intensity designations, to permit fill waterward of the OHWM associated with Wetland C (Sheet 16), and to permit dredging in the Aquatic designation (Sheet 11). A Shoreline Variance is requested to permit water-related portions of the project that fall within the 75-foot buffer (e.g., rail line, unloading facility, product storage building).
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 77 of 140
8.3.1 Allowed Shoreline Uses (HMC 11.05.430) The permitted, prohibited, and conditional uses within the Aquatic and High Intensity designations for the proposed project are shown in the table below.
HMC Table 11.05.430-1 Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Shoreline Uses High Shoreline Uses Intensity Aquatic Industrial and Port Development Water-oriented P X Nonwater-oriented C X New Marine Terminals and Mooring Structures C C (Primary Use) New Marine Terminals and Mooring Structures P C (Accessory to a Permitted Use) Recreational Development Water-oriented P P Paved trails P X Unpaved trails P X P = Permitted Use, C = Conditional Use, N/A = Not Applicable
In accordance with HMC 11.05.570, the proposed utilities shall be considered under the standards of the primary use of the property.
The permitted, prohibited, and conditional shoreline modifications within the Aquatic and High Intensity designations for the proposed project are shown in HMC Table 11.05.610-1 as follows.
HMC Table 11.05.610-1 Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Shoreline Modifications High Shoreline Modifications1, 2 Intensity Aquatic Clearing and Grading P N/A Fill landward of the OHWM P N/A Fill waterward of the OHWM N/A C Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal C C In-Water Structures3 NA C Restoration4 P P P = Permitted Use, C = Conditional Use, N/A = Not Applicable 1 In the event of a conflict between Table 11.05.610-1, Shoreline Modifications, and the regulatory text, the text shall hold. 2 In the shoreline environment designations where these activities are allowed, fill waterward of the OHWM and dredging are only permitted in limited situations. See HMC 11.05.630 and 11.05.640 for requirements. 3 All in-water structures require a shoreline conditional use permit, except when such structures are installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. In such cases, it would be considered a permitted shoreline modification.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 78 of 140
4 Exemptions from shoreline permitting are available for certain restoration activities as outlined in WAC 173-27-040(2)(o) and 173-27-040(2)(p). Projects are still required to comply with the SMP.
The proposed project will consist of water-dependent and water-related industrial development activity, which is a permitted use within the High Intensity designation. Uses and development identified as “permitted” require an SSDP.
The marine terminal, mooring structures, dredging, and fill waterward of the OHWM (limited to fill in the OHWM associated with Wetland C on the Project Site) require an SCUP.
At IDD#1, uses will consist of ecological restoration and water-oriented recreation. Water-oriented recreation in the High Intensity designation is a permitted use per the SMP. The proposed mitigation plan includes a pervious pedestrian trail within the upland buffer portion of the improved site. Unpaved and paved trails are both permitted in the High Intensity designation.
The proposed development at IDD#1 requires an SSDP, and is included in the project’s application for that permit. The ecological restoration and trail/viewpoint uses proposed at IDD#1 are permitted and are not addressed in the shoreline variance and SCUP request.
HMC 11.05.250 provides the following definitions as they relate to the proposed project:
“Industrial” means the production, processing, manufacturing, or fabrication of goods or materials. Warehousing and storage of goods and materials is considered industrial development. “Port” means a center for water-borne commerce and traffic and includes marine terminals and moorage facilities. “Public access” means the ability of the public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water’s edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Refer to WAC 173-26-221(4). “Restore,” “restoration,” or “ecological restoration” means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to: revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. “Restoration” does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions. “Water-oriented use” means any combination of water-dependent, water- related, or water enjoyment uses that serves as an all-encompassing definition for priority uses under the SMA. “Water-dependent use” means a use or a portion of a use, which cannot exist in any other location and is dependent on the water due to the intrinsic nature of its operations. Examples of water-dependent uses may include
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 79 of 140
moorage structures (including those associated with residential properties), ship cargo terminal loading areas, ferry and passenger terminals, barge loading facilities, ship building and dry docking, marinas, aquaculture, float plane facilities and sewer outfalls. “Water-related use” means a use or a portion of a use which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront location but whose economic viability is dependent upon a waterfront location because: (a) Of a functional requirement for a waterfront location such as the arrival or shipment of materials by water or the need for large quantities of water; or (b) The use provides a necessary service supportive of the water- dependent commercial activities and the proximity of the use to its customers makes its services less expensive or more convenient. Examples include manufacturers of ship parts large enough that transportation becomes a significant factor in the product’s cost, professional services serving primarily water-dependent uses and storage of water-transported foods. Examples of water-related uses may include warehousing of goods transported by water, seafood processing plants, hydroelectric generating plants, gravel storage when transported by barge, oil refineries where transport is by tanker and log storage. As described in detail in the project description (see section 4.0), the proposed project is an industrial facility that will receive potash by rail, store it on site, and ship it by vessel from a marine terminal and moorage structures via Grays Harbor. These activities require direct access to the shoreline for operation. Some facilities are water dependent (e.g., shiploader and marine structure) and others are water related (e.g., rail and storage building). As such, the uses meet the definitions industrial, port, water-oriented use, water-dependent use, and water-related use. The proposed mitigation meets the definitions of water-dependent use, water-oriented use, public access, and ecological restoration.
(a) Table HMC 11.05.430-1: Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses establishes the uses and development allowed within the shoreline environment designations. Where there is a conflict between the table and the written provisions in the SMP, the written provisions shall apply. (b) Authorized uses and development are subject to the policies and regulations of the SMP and are only allowed in shoreline jurisdiction where allowed by the underlying zoning. (c) Uses and development identified as “Permitted” require either a shoreline substantial development permit in accordance with HMC 11.05.730(1) or an exemption from the requirement to obtain such a permit in accordance with HMC 11.05.730(4). If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for an exemption, then a shoreline substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 80 of 140
(d) Uses identified as “Conditional” require a shoreline conditional permit pursuant to HMC 11.05.730(2). Any use not listed in Table HMC 11.05.430-1: Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses shall require a shoreline conditional use permit. (e) Uses identified as “Prohibited” are not allowed in shoreline jurisdiction. (f) Accessory uses and structures shall be subject to the same shoreline permit process and SMP provisions as their primary use. An accessory use shall not be established prior to the establishment of its primary use Response: The proposed project is consistent with the above stated regulations as follows: (a) The proposed project consists of permitted uses in the High Intensity designation per Table HMC 11.05.430-1. See section 8.3.1 of this narrative for additional discussion of permitted uses as related to the proposed project. (b) The proposed marine terminal and associated mooring structures are conditional uses in the Aquatic designation. See section 8.3.4 for a discussion of how the proposed project meets the requirements for a SCUP. (c) This narrative is provided in support of a SSDP, shoreline variance, and SCUP for the proposed project. (d) The proposed project does not include uses prohibited in the High Intensity or Aquatic shoreline environments. (e) Discussion of accessory uses (e.g. stormwater utilities) is included in this narrative as part of the SSDP for the proposed project.
8.3.2 Shoreline Master Program Policies and Regulations This section identifies the applicable shoreline policies found Articles V and VI of the SMP. Following each applicable regulation is a response indicating project consistency with the governing policies and regulations.
8.3.2.1 Archaeological and Historic Resources (HMC 11.05.310) Policies: (a) Encourage consultation with professional archaeologists and historians to identify areas containing potentially valuable archaeological or historic resources, and establish procedures for protecting, and if necessary, salvaging the resource. Appropriate agencies to consult include, but are not limited to, the DAHP, the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, the Shoalwater Bay Tribe, and the Quinault Indian Tribe. (b) Condition shoreline permits to allow for site inspection and evaluation, and ensure proper salvage of archaeological and historic resources in areas known to contain such resources. (c) Preserve archeological or historic sites permanently for scientific study and public observation whenever feasible.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 81 of 140
(d) Design and operate the proposed development to be compatible with the continued protection of the site, where development or demolition activity is proposed adjacent to an identified archaeological or historic site.
Regulations: (a) Permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources shall require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist in coordination with affected tribes and DAHP prior to ground disturbance as part of the permitted activity. Failure to complete a site survey shall be considered a violation of the shoreline permit. (b) Where a professional archaeologist has identified an area or site as having significant value, or where an area or site is listed in local, state, or federal historical registers, the Shoreline Administrator may condition the development approval to preserve the features. Potential conditions may include measures to preserve or retrieve the resources, modify the site development plan to reduce impacts, or mitigate the impacts as authorized through the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), or other local, state, or federal laws. Response: Site inspections and evaluations by professional archaeologists have been conducted for both the Project Site and IDD#1 (Appendices H and I). Based on the results of the studies, the project’s historic and cultural resources consultant, ICF, recommended a finding of no historic properties affected under Section 106 of the NHPA and a finding of no cultural or historic resources impacted. Consultation with the Quinault has also occurred, including discussions with the Quinault’s Cultural Resources Specialist regarding such cultural and historic resource issues.
(c) The applicant shall stop work immediately and contact the city, the DAHP, and affected tribes if any archaeological resources are uncovered during work within shoreline jurisdiction. Response: If any archaeological resources are encountered during project activities, ground-disturbing activities will be halted in the area of the find in accordance with RCW 27.53.060 (Archaeological Sites and Resources) and RCW 27.44.020 (Indian Graves and Records). The professional archaeologist/qualified professional will assess the significance of the find, and DAHP and the Quinault’s Cultural Resources Specialist will be notified so that a course of action can be implemented. To ensure proper coordination occurs during ground disturbing activities and to minimize impacts to such resources if they are encountered, BHP will conduct the following actions. See the cultural resources reports for additional details (Appendices H and I). • Targeted Archaeological Monitoring: Archaeological monitoring will occur for any project-related ground disturbance at the Project Site that will exceed 17 feet in depth and result in excavation and exposure of native sediments (i.e., not pile driving), and for any project-related ground disturbance at the IDD#1 Site exceeding 12 feet in depth.
• Development of an Unanticipated Discovery Protocol: An unanticipated discovery protocol will be developed for the project and distributed to the
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 82 of 140
construction contractor prior to commencing with project-related ground disturbance. This protocol will describe and provide examples of common archaeological site types, outline the procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials or human remains, and provide the contact information for key individuals listed in the unanticipated discovery procedures.
• Treatment of Significant Archaeological Sites: If significant archaeological sites are encountered during project-related ground disturbance, ground disturbance will cease at the location of the discovery until the appropriate treatment can be determined through consultation between BHP, the City, DAHP, and the Quinault; a memorandum of agreement describing the stipulations relating to the treatment is signed; and any treatment required prior to commencing with further ground disturbance is completed.
• BHP will coordinate with the Quinault through their mutual participation in the Grays Harbor Safety Committee, addressing issues such as vessel call and management protocols and notices during construction.
8.3.2.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation (HMC 11.05.320) Policy: Avoid or mitigate impacts to shoreline jurisdiction to ensure the standards of no net loss to function are met.
Regulations: (a) The environmental impacts of development proposals shall be analyzed and include measures to mitigate environmental impacts not otherwise avoided or minimized by compliance with the SMP and other applicable regulations. Response: Environmental impacts for the proposed project have been addressed and mitigation measure identified for impacts that could not be avoided or minimized by compliance with the SMP or other applicable regulations. These BMPS and other measures are discussed in detail in section 7.0. The measures identified will ensure the adverse impacts of the proposed project are avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts to a critical area cannot be entirely avoided, mitigation is proposed. The proposed project will include mitigation for critical areas as noted in in sections 7.5 through 7.7 of this narrative.
(b) Where required, mitigation measures shall be applied in the following sequence of steps listed in order of priority: (i) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (ii) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts;
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 83 of 140
(iii) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; (iv) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; (v) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and (vi) Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Response: The project has applied the mitigation sequence stipulated to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources to the greatest extent practicable. In summary, the project as proposed is the result of a multiyear planning and site evaluation effort. The project followed the mitigation sequencing noted above as the proposed project is the result of a multiyear planning and site evaluation effort summarized in the project. Much of the upland portion of the site is an existing industrial site that provides only limited habitat function. Even the more natural wetland and shoreline buffer areas present at the site are disturbed areas that have developed in formerly filled portions of the site. Invasive species presence is high in wetlands and buffers, and native plant diversity is low. Aquatic habitats at the site are similarly disturbed from their natural condition. The shoreline at the site is riprapped, and the site is located adjacent to an existing marine terminal and adjacent to the artificially maintained navigation channel.
The project design has avoided and minimized impacts to wetlands, buffers, shoreline buffers, aquatic habitats, and other environmentally sensitive habitats to the extent practicable, while still accommodating the necessary features to meet the project purpose and need.
The layout of the upland portion of the facility has undergone several iterative modifications in an effort to minimize impacts and to accommodate design requirements and site constraints. The layout and configuration of the rail loop is dictated by the maximum track curvature and length of the unit train that will be used at the site, and it is not possible for the rail loop to avoid wetland impacts completely. Similarly, the layout of the building and other structures at the site are dictated in part by the FAA clear zone requirements for the approach to Bowerman Airport. For this reason, many of the buildings and taller structures have been located in the northern portion of the site, where wetlands are located.
The size and configuration of the marine terminal structures have also been kept to the minimum necessary to support their needed functions. The terminal has been designed such that the shiploader and berth are sited in deep water, which minimizes the potential for effects to aquatic habitats. The project has also been modified to eliminate a gabion mat. The project has also made a commitment to restrict the dredging to clamshell methods only to minimize impacts to the aquatic environment, in particular to minimize impacts to benthic species including Dungeness crab.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 84 of 140
Structures in and over deeper water habitats have less impact to function than those in shallow water areas, because they have less effect on primary productivity, and deeper water habitats are of less critical importance to sensitive species. Ship berthing and maneuvering activities will also occur in deep water, reducing impacts to habitat from vessel operations, such as scour from propellers and thrusters. Overwater walkways will be grated to further minimize shading. Additionally, the shiploader is comprised of relatively narrow trestles supported between small, pile-supported platforms with relatively few piles overall. Because the shiploader and access trestles are relatively narrow structures, they do not result in a substantial benthic footprint, and the impacts associated with overwater shading is relatively low compared to that which would be associated with a monolithic structure.
New piles for the marine terminal will be installed with a vibratory hammer to the extent practicable, to minimize noise related impacts to aquatic species. A bubble curtain or other similarly effective noise attenuation device will be employed during all impact pile proofing or installation.
While impacts to wetlands and other sensitive resources have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable (as discussed above) the project will result in impacts that require compensatory mitigation in order to meet the no net loss standard. The project will affect wetlands and associated buffers (through direct impacts from fill placement associated with construction of the upland portions of the facility) and aquatic habitats (by increasing the quantity of overwater shading and benthic habitat impacts from new piles). These impacts will be compensated for through wetland creation and rehabilitation, intertidal habitat creation, wetland and shoreline buffer creation and enhancement, the removal of existing piles and a derelict overwater structure, and preservation of wetlands and forested buffers. These actions are described in detail in the Mitigation Plan.
(c) In determining appropriate mitigation measures applicable to development in shoreline jurisdiction, lower priority measures should be applied only where higher priority measures are determined to be infeasible or inapplicable. Response: The compensatory mitigation activities proposed include impact minimization and avoidance as the highest priority. Impacts to shoreline resources will be mitigated through compensatory mitigation actions that will include wetland creation, tidal habitat creation, wetland and shoreline buffer creation and enhancement, the removal of existing piles and a derelict overwater structure, and preservation of wetlands and forested buffers. These actions were selected as the highest quality and most ecologically appropriate mitigation opportunities available to achieve no net loss of ecological function. The proposed mitigation, including site selection and determination criteria, are detailed in the Mitigation Plan.
(d) Mitigation shall not be required that exceeds what is necessary to assure the development will result in no net loss of ecological functions in shoreline jurisdiction. Response: As described above, the mitigation actions identified for this project were selected as the highest quality and most ecologically appropriate mitigation
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 85 of 140
opportunities available to achieve no net loss of ecological function. Compensatory mitigation actions were identified only after appropriate mitigation sequencing, including impact avoidance and minimization. Compensatory mitigation is proposed at quantities that are consistent with regulatory guidance that has been established to achieve no net loss of ecological function, as described in the Mitigation Plan.
(e) When compensatory measures are appropriate pursuant to the mitigation priority sequence above, preferential consideration shall be given to measures that replace the impacted functions directly and in the immediate vicinity of the impact. However, alternative compensatory mitigation measures that have been identified within a watershed plan and address limiting factors or other critical resource conservation needs in shoreline jurisdiction may be authorized. Authorization of compensatory mitigation measures may require appropriate safeguards, terms, or conditions as necessary to ensure no net loss of ecological functions. Response: As described above and in the Mitigation Plan, the proposed compensatory mitigation activities will provide a combination of in-kind and out-of- kind compensatory mitigation for both direct and indirect wetland and wetland buffer impacts and aquatic habitat impacts associated with the proposed project, consistent with regulatory requirements and published guidance, and will result in no net loss of wetland or aquatic habitat function. The proposed mitigation will greatly enhance wildlife habitat, water quality, and hydrologic function within a degraded and ecologically sensitive portion of the inner Grays Harbor estuary.
8.3.2.3 Critical Areas and Shoreline Vegetation Conservation. (HMC 11.05.330) Policies: (a) Ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions through the effective integration of the SMP with existing municipal critical areas regulations. (b) Include critical areas objectives in the protection and restoration of degraded ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes. (c) Balance the various facets of the SMP in critical area regulations, including public access, water-dependent uses, aesthetic considerations, and the maintenance of shoreline ecological functions. (d) Protect and restore ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes provided by native vegetation along shorelines. (e) Explore opportunities to eliminate non-native vegetation and invasive species and encourage the planting and enhancement of native vegetation within shoreline jurisdiction. (f) Prohibit speculative vegetation removal within shoreline jurisdiction. (g) Replant cleared and disturbed sites promptly after completion of any clearance or construction with native vegetation in those locations where there was previously native vegetation or with other species in those areas previously vegetated with non- native or ornamental species. (h) Allow the selective pruning of trees for safety and view protection.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 86 of 140
(i) Conduct removal of invasive aquatic vegetation in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts to native plant communities and wildlife habitats, and appropriately handles and disposes of weed materials and attached sediments. (j) Permit clearing of vegetation associated with dike or levee maintenance as necessary to provide protection from flood hazards.
Regulations: General Regulations (a) Whether or not a shoreline permit or written statement of exemption is required, the provisions of this section shall apply to all uses, alterations, or developments within shoreline jurisdiction or shoreline buffers. All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed, constructed, and managed to protect the ecological functions and ecosystem wide processes provided by critical areas and shoreline vegetation. (b) The critical areas regulations found in Article VIII: Critical Areas Regulations are integral and applicable to the SMP. All uses and development occurring within critical areas or their buffers within shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with these regulations. (c) If there are any conflicts or unclear distinctions between the provisions of Article VIII: Critical Areas Regulations and this section, the requirements most consistent with the SMA and most protective of the resource shall apply, as determined by the Shoreline Administrator. (d) Within shoreline jurisdiction, critical area review, approval, notice, and appeal periods/processes shall be integrated with the associated shoreline permit or exemption found in Article VII: Shoreline Administration. (e) Within shoreline jurisdiction, applicants seeking relief from the provisions of Article VIII: Critical Areas Regulations shall apply for a shoreline variance under HMC 11.05.730(3). (f) The provisions of Article VIII: Critical Areas Regulations do not extend shoreline jurisdiction beyond the limits specified in HMC 11.05.060. Response: The applicant is not seeking relief from the critical areas regulations and will comply with all critical areas regulations. A critical areas assessment was completed for the Project Site and IDD#1. Critical areas regulations are addressed in section 8.2 of this narrative and provided in full in the critical areas assessment (WSP July 2019). The assessment addresses the applicable review standards and approval criteria found in HMC 11.05.330.
Regulations: Shoreline Buffer Table: Response: Per Table HMC 11.05.330-1, there is no buffer required for water- dependent structures and uses associated with industrial and port development located in the High Intensity designation. However, water-related uses, such as the proposed product storage building and a portion of the rail loop, require a 75-foot buffer. Both features are located within the required 75-foot buffer in the northwest corner of the site. The location of these project elements is dictated by the operational needs of the facility. The applicant is requesting a shoreline variance to permit these activities
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 87 of 140
within the shoreline buffer. Compliance with variance criteria is addressed in section 8.3.5 of this document.
Regulations: Standard Shoreline Buffer with Reduction Options: (a)Shoreline buffer averaging. (c) Reduction for Road or Railroads in Buffer (Applicable to Shoreline Buffers Only) (i) A legally established road or railroad, excluding a private driveway; (ii) The expansion of existing roads and railroads; or (iii) The construction of new roads or railroads related to cargo handling and freight mobility, whether included as a portion of a large development or submitted as an individual project. (d) Shoreline Buffer Width Reduction (B) established prior to the effective date of the SMP, or naturally existing topographic barriers, exist between the proposed development and the OHWM, which substantially prevent or impair delivery of most natural functions from the subject upland property to the waterbody. Response: The applicant is not seeking to average the shoreline buffer. A variance to the buffer is requested per section 8.3.5.
Regulations: General Buffer Regulations a) Shoreline buffers. The following new uses and activities are allowed within shoreline buffers without a shoreline variance, when located, constructed, and maintained in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on shoreline ecological functions, and when otherwise in compliance with this SMP: (i) Accessory Uses. Uses and development accessory to water-dependent uses shall be located outside the shoreline buffer unless at least one of the following criteria is met: (A) A location in the shoreline buffer is necessary for operation of the primary water- dependent use or development, such as a road to a boat launch facility; or (B) The accessory use is on legally established public lands and is primarily related to access, enjoyment, and use of the water; and the use does not conflict with or limit opportunities for other water-oriented uses. (v) Shoreline modifications in conformance with the applicable provisions found in Article VI: Shoreline Modification Policies & Regulations. Response: As shown on the site plan, several facilities must be located in the shoreline buffer, as is necessary for operation of the facility, which is a water- dependent use. Shoreline Modification Provisions are addressed in section 8.3.2.14.
Regulations: Vegetation Conservation Standards (a) Shoreline buffers protect the ecological functions of the shoreline, help to reduce the impacts of land uses on the waterbody or aquatic resource, and provide a transition between aquatic and upland areas. (b) Authorized uses shall be designed to avoid removing existing native vegetation to the maximum extent feasible within shoreline and critical areas buffers consistent with safe construction practices, and other provisions of this section. Any impacts to
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 88 of 140
existing native vegetation must follow the mitigation sequence in HMC 11.05.320 and comply with Article VIII: Critical Areas Regulations, as modified in HMC 11.05.330(2). (c) Removal of vegetation within shoreline and critical areas buffers shall require a critical area report and/or a mitigation plan in coordination with the requirements of Article VIII: Critical Areas Regulations. The Shoreline Administrator may require a critical area report for critical areas regulations exempt activities if necessary to document compliance with the provisions in the SMP. (d) Removal of native vegetation from shoreline buffers must be compensated at a minimum 1:1 ratio, which the Shoreline Administrator may increase if necessary to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Increases may be necessary to compensate for temporal losses, uncertainty of performance, and differences in ecological functions and values. (e) Mitigation ratios shall be based on a scientifically valid measure of habitat function, value, and area. Critical area reports shall include a description of how the proposal complies with the mitigation sequence in HMC 11.05.320 and how mitigation areas will be monitored and maintained to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (f) Vegetation conservation standards shall not apply retroactively to existing, legally established uses and developments. Existing, lawfully established landscaping and gardens within shoreline jurisdiction may be maintained in their existing condition. In the context of this regulation, maintenance includes, but is not limited to, mowing lawns, weeding, removal of noxious and invasive species, harvesting and replanting of garden crops, pruning, and replacement planting of ornamental vegetation or indigenous native species to maintain the condition and appearance of such areas. (g) Clearing of invasive, noxious non-native vegetation in shoreline buffers is allowed by hand labor or with light equipment. Removal of noxious weeds as listed by the state in Chapter 16-750 WAC is allowed in a manner consistent with Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board regulations. Native vegetation shall be promptly reestablished in the disturbed area. (h) In shoreline buffers, pruning shall comply with the National Arborist Association pruning standards. Trees that are felled in shoreline buffers should be left in place. The exception to this regulation is that hazard trees, which are dead, diseased, leaning, or structurally unsound trees that are deemed an emergency, may be removed at any time. Hazard tree removal is addressed in HMC 3A10.040 (14) and abatement of public nuisances related to hazardous tress is addressed in HMC 3A10.040 (15). (i) In those instances where the management of vegetation required by this section conflicts with provisions in state, federal, or other flood hazard agency documents that govern licensed or certified flood hazard reduction measures, the requirements of the SMP will not apply. The applicant shall submit documentation of conflicting provisions with a shoreline permit application and shall comply with all other provisions of the SMP that are not strictly prohibited by certifying or licensing agencies.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 89 of 140
Response: The applicant does not anticipate removing native vegetation at the Project Site’s shoreline, except where a specific use is located within the shoreline buffer. Vegetation removal and planting within the shoreline of the IDD#1 site is described in the Mitigation Plan (Sheets 35 and 36). Details on sequencing and function impact/replacement information is also described in the Mitigation Plan. Mitigation sequencing consistent with HMC 11.05.320 has been applied, as the project has avoided and minimized impacts to vegetation in the shoreline buffers to the extent practicable, provides compensatory mitigation for impacts, vegetation removal in the shoreline buffer has been kept to the minimum necessary for the project, and lastly a long-term monitoring plan has been identified to ensure that the impacts and mitigation will be evaluated for success over the next 10 years.
Clearing of invasive, noxious non-native vegetation in shoreline buffers, if required, will be conducted by hand labor or with light equipment. If any native vegetation is removed, as needed for construction activities, it will be promptly reestablished in the disturbed area.
Pruning will comply with the National Arborist Association pruning standards. Trees that are felled in shoreline buffers will be left in place, with the exception of hazard trees, which are dead, diseased, leaning, or structurally unsound trees, which will be removed.
In the event of a conflict between the required vegetation management of the HMC and another entity that govern licensed or certified flood hazard reduction measures, prohibited vegetation management will be handled in accordance with the overriding agency’s provisions. All other provisions of the SMP’s vegetation management would remain in effect.
Long-term vegetation management will be conducted in compliance with federal, state, and City requirements, and will include management of noxious weed species consistent with state and City noxious weed regulations. Vegetation management may also include occasional limbing or cutting of vegetation to avoid conflicts with on-site operations and/or to meet FAA requirements regarding air traffic.
Regulations: Revegetation (a) Surfaces that are cleared of vegetation in shoreline or critical area buffers, aside from normal maintenance described in HMC 11.05.330(6)(f) and are not developed must be replanted within one year. Replanted areas shall be planted and maintained such that within three years the vegetation cover is at least 90 percent reestablished. Areas that fail to reestablish vegetation adequately shall be replanted with approved plant materials until the plantings are viable. Revegetation areas will be maintained in good growing condition, and kept free of noxious weeds, and with removal of dead or dying plants for a five-year monitoring period. (b) Vegetation shall be planted in similar quantities and species to what existed previously on the site to achieve no net loss of ecological function. Disturbed ornamental landscapes, including grass, may be replaced with similar species, unless mitigation is necessary to address project impacts.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 90 of 140
(c) Native plants are preferred for all revegetation. Non-native species on the Grays Harbor County’s list of invasive species shall not be allowed. Response: Replanting of vegetation in shoreline areas will follow required regulations as stated above. A planting plan for the IDD#1 site is included with the Mitigation Plan. A monitoring program will be implemented to track the development, persistence, and vitality of the vegetation and the establishment of appropriate hydrologic conditions within the mitigation site. Baseline conditions for monitoring will be established and included in the as-built monitoring report. This description will contain figures and written information on the riparian site as constructed, based on information collected during construction. The mitigation will be monitored annually in late May or June for a period of 10 years beginning in the first growing season following the installation of plants. Monitoring will be conducted in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10. In off-years, the site will continue to be managed and may be informally monitored, but no formal monitoring or reporting will be conducted. A progress report will be prepared during each monitoring year (years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10). The report will document the development and condition of the site and make any necessary recommendations for supplemental plantings, contingency measures, or proposed modifications to the management of the site. Each report will be submitted to USACE, Ecology, and the City.
The wetland mitigation site will be protected under a conservation covenant and will be managed as a protected natural area.
8.3.2.4 Flood Hazard Management (HMC 11.05.340) Policies: (a) Assure flood hazard protection measures do not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) Plan for and facilitate returning river and stream conditions to more natural hydrological conditions where feasible and appropriate. (c) Achieve flood hazard management through a coordinated and integrated approach of plans, regulations, and programs. (d) Prefer nonstructural flood hazard management measures to structural measures where feasible. New structural flood hazard reduction measures should only be allowed when demonstrated to be necessary, nonstructural methods are insufficient, and mitigation is accomplished. (e) Limit development and shoreline modifications that interfere with the natural process of channel migration within the channel migration zone (CMZ). (f) Require new publicly funded dike or levee projects to dedicate and improve public access, subject to the exceptions in HMC 11.05.350.
Regulations: (a) All proposed flood hazard management measures shall comply with HMC Chapter 11.16 – Floodplain District and the Hoquiam Hazard Mitigation Plan where applicable.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 91 of 140
(b) Development in floodplains shall not increase flood hazards. Response: As used by the SMP, “flood hazard management measures” include modifications that directly control the location of floodwaters. As such, the project does not propose any flood hazard management measures at the Project Site.
There is no CMZ defined at the Project Site or IDD#1, as both sites are located within the bay/estuary and not on a river channel, and the project’s achievement of no net loss of ecological functions is documented in the Mitigation Plan.
The proposed structures and rail line located within the regulatory floodplain will obtain a floodplain permit consistent with the provisions of the flood hazard ordinance which requires that the project result in a less than 1-foot increase in flood height.
A Site Flooding Assessment has been prepared for the Project Site (Amec Foster Wheeler February 2018), which documents the current flood conditions and flood hazards at the site, and assesses potential changes in flood hazard surface elevations due to anticipated sea level rise. The assessment concluded that the proposed facility will not experience a material rise in water levels because of flooding (significantly less than 1 foot).
The report concludes that the storage building pad, other critical infrastructure, and access roads can be designed at elevations sufficiently high to mitigate flood risk consistent with the requirements of HMC 11.05.340 (9)(a-i) and HMC 11.16 or will be designed to be impervious to groundwater infiltration (e.g., railcar unloading facility).
The proposed mitigation actions at the IDD#1 Site, including excavation of tidal channels and rehabilitation of salt marsh habitats, will return approximately 37.32 acres to elevations below the existing 100-year floodplain elevation.
(c) New development or new uses in shoreline jurisdiction, including subdivision of land, shall not be established when it would be reasonably foreseeable that the use or development would require structural flood hazard reduction measures within the CMZ or floodway. Response: The proposed structures and rail line located within the regulatory floodplain will obtain a floodplain permit consistent with the provisions of the flood hazard ordinance which requires that the project result in a less than 1-foot increase in flood height. Therefore no structural flood hazard reduction measures will be required.
(d) New structural flood hazard management measures may be permitted if: (e) If new structural flood hazard management measures are required as documented in a geotechnical analysis, the structural measures shall be placed landward of any associated wetlands and shoreline buffer areas except for actions that increase
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 92 of 140
ecological functions, such as wetland restoration, or if it is determined that no other alternative to reduce flood hazard to existing development is feasible (f) New publicly-funded structural flood hazard management measures, including dikes and levees, shall dedicate and improve public access except when those improvements would: Response: No structural flood hazard management measures are required per the geotechnical analysis and the site flooding assessment, and none are proposed.
(g) Removal of gravel for flood management purposes shall be consistent with HMC 11.05.640, and permitted only after a biological and geomorphological study demonstrates that the extraction. Response: No gravel will be removed for flood management purposes.
(h) New development within floodways and the CMZ shall not interfere with the process of channel migration or cause a net loss of ecological functions. Response: The proposed development within the floodways (which is limited to the marine structure and dredging) will not interfere with channel migration or cause a net loss of ecological functions. Similarly, the proposed compensatory mitigation will not interfere with channel migration. There is no CMZ defined at the Project Site or at IDD#1, as both sites are located within the bay/estuary and not on a river channel, and no net loss of ecological functions is documented in the Mitigation Plan.
(i) Development in the CMZ and floodways, is limited to: (i) Actions that protect or restore ecosystem-wide processes or ecological functions; (ii) Forest practices in compliance with the FPA; (iii) Existing and ongoing agricultural practices, provided no new restrictions to channel movement occur; (iv) Bridges, utility lines, and other public utility and transportation structures where no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in an unreasonable and disproportionate cost; (v) Repair and maintenance of an existing legal use, provided that the repair and maintenance does not cause significant ecological impacts or increase flood hazards to other uses; (vi) Modifications or additions to an existing nonagricultural legal use, provided that channel migration is not further limited and that the new development includes appropriate protection of ecological functions; or (vii) Measures to reduce shoreline erosion, if it is demonstrated that the erosion rate exceeds that which would normally occur in a natural condition, the measure does not interfere with fluvial hydrological and geomorphological processes normally acting in natural conditions, and the measure includes appropriate mitigation of impacts to ecological functions associated with the river or stream. (Ord. 17-08 § 2 (Exh. A), 2017). There is no CMZ as the site is not located on a channel but within the bay/estuary. The proposed development is limited within the floodways (which is limited to the marine structure and dredging). These are transportation structures where no other feasible alternative exists or the alternative would result in an unreasonable and disproportionate cost, and are therefore permitted by HMC 11.05.340 (9)(i)(iv). Additional actions within the floodway consist of mitigation actions that serve to
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 93 of 140
protect and/or restore ecosystem-wide processes or ecological functions, and are therefore permitted by HMC 11.05.340 (9)(i)(i).
8.3.2.5 Public Access (HMC 11.05.350) Policies: (a) Protect and enhance the public’s visual and physical access to shorelines of the state to the greatest extent feasible. (b) Increase the amount and diversity of public access opportunities to shorelines where consistent with the natural shoreline character, property rights, and public safety. (c) Maintain, enhance, and increase public access in accordance with the following priorities unless found infeasible: (i) Maintain existing public access sites and facilities, rights-of-way, and easements. (ii) Enhance public access opportunities on existing public lands and easements. (iii) Acquire property or easements to add opportunities for public access to shorelines. (iv) Encourage public access to shorelines as part of shoreline development. (d) Ensure shoreline development plans by public entities include public access measures unless it is unsafe, unsecure, or negatively affects the shoreline environment. (e) Ensure that development does not impair or detract from public access to the water through standards for design, construction, and operation. (f) Provide public access as close as feasible to the OHWM without adversely affecting a sensitive environment and design with provisions for access for all persons. (g) Development, uses, and activities on or near the shoreline should not impair or detract from the public's visual access to the water. (h) Balance enhancement of views with the protection of shoreline vegetation that may partially impairs views. (i) Maintain, enhance, and preserve visual access of the shoreline from street- ends, public utilities, and rights-of-way.
Regulations: (c) Public access is not required when any of the following conditions are present: (iv) Inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied through the application of alternative design features or other solutions; (viii) Legal limitations preclude public access; (d) In addressing subsection (2)(c) of this section, the applicant must demonstrate that all feasible alternatives to allow public access have been exhausted, including: (i) Regulating access by such means as limiting hours of use to daylight hours;
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 94 of 140
(ii) Separating uses by such means as fences,' terracing, landscaping, signage, etc.; (iii) Providing access that is physically separated from the proposal, such as a nearby street end, an offsite viewpoint, or a trail system; or (iv) Where physical access is not feasible, visual access is provided instead. Response: Public access is not required at the Project Site as the property is restricted by legal limitations and inherent security requirements per HMC 11.05.350(2)(c). There is currently no public access to the shoreline at the proposed Project Site, and the Port is required under the Maritime Transportation Security Act to restrict access to marine terminal facilities. Consequently, the inherent security requirements and industrial operations of the Port and proposed project prevent shoreline access by the public to the site. No pathways, street ends, or other public access points can be provided while still maintaining security and Port functions. Therefore, public access to the shoreline at the site is not allowed or appropriate and public access will not be incorporated into the Project Site. Public access to the shoreline will be provided at IDD#1 as detailed in the mitigation plan. In addition, the Port provides public access to shorelines at other locations, such as Friends Landing and the 28th Street Ramp.
8.3.2.6 Water Quality (HMC 11.05.360) Policies: (a) Protect shoreline jurisdiction by ensuring that surface water quality and quantity regulations are administered by the city. (b) Prevent impacts to water quality and stormwater quantity that would result in net loss of shoreline ecological function, significant impacts to aesthetic qualities, or recreational opportunities.
Regulations: (a) All development in shoreline jurisdiction shall comply with the appropriate requirements of the SMP and the city’s current stormwater management manual. Response: The design of the proposed project will comply with requirements of the SMP and the design and permitting requirements of the City’s Stormwater Management Manual. The applicant will require that all design documents and construction activities comply with the manual. Specific measures to protect water quality and stormwater quantity are identified in section 7.0.
8.3.2.7 General Shoreline Use (HMC 11.05.420) Policies: (a) Prohibit the following uses within the shoreline jurisdiction: Agriculture and Mining. Parking is allowed only as an accessory to a primary use. (b) Shorelines are a limited ecological and economic resource. Apply the following priorities in the order presented below when determining allowable uses or resolving use conflicts in shoreline jurisdiction:
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 95 of 140
(i) Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health; (ii) Reserve shoreline areas for water-dependent and associated water-related uses. Mixed-use developments that include water-dependent uses may be allowed when specific conditions are met; (iii) Reserve shoreline areas for other water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives; (iv) Locate single-family residential uses where they are appropriate and can be developed without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water-dependent uses; and (v) Limit non-water-oriented uses to those locations where the uses described above are inappropriate or where non-water-oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the SMA. (c) Locate accessory structures or uses within shoreline jurisdiction, such as parking, service buildings or areas, access roads, utilities, signs, and storage, landward of required shoreline buffers and water-oriented developments or other approved uses. (d) Locate, design, and manage uses and development to minimize impacts through bulk and dimensional regulations, shoreline buffers, and other measures to ensure that the development will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and in a manner that supports long-term beneficial use of the shoreline and protects and maintains shoreline ecological functions and processes. (e) Develop and enforce regulations for shoreline buffers for the purpose of protecting existing ecological functions, accommodating water-oriented and preferred uses, recognizing existing development patterns, and minimizing the creation of nonconforming uses and developments. (f) Do not permit uses where they would result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions, adversely affect the quality or extent of habitat for native species, adversely affect other habitat conservation areas, or interfere with navigation or other water- dependent uses. (g) Avoid adverse impacts to the shoreline or, if that is not feasible, minimize to the extent feasible and mitigate unavoidable impacts
Regulations: These regulations apply to all developments and uses within shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit or a written letter of exemption is required. (b) Development shall comply with the most restrictive bulk and dimensional requirements found in the city code or the SMP. (c) Shoreline developments shall locate water-oriented portions along the shoreline and place other facilities landward or outside shoreline jurisdiction, where feasible. (d) Accessory uses, such as parking, stormwater management facilities, and utilities shall be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction where feasible. If they are to be located in shoreline jurisdiction, accessory uses shall be limited to water-oriented
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 96 of 140
uses, uses that support physical or visual shoreline access for substantial numbers of the public, or preferred uses in the shoreline. (e) Shoreline uses and developments shall be designed to complement the setting of the property and minimize glare. Shoreline applicants shall demonstrate efforts to minimize potential impacts to the extent feasible. (f) Agriculture and Mining are prohibited. Parking is allowed only as an accessory to a primary use. Response: Agricultural and mining uses are not proposed. Parking is proposed but will not be located within shoreline areas. The project will comply with the bulk and dimensional requirements enumerated in the SMP as detailed in section 8.3.2.8. The height of the storage building and associated conveyance system would be approved under the land use CUP (see section 8.1) and as such would comply with the HMC.
The proposed project will locate the water-dependent portions of the facility along the shoreline and place other facilities landward or outside shoreline jurisdiction, where feasible. Where not feasible, a shoreline variance is requested (see section 8.3.5).
Parking areas will be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Where feasible accessory uses including stormwater management facilities and new and relocated utilities will be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction. If they are to be located in shoreline jurisdiction, accessory uses shall be limited to water-oriented uses or preferred uses in the shoreline. The public access provision of this regulation does not apply to the site because the site is within the Port and is not accessible to the public. The provisions of the Maritime Transportation Security Act require the Port to prohibit public access to the property. The stormwater facilities at the railcar unloading facility have been designed at a location west of the proposed unloading facility improvements. This location was selected so that existing drainage patterns could be preserved to the largest extent possible. Other stormwater facilities located within shoreline jurisdiction are along the roads providing maintenance access along conveyor routes. City stormwater regulations (HMC 11.05.620 [2][e]) require that natural hydrographic patterns and water quality be maintained. Currently, surface water and stormwater in the northern and western portions of the site generally flow to the north and west, and outfall through one of two existing culverts in the northwest corner of the site. Surface water and stormwater from the eastern and southern portions of the property generally flow south and east, and an outfall to Grays Harbor via one of two existing outfalls. The stormwater treatment ponds have been sited in locations that would require the least modification to the natural drainage patterns at the site. In the proposed locations, the network of stormwater treatment ponds and ditches would allow runoff to be collected, treated, detained, and dispersed according to natural flow patterns without requiring pumping of stormwater. Stormwater ponds for the conveyor/access roads are located directly adjacent to these features. Placing them in a different location would require piping and other features. Therefore, meeting the stormwater regulations to preserve natural discharge locations requires that the stormwater ponds be located within shoreline jurisdiction. It is also
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 97 of 140
important to note that the stormwater facilities are located in associated wetlands and are not proximate to the OHWM. The proposed project design will use building materials and surface finishes that minimize glare to the extent feasible. The proposed marine structure is in line with and downstream of the existing Terminal 3 dock. The marine structure is located adjacent to, but outside of, the Federal Navigation Channel and, therefore, the marine structure and moored vessel will not impact the use of or maintenance of the navigation channel. In addition, the project will require a Section 10 permit from USACE. USACE regulatory requirements state that the “protection of navigation in all navigable waters of the United States continues to be a primary concern of the federal government.” The USACE will consider any impacts on navigation during its review. The location of the marine structure is such that it will still allow use of Terminal 3 for other vessels, such as barges delivering construction supplies to the site.
8.3.2.8 Shoreline Development Standards (HMC 11.05.440) The following development standards apply in addition to the buffer and structural setback requirements included in HMC 11.05.330. New development shall be located and designed to avoid the need for future shoreline stabilization measures to the extent feasible as defined in HMC 11.05.670(2) HMC 11.05.440-1: Shoreline Height Regulations
High Standard Intensity Aquatic Maximum Shoreline Height 35 feet1,2 35 feet 1Maximum shoreline height may be increased to 55 feet in the General Commercial (C-1) zoning designation with approval of a shoreline variance. 2Maximum shoreline height may be increased over 35 feet in the Industrial (I) zoning designations with approval of a shoreline variance except that Industrial and Port Development does not need a variance as noted in HMC 11.05.440(2)(d).
(2) Shoreline Height Standards (a) To limit the obstruction of views from public property or residences, Table HMC 11.05.440-1: Shoreline Height Regulations establish the maximum shoreline height for new or expanded buildings or structures above average grade level.
(b) The following structures are exempt from the shoreline height standard requirements: dams, shipping cranes or other freight moving equipment, power or light poles, chimneys, tanks, towers, cupolas, steeples, flagpoles, smokestacks, silos, elevators, fire or parapet walls, open railings, and/or similar necessary building appurtenances may exceed the shoreline height limit provided all other requirements of the city are met and no usable floor space above the shoreline height limit is added. Response: The storage building will exceed 35-feet, as allowed under HMC 11.05.440(2)(d) (addressed below). Potash will be transported via conveyors from the
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 98 of 140
railcar unloading facility to the product storage building and from the product storage building to the shiploader, or from the railcar unloading facility directly to the shiploader. “Freight” is not defined by the City’s SMP or the HMC, but is generally defined as “goods to be moved” or “goods that are transported from one place to another by ship, aircraft, train, or truck.” 7 8 As such the conveyor structures, the shiploader, and associated structures would be considered “freight moving equipment,” and are not subject to the height limit provided that development complies with other City regulations, and no useable floor space above 35 feet is added. There will be no usable floor space constructed above 35 feet associated with the conveyor structures. Catwalks and maintenance platforms will be provided for temporary access as required for maintenance and repairs.
(c) Aside from industrial and port development uses, development in the High Intensity shoreline environment designation may be increased through a shoreline variance that meets the criteria in HMC 11.05.730(3) provided:[…] Response: The proposed project consists of industrial and port uses. No other uses are proposed or would exist at the Project Site.
(d) As defined in HMC 11.05.500, Industrial and Port Development in the High Intensity shoreline environment designations may be increased without a shoreline variance provided: (i) Public notice is given following the procedures in HMC 11.05.720; Response: HMC 11.05.720 specifies public notices procedures for the Shoreline Administrator. Appropriate public notice will be provided by the City consistent with these requirements.
(ii) The increase does not substantially block views from adjacent residential properties; Response: A visual analysis was conducted in accordance with the view corridor review process (HMC 11.05.440[2][e]) and is provided as Appendix K. In summary, the visual analysis demonstrates that there are no existing residential properties adjacent to the Project Site; therefore, no views from adjacent residential properties exist to be blocked. Additionally, while no residences are adjacent to the IDD#1 Site, mitigation of the wetlands is anticipated to either have no effect or have a positive effect on any residences that might have views of that property.
(iii) The increase will serve overriding considerations of the public interest pursuant to RCW 90.58.320; Response: RCW 90.58.320 (Height limitation respecting permits) stipulates that “No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas
7 Merriam-Webster online dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freight 8 Cambridge online dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/freight
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 99 of 140
adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.”
“Public interest” is defined by WAC 173-27-030 as “the interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected including, but not limited to, an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or development.
As explained above, none of the proposed structures over 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction “obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines” (RCW 90.58.320) because there are no existing residential properties adjacent to the Project Site. Thus, the height restriction in RCW 90.58.320 does not apply.
The height increase is required to construct the proposed project (as detailed below), and the project will serve the public interest. Further, the SMP does not prohibit the height increase. HMC 11.05.440(d)(2) provides that “[i]ndustrial and port development, in the high intensity shoreline environment designations may be increased without a shoreline variance” provided these criteria are met. HMC 11.05.440(b) provides that “freight moving equipment” are “exempt from the shoreline height standard requirements”). “Overriding considerations of the public interest will be served” (RCW 90.58.320) because the proposed project is not located on public property, and instead is located in an industrial area designated for industrial use. Further, as shown in this narrative and associated documentation, the proposed project will not negatively impact the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Instead, the project will provide several benefits serving the general welfare of the community, such as putting designated heavy industrial land to economic use, creating jobs, increasing tax revenues, and the restoration and/or preservation of the mitigation sites. See also WAC 173-27-030(14); HMC 11.05.250.
(iv) Greater height is demonstrated to be needed for an essential element of an allowed use; Response: The project includes the following elements that exceed 35 feet in height. All of these elements require the additional height for operational reasons as noted below. 1. Storage building: The storage building must be at least 141.5 feet tall to accommodate the conveyor system, other required equipment, and the volume of product storage needed (265,000 tons) based on the throughput from the mine when fully operational (8 million metric tons per annum [mtpa]). A single product storage building represents the most efficient design for the facility throughput and operation of the conveyance machinery required to move the product from the trains to the shiploader. In addition, on-site storage performs several functions, including buffering of train arrivals and mine production from ship loading, and maintaining adequate supply to load a marine vessel. While a building of 35 feet in height could store adequate volumes of potash, it could not accommodate
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 100 of 140
material-handling systems to efficiently place and reclaim the materials and would require a larger footprint. 2. Shiploader: The shiploader must be taller than 35 feet in order to load the potash onto the types of ships that will be used to ship potash. 3. Conveyors: The conveyors must be taller than 35 feet in order to accommodate the height of both the storage building and the shiploader. (v) The project includes compensating elements that substantially enhance the visual and physical public access to the shoreline; and Response: There is no physical public access to the shoreline at the Project Site, as the property is currently in use as an industrial site. Visual impacts associated with the variance are limited to an area in the northwest portion of the site, which is tidally connected to Grays Harbor but offers no public access or use, is not navigable, and does not provide shoreline views. Meanwhile, compensatory mitigation at the IDD#1 Site, will enhance visual and physical public access to the shoreline. The public’s use of an informal path along the water at the IDD#1 Site is currently unauthorized. Creation of the mitigation site will improve the pedestrian pathway and provide safe, authorized public access to waterfront for residents. Access to the adjacent GHNWR or the Grays Harbor shoreline by Airport Way would not be impacted by the proposed project. (vi) It is demonstrated that no net loss of shoreline ecological function will be achieved. Response: As detailed in sections 6.0 and 7.0 of this narrative, the project will achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological function through a series of preventative measures, mitigation, and restoration. Wetland delineations of the project and mitigation sites were completed to evaluate the existing wetlands and ecological functions on site (included with Appendix E, Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation of Assessments, Project Site, and IDD#1 Site). The only functional shoreline buffer present on the Project Site is located in the northwestern corner of the site, adjacent to the tidal portion of Wetland C. This buffer extends into the site to the south and east a maximum distance of 150 feet and is located within an area that has been disturbed from its natural condition. The entirety of the site was once part of the Grays Harbor tideflats, but the current tidal portion of Wetland C that extends onto the site consists of an excavated ditch. The existing shoreline buffer provides a relatively low level protective function for the adjacent aquatic habitat. The vegetation consists of a mix of non-native emergent vegetation, invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and native trees and shrubs. The project would impact approximately 2.68 acres of this shoreline buffer.
However, the Mitigation Plan demonstrates that the proposed project will result in no net loss of shoreline buffer or shoreline buffer function. The project has avoided and minimized impacts to shoreline buffers to the extent practicable, and provides compensatory mitigation for impacts. Consistent with HMC 11.05.330(6)(a-i) and HMC 11.05.320, mitigation sequencing has been applied as described previously in
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 101 of 140
this document (section 8.3.2.3), and vegetation removal in the shoreline buffer has been kept to the minimum necessary for the project.
The proposed compensatory mitigation would create approximately 5,941 linear feet of new tidal channels at IDD#1. The associated 150-foot shoreline buffer with these new tidal channels would be approximately 33.49 acres, and would encompass the majority of the wetland mitigation site. This would represent a shoreline buffer replacement ratio of greater than 12.49:1, which is substantially greater than the 1:1 ratio required in HMC 11.05.330(6). This shoreline buffer would be planted in native vegetation, and protected as part of the compensatory mitigation project, which includes a comprehensive suite of wetland creation and rehabilitation actions, enhanced wetland buffer creation, and pile and overwater structure removal.
The function provided by this additional shoreline and associated shoreline buffer would exceed those provided by the existing shoreline buffer that would be impacted. There would be some minor temporal loss of shoreline function as native trees and shrub vegetation matures within the buffer. This temporal loss of function would be offset by the substantial additional acreage of shoreline buffer, and also by the fact that the buffer would be more densely planted with native vegetation than the impacted shoreline buffer. The mitigation plantings would be monitored and maintained for a period of 10 years, and the permits issued would include conditions requiring successful achievement of the mitigation goals.
(e) View corridor review process.
(i) Applicants for new or expanded buildings or structures exceeding 35 feet in height above average grade level in the High Intensity shoreline environment designation shall address impacts to views from substantial numbers of residences and public areas as follows:
(A) Site design shall provide for view corridors between buildings using building separation, building setbacks, upper story setbacks, pitched roofs, and other mitigation.
(B) To determine appropriate view corridor location, the Shoreline Administrator shall review shoreline public access plans, location of state or federally designated scenic highways; government-prepared view studies, SEPA documents, or applicant-prepared studies.
(C) The maximum width of a view corridor shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot width.
(ii) For heights proposed above 35 feet, the following view analysis standards and procedures apply:
(A) Site design shall provide for view corridors between buildings using building separation, building setbacks, upper story setbacks, pitched roofs, and other mitigation.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 102 of 140
Response: Buildings on site include the potash storage building, administrative building, maintenance building, gate/guard house, and railcar unloading facility. As shown on the site plan, the layout includes building separation allowing for views between project elements.
Final building design will be completed once the site plan has been approved; however, as illustrated on the figures, only the potash storage building will be perceptibly visible from existing viewpoints. The potash storage building is anticipated to have a pitched roof, as shown in the 3-D rendering on Figures 7, 9, and 11 (in the visual analysis).
(B) To determine appropriate view corridor location, the Shoreline Administrator shall review shoreline public access plans, location of state or federally designated scenic highways; government-prepared view studies, SEPA documents, or applicant-prepared studies. Response: All applicant-prepared studies (to date) have been submitted to the City. These include the visual analysis as well as the SEPA checklist and associated attachments. Because there are no existing or proposed structures (or lights) at IDD#1, it is presumed that the proposed mitigation actions would not negatively impact the visual landscape. Therefore, no further analysis of visual impacts at IDD#1 was conducted. A summary of visual impacts associated with the Project Site is as follows.
There is no existing public access to the Project Site as it is an existing industrial area, and the proposed project will not create new shoreline access for safety purposes. Moon Island Road, which runs along the south of the site adjacent to the shoreline, will remain open to the public, and views of Grays Harbor will remain.
There are no federally designated scenic highways in the general vicinity of the Project Site. There are three state-designated scenic highways in the general vicinity of the Project Site; however, the site is only visible from one (SR 109). SR 109 is designated as the Hidden Coast Scenic Byway by the Washington State Department of Transportation Local Programs Office, as identified in the Washington State Scenic and Recreational Highways Strategic Plan (2010 to 2030). The Project Site is located near the terminus of the scenic byway, which officially ends where SR 109 meets SR 101 in the city of Hoquiam. Portions of the byway near the site are located in an area that is industrial and urban in nature.
Per the Hidden Coast Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (GHCOG 2011), the GHNWR and John Gable Park are identified as resources on the scenic highway. The proposed project will not impact views of or access to the GHNWR and John Gable Park from the scenic byway and is not anticipated to negatively impact the state- designated scenic byway. The Scenic and Recreational Highways Strategic Plan identifies locations of the highest potential for protecting, preserving, and enhancing resources associated with the scenic and recreational highways program; none of the project-related locations are identified in the region of Grays Harbor. The plan also identifies locations of “highest scenic value,” including a stretch or roadway near
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 103 of 140
Grays Harbor City approximately 1 mile west of the Project Site where the roadway adjoins Grays Harbor (WSDOT 2010). The site would not be visible from that location.
Views of the Project Site from the byway were evaluated as a Preliminary Viewpoint (West Emerson Avenue/SR 109). It was determined that the Project Site would only be visible near the northwest corner, where the Project Site directly abuts the right-of- way. For the remainder of the scenic route, existing vegetation and/or existing developments and topography restrict views of the Project Site. For the segment where the site is visible, views will be of short duration, particularly for those traveling west, as most views will be in their periphery or behind them. The attention of most motorists will be focused on the road and other vehicles; therefore, the sensitivity of most viewers along West Emerson Avenue/SR 109 will be low. In addition, existing views of the site are of an industrial area, and the proposed project will not change the nature of the site. Therefore, no specific view corridor is necessary to address the specific visual resources noted in the criteria.
(C) The maximum width of a view corridor shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot width. Response: Given the site location, surrounding uses, and topography, view corridors are not specifically required to address visual impacts to residences and public areas at this site.
(ii) For heights proposed above 35 feet, the following view analysis standards and procedures apply:
(A) The applicant shall prepare a view analysis conducted consistent with the application requirements in HMC 11.05. 710(3). The view analysis shall address the cumulative view obstruction created by the proposed development combined with other developments that exceed 35 feet in height within a 1,000-foot radius of the proposed development; Available view corridors; and 3) Surface water views lost, compromised, or retained. (B) For phased developments, the view analysis shall be prepared in the first phase and include all proposed buildings. (C) Applicants proposing building or structure heights above thirty-five feet that are consistent with the SMP and underlying zoning allowances may be approved as part of a shoreline variance if the following criteria are met: (1) The building or structure will not affect a substantial number of residences. The applicant shall review residences in the area adjoining the project area; (2) The increase will serve overriding considerations of the public interest pursuant to RCW 90.58.320; (3) The development will not cause an obstruction of view from public properties or a substantial number of residences. The applicant shall demonstrate through photographs, videos, photo-based simulations, or computer-generated simulations that the proposed development will obstruct less than thirty
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 104 of 140
percent of the view of the shoreline enjoyed by a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines Response: A visual analysis was conducted to meet the requirements of HMC Chapter 11.05 and HMC 10.07.130, and is provided as Appendix K. The analysis was completed in order to fulfill the requirements stated in (A) and (B) above. Requirement (C) does not apply because, per HMC 11.05.440(2)(d), industrial and port development does not need a variance to exceed the 35-foot height requirement, provided the proposal complies with specific provisions in 11.05.440. In any case, the view analysis documents how the proposed structures over 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction do not obstruct views of the shoreline from a substantial number of residences adjoining the shoreline. Further, as discussed above, the increase is a necessary element of the proposed project which as a whole serves overriding considerations of the public interest pursuant to RCW 90.58.320. And, as demonstrated by the view analysis, the development will not cause view obstruction from nearby public properties where existing views are mostly limited by trees and vegetation, and the number of potential residential viewers is low.
8.3.2.9 Industrial and Port (HMC 11.05.500) In applying the policies and regulations of this section, the following definitions are used: (a) “Industrial” means the production, processing, manufacturing, or fabrication of goods or materials. Warehousing and storage of goods and materials is considered industrial development. (b) “Port” means a center for water-borne commerce and traffic and includes marine terminals and moorage facilities. Industrial and port developments are often associated with other uses and modifications that are identified separately in the SMP, such as parking or dredging. Every use and type of shoreline modification should be identified and reviewed for compliance with all applicable sections. For the purposes of determining to which uses and activities this classification applies, the use of marine terminals and moorage facilities shall be permitted only where port and industrial uses are allowed. This use category shall likewise apply to facilities that handle the loading and unloading of cargo, freight mobility, and materials associated with industrial or port uses. Industrial and port development is intensive and has the potential to impact the shoreline environment. When impacts cannot be avoided, they must be mitigated to assure no net loss of the ecological function necessary to sustain shoreline resources.
Policies: (a) Ensure the designation of sufficient land to accommodate water-dependent or water-related industrial and port development. (b) Locate, design, and construct industrial and port development to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and to limit adverse impacts to other shoreline resources and values.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 105 of 140
(c) Encourage new industrial and port development to locate where environmental cleanup and restoration can be incorporated. (d) Consider public access and ecological restoration as potential mitigation of impacts to shoreline resources for all water-related and -dependent industrial and port uses consistent with the regulation of private property. (e) Expansion or redevelopment of water-dependent industrial and port facilities and areas should be encouraged, provided it results in no net loss of shoreline functions. (f) Locate future non-water-dependent industry in areas away from the shoreline. (g) Encourage the cooperative use of docking, parking, cargo handling, freight mobility, and storage facilities in shoreline industrial areas. (h) Encourage viewing of port and industrial uses from viewpoints, and similar public facilities that do not interfere with operations, violate federal security regulations, or endanger public health and safety. (i) Ensure that ports and industrial uses that are located in the Aquatic shoreline environment designation are the minimum size necessary to support the proposed use and that multiple uses of overwater facilities are encouraged.
Regulations: (a) Water-dependent industrial and port uses shall have shoreline location priority over all other uses in the High Intensity shoreline environment designation. Response: The proposed project is for a water-dependent and water-related industrial and port use located in the High Intensity designation, and is therefore a priority use and allowed in this designation.
(b) The location, design, and construction of industrial and port development shall not result in a net loss of ecological functions or have significant negative impacts to shoreline use, resources, and navigation, recreation, and public access. Response: The proposed project has been designed to result in no net loss of ecological functions. There are no anticipated significant negative impacts to shoreline use, resources, navigation, recreation, or access associated with the proposal that will not be adequately addressed through proposed mitigation measures.
(c) New ports and industrial uses that are located in the Aquatic shoreline environment designation shall be the minimum size necessary to support the proposed use and that multiple uses of overwater facilities are encouraged. Response: A portion of the proposed project is located in the Aquatic designation, as shown on Sheet 16. The facility is the sized to support the proposed use with a no net loss of ecological function, which necessitates that the applicant design a facility of the minimum size. Because of the specialized nature of cargo loading, use of existing facilities or designing a multiple use facility is not practicable.
(d) New non-water-oriented uses are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction unless they meet one of the following criteria:
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 106 of 140
Response: The proposed project is a water-oriented use (defined as “any combination of water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment uses”), therefore this provision does not apply.
(e) Public access should be incorporated where feasible. Public access shall be required where feasible for new industrial and port development on publicly owned land and does not interfere with operations, violate federal security regulations, or endanger public health and safety. Response: Public access cannot be reasonably incorporated into the Project Site design. There is no existing public access at the site, and the proposed facility will need to be secured for public safety. Public access at IDD#1 will be provided, as detailed in the mitigation plan. Existing access along Grays Harbor will not be affected.
(f) Industrial and port development shall comply with all local, state, and federal requirements regarding air and water quality. Response: The project has been designed to comply with all local, state, and federal requirements, and all required local, state, and federal permits will be obtained, as outlined in section 1.3 of this document.
(g) BMPs shall be strictly adhered to for facilities, vessels, and products used in association with these facilities and vessels. (h) All developments shall include the capability to contain and clean up spills, discharges, or pollutants, and shall be responsible for any pollution, which they cause. (i) Procedures for handling toxic materials in shoreline areas shall prevent their entering the air or water. Response: As noted previously, potash is not considered toxic in the aquatic environment. Potash does not contain any toxic air pollutants (TAPs) or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Health hazards posed by potash to humans are associated with airborne dust and particulates (not TAPs or HAPs). The project is designed to avoid and minimize the risk of potential discharge of dust on site. To protect human health, typical personal protective equipment is used in enclosed spaces when dust is present. This measure is considered adequate by both the industry and health regulators to sufficiently protect human health in this scenario.
The facility is designed to minimize the potential for product spills. The effects of a potential potash spill in water (either by a direct spill or a spill on dry land carried to water) are expected to be minimal, as potash dissolves rapidly in water and is nontoxic (United Nations Environment Programme, Organisation of Economic Co- operation and Development Screening Information Dataset, Potassium Chloride, 30 March 2003). There is limited ability to recover potash spilled directly into water because it dissolves rapidly. Some potash spilled to water may be able to be partially recovered through manual means before it dissolves completely, depending on the size of the spill and nature of the waterbody.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 107 of 140
A potash spill on dry ground would have a negligible effect, as spilled potash would be limited in area and can be recovered by typical methods (mechanical or manual equipment, including brooms and dustpans, shovel, vacuum truck, and/or backhoe). Spills on land will be cleaned up and the material directed back into the system or disposed of in a legal manner.
(j) Accessory development, which does not require a shoreline location, shall be located upland of the water-dependent portions of the development and set back from the OHWM as set forth in the shoreline environment designation. Response: Where feasible, accessory uses have been located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, as shown on the site plan. For example, the proposed parking, administrative building and maintenance buildings are allocated outside of the shoreline area. The entrance overpass requires a shoreline location to provide access to the site that is not interrupted by the presence of a unit train. This location also minimizes cross traffic at the site.
(k) All new or expanded upland industrial or port development shall be set back and buffered from adjacent shoreline properties, which are used for non-industrial purposes. Buffers shall be of adequate width, height, and plant and soil composition to protect shorelines and such other properties from visual or noise intrusion, minimize erosion, and protect water quality. New or expanded industrial and port development shall be set back and buffered from the shoreline except those water- dependent portions of the development, which require direct access to the water, or shoreline and any adverse impacts are minimized. Response: With the exception of the GHNWR, adjacent shoreline properties are in industrial use and, thus, the specific provision is only applicable in the northwest corner of the Project Site where portions of the Project Site within shoreline jurisdiction abut the GHNWR.
Adjacent land within the GHNWR consists of salt and brackish marsh in the northwest corner and forest in the central area. Salt marsh supports birds, fish, and invertebrates and provides a major source of nutrients and detritus. The forest may provide cover for falcons, which are important shorebird predators, and impact shorebirds’ ability to view avian predators.9
The final layout of the facility places the main noise-producing equipment and the railcar unloading facility on the opposite side of the site from the GHNWR, which minimizes the noise impacts to the GHNWR. This layout in turn provides a buffer from the train unloading facility, which will minimize noise and other impacts to the GHNWR from that structure. Additionally, the administrative buildings and the site access are located to the southeast side of the site, which will minimize impacts to the GHNWR from entering and cross-site traffic. This also minimizes potential impacts
9 Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge, Black River Unit of Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge CCP/EA https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Grays_Harbor/what_we_do/planning.html
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 108 of 140
from other noise and lighting associated with those structures. In addition, there are no GHNWR facilities or trails proximate to the project. Therefore, GHNWR visitors will not be impacted by the project.
Project activities closest to the GHNWR will consist of construction and operation of the rail loop track on the west side of the Project Site. The rail loop track is set back from Paulson Road in the northwest corner and is directly adjacent to Paulson Road in the central portion of the site. The central portion of the Project Site is already a developed industrial use with no setback and is also outside shoreline jurisdiction. Paulson Road is already present between the GHNWR and the proposed rail elements in this area and is used by vehicles accessing the GHNWR, treatment plant, existing industrial uses on the site, and the airport. Species using the GHNWR are already exposed to noise from traffic and vehicles traveling on Paulson Road travel at a much higher rate of speed (30 mph posted limit) than the expected speeds of trains at the facility (6 mph or less). Trains are unlikely to hit individual animals because of the trains’ slow travel speeds, and impacts are not expected for the GHNWR.
The project will be constructed and managed consistent with WDFW’s published management recommendations for shorebirds (Buchanan, 2000). Specifically, WDFW recommends avoiding and minimizing impacts to estuarine and wetland habitats, protecting areas of importance for shorebirds from human disturbance, (primarily recreational and grazing-related pressures), and managing the spread of invasive species. WDFW has not published specific management guidelines for waterfowl concentrations, but these same principles (avoiding impacts and protecting areas of sensitive habitat) apply.
(l) Buffers shall not be used for storage of industrial or port equipment or materials, or for waste disposal, but may be used for outdoor recreation if consistent with public access and other provisions of the SMP. Response: No storage of industrial or port equipment or materials, or waste disposal, will be located in the buffer areas.
8.3.2.10 Parking (HMC 11.05.520) Parking is the temporary storage of automobiles or other motorized vehicles. The following provisions apply to parking that is allowed as an accessory to a permitted shoreline use. Stand-alone parking facilities are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction.
Policies: (a) Minimize the amount of parking in the shoreline jurisdiction. (b) Locate and design parking facilities to have the least impact on shoreline features, including shoreline ecological functions and existing or planned water-dependent uses. (c) Locate and design parking to minimize adverse impacts including those related to stormwater run-off, water quality, visual qualities, public access, vegetation, and habitat.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 109 of 140
Regulations: (a) Parking facilities are allowed only as accessories to authorized shoreline uses. Stand-alone parking facilities not supporting an authorized primary use are prohibited in shoreline jurisdiction. (b) Parking facilities serving individual buildings in shoreline jurisdiction shall be located upland from the principal structure being served, except in the following cases: (i) When parking facilities are within or beneath the structure and adequately screened. (ii) Where the existing configuration of a commercial or industrial building has parking situated between the structure and the shoreline. No expansion of the parking area towards the water shall be allowed. (iii) When parking to address specific Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requirements is required and cannot be placed in another location. (c) Exterior parking facilities shall be designed and landscaped to minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent and abutting properties shoreline jurisdiction. (d) Existing parking areas that are of a non-paved surface, such as gravel, may be paved provided such facilities comply with all applicable water quality, stormwater, landscaping, and other applicable requirements and regulations. Paved parking areas shall be designed to incorporate LID practices, such as permeable surfaces and bioswales, to the extent feasible. Response: All proposed parking is located outside of shoreline jurisdiction at the Project Site. No parking exists or is proposed at IDD#1.
8.3.2.11 Signs (HMC 11.05.550) The following provisions apply to any commercial or advertising sign directing attention to a business, professional service, community, site, facility, or entertainment. Policies: (a) Limit off-premise outdoor advertising signs within the shoreline environment. (b) Ensure that signs are sized and placed to protect vistas and viewpoints of shorelines, waterbodies, and surrounding landscapes from public properties and rights of way.
Regulations: (a) Signs shall comply with the applicable city regulations. (b) All signs shall be located and designed to minimize interference with visual access to shoreline jurisdiction. (c) Signs may be allowed if they: (i) Do not obstruct sight distance of drivers and non-motorized roadway users; (ii) Conform with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) standards for signs on public highways; and
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 110 of 140
(iii) Are official in nature, such as traffic control, wayfinding, monument, historic, or cultural site markers, or water navigational, railway, and security signs necessary for operation and safety, etc., and are located within the public right- of-way or are located on the public or private property that contains the use advertised. Response: No commercial signage is proposed within shoreline jurisdiction at the Project Site. Informational signage may be provided at IDD#1, but that is subject to further discussions with the City. Any signage would have to be compliant with the City’s regulations and subject to City approval.
8.3.2.12 Transportation Facilities (HMC.05.560) Policies: (a) Plan, locate, and design new transportation facilities or the expansion of existing facilities where they will have the least adverse effect on shoreline features, shoreline ecological functions, and existing or planned water-dependent uses, and impacts can be adequately mitigated. (b) Maintain and reconstruct roads in accordance with the BMPs adopted by the city and WSDOT. (c) Require that public and private developments provide circulation facilities including roads, streets, alleys, pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation facilities in a manner consistent with local, state, and federal standards and adopted levels of service. (d) Preserve the aesthetic values of the shoreline environment along roadways. (e) Promote the creation and upkeep of viewpoints, rest areas, and picnic areas that are located along transportation facilities in the shoreline jurisdiction. (f) Seek to provide for safe pedestrian and non-motorized travel along scenic corridors, public roadways, and multi-use trails in the shoreline jurisdiction. (g) Design road and railroad structures so that flood debris will not be trapped by the structure
Regulations: (a) Transportation facilities shall only be placed within shoreline jurisdiction, when no other option for the location of the facility exists. If no alternative exists to placing a new transportation facility in shoreline jurisdiction, a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional must be prepared consistent with the provisions of HMC 11.05.330. (b) When located within the shoreline jurisdiction, new and expanded transportation facilities shall: (i) Be set back from the OHWM as far as feasible and locate any new water crossings as near to perpendicular with the waterbody as feasible, unless an alternate path would minimize the disturbance of native vegetation or result in the avoidance of critical areas; (ii) Be designed with the minimum pavement area required;
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 111 of 140
(iii) Minimize adverse effects to unique or fragile shoreline features; (iv) Implement the mitigation sequence in HMC 11.05.320 and ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions; (v) Avoid adverse impacts on existing or planned water-dependent uses; (vi) Allow joint use of the right-of-way with nonmotorized uses and existing or planned primary utility facilities to consolidate the crossings of waterbodies and minimize adverse impacts to shoreline jurisdiction, where feasible; and (vii) Provide and maintain visual access to scenic vistas on public roads, where feasible. Visual access may include, but is not limited to turnouts, rest areas, and picnic areas. (c) Existing roads that are of a non-paved surface, such as gravel, may be paved, if the facilities comply with all applicable mitigation, water quality, stormwater, and landscaping standards, as well as other requirements of the SMP and local regulations. (d) Seasonal work windows may be required for construction projects to minimize impacts to shoreline functions. (e) Where public access to shorelines across transportation facilities is intended, facility designs must provide safe pedestrian and non-motorized vehicular crossings. (f) Crossings of waterbodies, such as bridges, shall be designed to minimize impact to aquatic habitat, allow for fish passage, and the passage of flood debris.
Response: Airport Way and Paulson Road currently cut through the southwest corner of the site and the associated portions of these roads will be vacated to accommodate the facility. An alternative access route will be constructed connecting Moon Island Road to Airport Way to the west of the site as shown on Sheet 3. The majority of the roadway will be located outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. However, approximately 200 linear feet of roadway will extend along Grays Harbor along the current Moon Island Road alignment and approximately 200 linear feet of the new roadway will extend north through the shoreline jurisdiction likely adjacent to the existing City stormwater facility access road. Because most of the new roadway will replace an existing roadway, these impacts will be minimal. The new road will be constructed with required stormwater treatment and disposal and will likely reduce impacts from the current roadway condition through adherence to current standards.
8.3.2.13 Utilities (HMC 11.05.570) The site is served by existing utilities necessary to support facility operations. Utilities include potable water (City), sanitary sewer (City), storm sewer (Port), electrical (Grays Harbor Public Utility District), and communications services. Relocation of on-site utilities may be needed to accommodate the project. On-site utility relocation will be determined when facility design is completed. BHP will contact the applicable utilities when site utility design is finalized.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 112 of 140
No utilities are needed at IDD#1. Irrigation will most likely be provided either by a temporary irrigation system or by a manual method (a water truck or similar).
8.3.2.14 Shoreline Modifications (HMC 11.05.600) Policies: a) Ensure shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions. b) Limit the number and extent of shoreline modification activities to reduce the negative effects of shoreline modifications to the greatest extent feasible. c) Plan for enhancement of impaired ecological functions where it is feasible, appropriate, and accommodates permitted uses. d) Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the specific shoreline environmental designation in which they are located. e) Prefer those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions. Promote soft over hard shoreline modification measures.
Regulations: a) Structural shoreline modifications may be allowed if they are demonstrated to be .necessary to support or protect a legally permitted shoreline structure or use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage or are necessary for mitigation or enhancement. b) Shoreline modifications shall be limited in number and extent. c) The Shoreline Administrator shall base all decisions regarding shoreline modification on available scientific and technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions provided by the applicant. d) Shoreline modifications must be designed and located to ensure that they will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and will not have significant adverse impacts to shoreline uses, resources, and values provided for in RCW 90.58.020. e) Shoreline modifications and uses shall be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions. f) Shoreline modification standards shall not apply retroactively to existing, legally established shoreline modifications. Existing structures may be maintained, repaired, and operated within shoreline jurisdiction and within the shoreline buffers established in the SMP. Repair and replacement provisions in later sections of this chapter may apply to specific modifications. g) All disturbed upland areas shall be restored and protected from erosion by using native vegetation or other means. h) All shoreline modifications are subject to the mitigation sequence in SMP Section 4.03, with appropriate mitigation required for unavoidable impacts to ecological functions. If critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction are impacted, the project is also subject to relevant requirements of SMP Section 4.04. Response: Per the SMP, restoration activities are considered a type of shoreline modification. In addition to restoration activities, shoreline modifications proposed as
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 113 of 140
part of the project are limited to the dredging, dredge material disposal, and construction of in-water structures. The proposed shoreline modifications are the minimum necessary to serve the purposes of the project. All impacts associated with the shoreline modifications are mitigated as outlined in the mitigation plan. Details on the mitigation sequencing and the project’s compliance with the no net loss criteria is detailed in the mitigation plan.
8.3.2.14.1 General Shoreline Modification Provisions (11.05.620) Policies. a) Ensure shoreline modifications individually and cumulatively do not result in a net loss of ecological functions. b) Limit the number and extent of shoreline modification activities to reduce the negative effects of shoreline modifications to the greatest extent feasible. c) Plan for enhancement of impaired ecological functions where it is feasible, appropriate, and accommodates permitted uses. d) Allow only shoreline modifications that are appropriate to the specific shoreline environmental designation in which they are located. e) Prefer those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions. Promote soft over hard shoreline modification measures. Regulations. a) Structural shoreline modifications may be allowed if they are demonstrated to be necessary to support or protect a legally permitted shoreline structure or use that is in danger of loss or substantial damage or are necessary for mitigation or enhancement. b) Shoreline modifications shall be limited in number and extent. c) The shoreline administrator shall base all decisions regarding shoreline modification on available scientific and technical information and a comprehensive analysis of site-specific conditions provided by the applicant. d) Shoreline modifications must be designed and located to ensure that they will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions and will not have significant adverse impacts to shoreline uses, resources, and values provided for in RCW 90.58.020.
Response: The functional impacts to each resource of concern and the ways in which the proposed mitigation provides replacement functions of a quantity and quality sufficient to achieve no net loss of function for each resource is detailed in the Mitigation Plan.
As detailed in those plans, the proposed project will result in no net loss of habitat function on the GHNWR, and the proposed off-site mitigation activities will provide a net increase in habitat function for species that rely on intertidal and estuarine wetland habitats similar to those present on the GHNWR.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 114 of 140
e) Shoreline modifications and uses shall be designed and managed to prevent degradation of water quality and alteration of natural hydrographic conditions. Response: The shiploader will be designed to reduce dust emissions and prevent spills, thereby maintaining water quality. The shiploader will include belt covers, covered transfers, and a telescoping chute to prevent product spills and emission of fugitive dust during operations. The shiploader will also include instrumentation, such as radar, lasers, etc., which, combined with the automated control system, will prevent conveyors from operating unless they are over a vessel hold, thereby preventing accidental discharge of potash into the environment. Operations will require belts to be completely discharged into vessel holds prior to removing the shiploader booms from over a vessel. The marine structure consists of an open pile structure. This will allow natural flow conditions to be maintained.
Dredging will be conducted in compliance with water quality permits to be issued by Ecology and will maintain compliance with adopted Washington State water quality standards.
The overall hydrographic patterns and movement of water from the site will also be maintained to the extent practicable. The project will direct stormwater to treatment facilities. Treated stormwater will then be routed to existing points of outfall along the Grays Harbor shoreline and in the northeast corner of the site. No new stormwater outfalls will be constructed. The stormwater facilities at the railcar unloading facility have been designed at a location west of the proposed unloading facility improvements. This location was selected so that existing drainage patterns could be preserved to the largest extent possible. Based on site reconnaissance, this area presently drains to the west, and this pond location would allow treated stormwater runoff to continue to drain to the west and north, as in the existing condition. In the proposed location, stormwater runoff could be collected, treated, detained, and dispersed at the natural discharge location without requiring pumping of stormwater.
h) All shoreline modifications are subject to the mitigation sequence in HMC 11.05.320, with appropriate mitigation required for unavoidable impacts to ecological functions. If critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction are impacted, the project is also subject to relevant requirements of HMC 11.05.330. (Ord. 17-08 § 2 (Exh. A), 2017). Response: The entirety of the project, including the proposed shoreline modifications, have been developed consistent with the mitigation sequencing requirements established in HMC 11.05.320. Only those portions of the project that were unable to be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction have been located in shoreline jurisdiction. The project has avoided and minimized impacts to the extent practicable, and compensatory mitigation has been provided for those impacts to shoreline function.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 115 of 140
8.3.2.14.2 Clearing, Grading, and Fill (HMC 11.05.630 Policies: (a) Protect shoreline ecological functions, including channel migration, by regulating clearing, grading, and fill. (b) Permit clearing, grading, and fill only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate an approved shoreline use or development and with no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes. (c) Require that BMPs be utilized during clearing, grading, and fill activity. (d) Allow clearing, grading, and fill only as part of a permitted development in shoreline jurisdiction. (e) Permit clearing, grading, and fill associated with dike or levee maintenance as necessary to provide protection from flood hazards when consistent with the flood hazard management provisions in HMC 11.05.340. (f) Ensure that the placement of fill does not result in a loss of flood storage. (g) Encourage the enhancement and voluntary restoration of landforms for habitat along shorelines
Regulations: (a) All clearing, grading, and fill shall be located, designed, and constructed to protect shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, including channel migration. (b) Clearing, grading, and fill shall be minimized to the extent feasible and only allowed when necessary to accommodate an approved shoreline use or development. (c) Speculative clearing, grading, and fill are prohibited. (d) When clearing, grading, or fill causes adverse impacts to ecological functions, a mitigation plan prepared by a qualified professional must be prepared consistent with the provisions of HMC 11.05.330. Response: Cut and fill within shoreline buffer areas are necessary on the northwest portion of the Project Site in order to accommodate construction of the rail loop and storage building. Grading and site preparation at IDD#1 is expected to start concurrent with site preparation activities for the construction of the facility. The mitigation plan presents grading contours, relative to target site elevations.
The minimum amount of clearing and grading to accommodate the proposed project and restoration activities will be used. No speculative clearing, grading, or fill is proposed. Prior to commencement of grading and excavation at either site, erosion and sediment control measures will be established at the site consistent with the SWPPP for the project. These will likely include typical construction BMPs such as silt fences and stabilized construction entrances.
The Mitigation Plan was prepared by a qualified professional is consistent with the provisions of HMC 11.05.330.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 116 of 140
(e) Clearing, grading, and fill within wetlands, floodways, or CMZs, and fill waterward of the OHWM, is only allowed when: (i) Due consideration has been given to the site specific conditions; (ii) All impacts have been mitigated; (iii) All required state and federal permits have been obtained; and Response: The layout of the site at the facility has undergone several iterative modifications in an effort to minimize impacts to wetlands and wetland buffer resources as well as to accommodate design requirements and site constraints. Consideration for the specific site conditions was taken into account when designing both the proposed facility and the proposed mitigation. The proposed mitigation will fully mitigate for all impacts to the shoreline that result from the proposed development and development activities, and achieve no net loss in ecological functions. Required state and federal permits will be obtained prior to construction of the facility (including mitigation activities).
At IDD#1, the existing culvert and tidegate at the eastern boundary of the site will also be blocked off to isolate the interior of the site from tidal influence, and to allow any runoff from the site during construction to be contained. This will minimize the potential for any temporary water quality degradation in waters downstream of the site. The culvert will remain blocked until the final grades within the interior of the site have been established, and until intertidal portions of the site have been seeded and planted as described in this plan.
As detailed in the Mitigation Plan, all impacts will be mitigated. All required state and federal permits will be obtained prior to commencement of regulated activities.
(iv) The shoreline use or development is one of the following: (A) A water-dependent use or public access to the shoreline; (B) The cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan; (C) The disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with, the WDNR’s Dredged Material Management Program and the USACE Dredged Material Management Office. See also HMC 11.05.640; (D) The expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance that are currently located in the shoreline, where alternatives to fill are infeasible; (E) Ecological enhancement, restoration or mitigation, when consistent with an approved plan; or (F) The protection of historic or cultural resources when fill is the most feasible method to avoid continued degradation, disturbance, or erosion of a site. Such fill must be coordinated with any affected tribes and comply with applicable provisions of HMC 11.05.310.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 117 of 140
(f) All fill waterward of the OHWM that is not associated with an ecological restoration project shall require a shoreline conditional use permit. Response: The proposed clearing, grading, and filling within shoreline jurisdiction is permitted under Items (iv)(A), (D) and (E) above. Portions of the project are considered a water-dependent use. The freight railroad system and marine port facilities and services that are related solely to marine activities affecting international and interstate trade are considered transportation facilities of statewide significance per RCW 47.06.140. Therefore, clearing, grading, and fill within shoreline areas for the proposed project is permitted as it is required for the proposed expansion of transportation facilities of statewide significance. The requiring an SCUP under item (f) would be minor fill waterward of the OHWM associated with Wetland C on the Project Site, as required for railroad improvements. Compliance with the requirements for an SCUP is detailed in section 8.3.4.
(g) Upland clearing, grading and fill outside of wetlands, floodways, and CMZs is permitted provided it: (i) Is the minimum necessary to implement the approved use or modification; (ii) Does not significantly change the topography of the landscape in a manner that affects hydrology or increases the risk of slope failure, consistent with the applicable provisions of HMC 11.05.330; and (iii) Is conducted outside required shoreline buffers, unless specifically authorized by the SMP, or is necessary to provide protection to historic or cultural resources. (h) Grading and fill shall be designed to blend physically and visually with the existing topography whenever feasible, so as not to interfere with lawful access and enjoyment of scenery. Response: Upland clearing, grading, and fill at the Project Site will be the minimum necessary to support the proposed structures and improvements. The Project Site is relatively flat, and the proposed grading will not significantly alter the topography of the site. The upland grading and clearing activities at the Project Site within shoreline buffers is authorized by the SMP through compliance with the policies and permit requirements. As shown on Sheets 23 and 29, the majority of IDD#1 consists of wetlands and most activities will take place within the existing and/or newly created wetlands. For the small portions located upland, grading and clearing activities would be the minimum necessary. The grading at IDD#1 will change the topography and hydrology in order to achieve ecological benefits, which is consistent with intent of HMC 11.05.330 (Critical areas and shoreline vegetation conservation). The project’ compliance with the policies of HMC 11.05.330 is detailed in section 8.3.2.3.
(i) Clearing, grading, and fill shall not be located where shoreline stabilization will be necessary to protect the materials placed or removed, except when part of an approved plan for protection of historic or cultural resources. Response: “Shoreline stabilization” is defined by HMC 11.05.250 as “actions taken to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, buildings, or
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 118 of 140
structures caused by natural processes.” No shoreline stabilization is proposed at the Project Site or IDD#1. Some of the wetland buffer slopes at IDD#1 may be subject to minor wave action once constructed and could potentially be at risk of minor erosion under high tide and wave conditions. While some limited minor erosion is not undesirable in this natural system, portions of the wetland buffer slopes will be protected with vegetated riprap, to provide additional stability against potential wave action. The purpose of the riprap is not to address erosion impacts to property and dwellings, businesses, buildings, or structures, and as such it does not meet this definition of shoreline stabilization.
(j) Cut and fill slopes shall generally be sloped no steeper than one foot vertical for every two feet horizontal (1:2) unless a specific engineering analysis has been provided that demonstrates the stability of a steeper slope. (k) A temporary erosion and sediment control plan, including BMPs, consistent with the city’s stormwater manual, shall be submitted to and approved by the Shoreline Administrator prior to commencement of all clearing, grading, and fill activities. (l) To prevent a loss of flood storage, compensatory storage shall be provided commensurate with the amount of fill placed in the floodway per HMC 11.05.340. (m) Fill on state-owned aquatic lands must comply with WDNR and WDFW standards and regulations. Response: The Project Site and IDD#1 sites are relatively flat, and no steep slopes are proposed as part of the project. Additional site-specific engineering analyses will be done in the future prior to construction activities. A temporary erosion and sediment control plan with BMPs will be used during clearing, grading, and fill activity to reduce water quality impacts.
The proposed mitigation actions at the IDD#1 Site, including excavation of tidal channels and rehabilitation of salt marsh habitats, will return approximately 37.32 acres to elevations below the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. This would increase the flood storage capacity of the site.
No fill on state-owned aquatic lands is proposed.
8.3.2.15 Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal (HMC 11.05.640) Policies: (a) Conduct dredging in a manner that utilizes mitigation sequencing and ensures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (b) Allow dredging for navigation channels, marine terminal berths, and mooring structures to assure safe and efficient accommodation of existing navigational uses, only when significant ecological impacts are minimized and mitigated. (c) Maintenance dredging of established navigation channels, basins, and marine terminal berths should be restricted to maintaining previously dredged or existing locations, to their authorized depths and widths.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 119 of 140
(d) Permit dredging as part of restoration or enhancement, public access, flood storage as part of a flood hazard management program, or navigation if deemed consistent with the SMP. (e) Prohibit dredging waterward of the OHWM to obtain fill except when the dredge material is necessary for the restoration of shoreline ecological functions. (f) Site new development to avoid the need for new and maintenance dredging. Where avoidance is not feasible, ensure the site is designed to minimize the need for dredging. (g) Prefer the disposal of dredged material on land outside of the shoreline jurisdiction to open water disposal. (h) Coordinate local, state, and federal permit requirements for dredging.
Regulations: Dredging (a) Dredging and dredge disposal proposals shall utilize the mitigation sequence in HMC 11.05.320. Where adverse impacts are unavoidable, a mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified professional consistent with the provisions of HMC 11.05.330. (b) Dredging shall only be permitted for the following activities: (i) Development of new or expanded moorages or water-dependent industrial or port uses where there are no other feasible alternatives, significant ecological impacts are minimized, and mitigation is provided. (c) Applicants must receive all applicable state and federal permits prior to the commencement of any dredging. (d) Dredging shall be prohibited for the primary purpose of obtaining fill material, except when necessary for the restoration of shoreline ecological functions and consistent with the following: (i) Dredge material must be placed waterward of the OHWM. (ii) The project must be associated with either a MTCA or CERCLA habitat restoration project or, if the project is approved through a shoreline conditional use permit, the project may be another significant habitat enhancement project. (e) New development shall be sited and designed to avoid or minimize the need for new or maintenance dredging. Response: Dredging is permitted per item (i) above as the proposed project is a water dependent industrial use and the dredging is necessary for navigation purposes and not to obtain fill. Appropriate mitigation measures have been identified in the mitigation plan. No dredging will occur at IDD#1.
The proposed project minimizes dredging of the intertidal zone as almost all dredging is located below 0 foot MLLW. The project will result in impacts to benthic habitat as a result of initial dredging of the expanded berth. Approximately 110,000 cubic yards of material will be dredged from an area approximately 7.49 acres in size to provide sufficient draft for vessels calling on the new berth. The proposed berth will be approximately 4.72 acres in size. The dredge prism would be located almost entirely
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 120 of 140
outside of intertidal areas, and the majority of the dredge prism would be located in areas already deeper than -30 feet, minimizing impact to higher quality habitat present in shallow waters.
Impacts associated with the establishment of the new berth will be largely temporary, as most of the proposed dredging will occur in subtidal habitats adjacent to the existing navigation channel. The majority of the dredge prism would be located in areas already deeper than -30 feet. Dredging and material placement activities in subtidal habitats have the potential to result in short-term impacts to benthic organisms and their habitat, but these temporary impacts are not expected to significantly affect habitat suitability. Natural hydraulic processes routinely disturb benthic habitats at the site, and aquatic species that use this portion of the harbor are accustomed to these recurring disturbances and would be expected to rapidly recolonize disturbed areas.
Establishment of the new berth would convert approximately 9,246 square feet (0.2- acre) of intertidal habitat to subtidal, which would represent a permanent conversion in habitat type. The conversion of this relatively small quantity of intertidal habitat to subtidal habitat would not represent a loss of habitat but would reduce its biological productivity. Dredging and material placement activities have the potential to result in short-term impacts to benthic organisms and their habitat, but these temporary impacts are not expected to significantly affect habitat suitability. The dredged material was characterized in accordance with DMMO guidelines and criteria and was found to be suitable for open-water disposal based on the chemical analytical results from that characterization (DMMO Suitability Determination dated February 19, 2019) (Appendix G).
The location of the in-water structures, including berth (and associated dredging), were chosen, in part, due to their proximity to the previously developed Terminal 3 pier and berth and the existing navigation channel. The dredging required for the project is adjacent to and in alignment with the existing Terminal 3 berth partially overlapping the Terminal 3 dredge boundary and in deeper water. The location of the berth in deeper water and overlapping with the Terminal 3 dredge prism will minimize the volume of dredging required to accommodate the proposed berth.
The location and alignment of the berth will also serve to reduce the need for maintenance dredging as it is in line with the natural current and flow patterns in the area to reduce potential sediment deposition.
The volumes and frequency of maintenance dredging events will vary based on the rate of sedimentation. The maintenance dredging will consist of dredging up to 70,000 cubic yards per event based on the permitted maintenance dredge volume at the Terminal 3 berth and the fact that the new berth will be maintained 2 feet deeper (-43 feet MLLW plus 2 feet of allowable overdredge) than the existing Terminal 3 berth. This will maintain the previously dredged existing locations to their authorized depths and widths. The maintenance dredging will be completed in the same manner as that used for construction of the berth.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 121 of 140
BHP has committed to the use of clamshell methods for all dredging associated with the project to minimize impacts to the aquatic community, particularly Dungeness crab. Material was deemed suitable for in-water placement and will be disposed at the nearest DNR-managed Point Chehalis or South Jetty disposal sites.
Regulations: Dredge Material Disposal (a) Dredge material disposal within shoreline jurisdiction may be permitted so long as: (i) Shoreline ecological functions and processes are preserved, restored, or enhanced. Factors to consider include surface and groundwater protection, erosion, sedimentation, and the impacts of floodwaters or runoff; and (ii) The disposal will not negatively affect public or private property. (b) Disposal of dredge material within CMZs is discouraged. In the limited instances where it is allowed, such disposal shall require a shoreline conditional use permit, if this provision is not intended to address the discharge of dredge material into the flowing current of a river or in deep water within the channel where it does not substantially affect the geohydrologic character of the CMZ. (c) Dredge material disposal in open waters may be approved when authorized by the Dredge Material Management Office or other applicable state and federal agencies, which may include the USACE in accordance with Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) and Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permits and WDFW HPA; and when one of the following conditions apply: (i) Open water disposal at an approved USACE disposal site is the common method for disposal of maintenance dredge materials from navigation channels and basins; or (ii) If applicable, the use of dredge material to benefit shoreline resources shall be addressed through the implementation of a regional interagency dredge material management plan or watershed plan. (d) All dredge material disposal on state-owned aquatic lands must comply with WDNR and WDFW standards and regulations. Response: No dredge material disposal will take place in the shoreline areas of the City of Hoquiam. Characterization of the proposed dredged material has been completed in accordance with the USACE DMMP to determine suitability for in- water disposal at an authorized placement site. All of the proposed dredge material was found suitable by the DMMP as stated in the Suitability Determination for the project.
The material will be disposed at the nearest DNR-managed Point Chehalis or South Jetty disposal sites. These sites have been specifically identified and designated as disposal locations and are protective of the functions noted in the regulations. Material will not disposed of in a CMZ as the in-water disposal sites are located in the open water of Grays Harbor.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 122 of 140
Regulation: Submittal (a) A detailed description of the purpose of the proposed dredging and an analysis of compliance with the policies and regulations of the SMP shall be required for all dredging applications. Materials prepared for state or federal permits such as an HPA may be used to support the analysis Response: A detailed description of the proposed dredging is provided in section 4.13. The Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) and the DMMO Suitability Determination and are provided as Appendices D and G, respectively.
8.3.2.16 In-Water Structures (HMC 11.05.650) Policies: (a) Design in-water structures to be compatible with the long-term use of resources, such as public access, recreation, and fish migration. (b) Locate, design, construct, and maintain in-water structures to give due consideration to: (i) The full range of public interests; (ii) Watershed processes, including prevention of damage to other properties and other shoreline resources from alterations to geologic and hydrologic processes; (iii) Scenic vistas; (iv) Historic and cultural resources; and (v) Ecological functions, with special emphasis on protecting and restoring priority habitats and species. (c) Site and design in-water structures to be consistent with appropriate engineering principles, including guidelines of the WDFW, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the USACE. (d) Incorporate applicable watershed, surface water management, and restoration plans in the planning and design of in-water structures. (e) Encourage nonstructural and nonregulatory methods to protect, enhance, and restore shoreline ecological functions as an alternative to in-water structures. (f) Consider alternatives to hard in-water structures, such as soft in-water structures or several smaller discontinuous structures, as part of an application where physical conditions make such alternatives with less impact feasible. (g) Incorporate native vegetation as part of the design of in-water structures to enhance ecological functions, create a more natural appearance, improve ecological processes, and provide more flexibility for long-term shoreline management. (h) Require a shoreline conditional use permit for dams, weirs, and similar structures, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris, engineered logjams, or habitat-forming rock weirs installed in streams. (i) Only allow groins and weirs to be placed waterward of the OHWM in limited instances. Regulations:
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 123 of 140
(a) In-water structures shall require a shoreline conditional use permit, except for those structures installed to protect or restore ecological functions, such as woody debris installed in streams. (b) In-water structures shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. (c) A professional engineer licensed in the state shall certify the designs of all in- water structures and include a monitoring and maintenance schedule. (d) Appropriate engineering principles and BMPs, including guidelines of the WDFW, NRCS, and the USACE, shall be used in the design of in-water structures. WDFW’s Integrated Streambank Protection Guidelines may be used for BMPs for in- water structures. (e) The mitigation sequence in HMC 11.05.320 shall be required, with mitigation required for all unavoidable impacts to ecological functions. If critical areas in the shoreline jurisdiction are impacted, the project is subject to HMC 11.05.330. (f) Projects involving in-water work may not commence without having obtained all applicable local, state, and federal permits and approvals. (g) If at any time, because of in-water work, fish are observed to be in distress or water quality problems develop, immediate notification shall be made to the appropriate state or federal agencies, including Ecology, the WDFW, National Marine Fisheries Service, or United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (h) Alteration or disturbance of the bank and bank vegetation shall be limited to the minimum necessary to perform the in-water work. All disturbed areas shall be protected from erosion and shall be restored using vegetation or other means. (i) Waste material resulting from in-water structure installation and removal shall be deposited in an approved upland disposal site outside of the shoreline jurisdiction unless the applicant can demonstrate in-water disposal is the preferred method for the shoreline location and in-water disposal has been approved in accordance with HMC 11.05.640(2) through (4). (j) Natural in-water features such as snags, uprooted trees, or stumps should be left in place unless removal is approved by the WDFW. (k) Motor vehicles, appliances, or other solid waste shall not be used as in-water structures. Demolition debris that is nontoxic, nonchemically contaminating, reclaimed materials may be used. (l) In-water structures designed by public entities shall include public access under HMC 11.05.350 whenever feasible. At a minimum, in-water structures should not decrease public access or the use potential of shorelines. (m) In-water structures and uses shall be sited and designed to avoid the need for future shoreline stabilization and dredging. (n) New, expanded, or replacement in-water structures shall only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that: (i) The proposed structure utilizes BMPs and will not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions;
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 124 of 140
(ii) The proposed in-water structure supports water-dependent uses, public access, shoreline stabilization, shoreline restoration, or some other specific public purpose; and (iii) The benefits to the region outweigh the short and long-term resource losses from such work. (Ord. 17-08 § 2 (Exh. A), 2017).
Response: Proposed in-water project elements are limited to the 199 steel piles (associated with the trestle and shiploader structures [overwater structures]), including 40 contingency piles and the supports for the stormwater outfall. Because the installation/construction of these in-water structures will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions (due to the proposed mitigation and construction BMPs [see Mitigation Plan]), the ongoing operations of the in-water structures and associated overwater structures are not anticipated to have any impact on shoreline ecological functions. Required maintenance of these elements would be done after obtaining required permits with BMPs (e.g., not allowing deleterious material to enter the water, collecting any debris that might enter the water during repairs, etc.) appropriate for the maintenance being completed.
8.3.3 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (HMC 11.05.730-1) (1) Shoreline Substantial Development Permits.
(a) The following is applicable for shoreline substantial development permits:
(i) The applicant shall meet all of the review criteria for a shoreline substantial development permit as listed in WAC 173-27-150.
Response: Per RCW 90.58.340, the local jurisdiction (in this case the City of Hoquiam) is responsible for developing policies related to the use of its shorelines. These policies and the local shoreline management master program are required to implement the program contents identified in RCW 90.58.100. As such, the applicable policies and procedures per WAC 173-27-150 are those of the City’s SMP.
Similarly, the provisions of WAC chapter 173-27 generally reflect administrative provisions for the local municipality to adopt with its SMP. The regulations that apply are found in the City’s SMP and addressed below. WAC 173-27-150 identifies the review criteria for SSDPs, as follows.
WAC 173-27-150 (Review criteria for substantial development permits) 1. A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with: a. The policies and procedures of the act; b. The provisions of this regulation; and c. The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. Provided, that where no master program has been approved for an
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 125 of 140
area, the development shall be reviewed for consistency with the provisions of chapter 173-26 WAC, and to the extent feasible, any draft or approved master program which can be reasonably ascertained as representing the policy of the local government. 2. Local government may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. Response: The proposed project will be consistent with all applicable City SMP requirements, as demonstrated in this narrative, in the associated studies, reports, and in the permit applications that will be submitted to the City, State, and federal regulatory agencies. Compliance with the City’s SMP will result in compliance with the policies and procedures of the SMA and WAC 173-26.
(b) If a public hearing is required, the hearing examiner shall grant a shoreline substantial development permit with conditions after the shoreline administrator completes a recommendation to the examiner that may contain conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the proposal with the above criteria and when the development proposed is consistent with the standards in WAC 173-27-140 and 173-27-150.
Response: The proposed project is subject to a public hearing by the hearing examiner. Compliance with WAC 173-27-140 is addressed in section 8.3.4, and compliance with WAC 173-27-150 is addressed above.
8.3.4 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (HMC 11.05.730-2) (2) Shoreline Conditional Use Permits (a) The criteria in WAC 173-27-140 and WAC 173-27-160 shall constitute the minimum criteria for review and approval of a shoreline conditional use permit. Response: An SCUP is requested to permit the following conditional uses at the Project Site: • marine terminal and associated moorage structures located within the Aquatic and High Intensity designations (Sheet 16) • fill (0.12 acres) waterward of the OHWM associated with the filling of Wetland C at the Project Site (Sheet 22) • project-related dredging in the Aquatic designation (Sheets 11 and 12). Compliance with the specific criteria established in WAC 173-27-140 and WAC 173- 27-160 is detailed below.
WAC 173-27-140 (Review criteria for all development) (1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 126 of 140
Response: As demonstrated throughout this narrative and associated attachments, the proposal is compliant with both the SMA and SMP. Compliance with the applicable policies is detailed in section 8.3.2, including policies regarding dredging (section 8.3.2.15) and in-water structures (section 8.3.2.16) as well as sections regarding other shoreline permits (8.3.3 and 8.3.5). It is understood that the City will review the proposed project to determine consistency.
(2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. Response: The only structures that will exceed 35-feet in the shoreline area are the “freight moving equipment” and the storage building. These structures are not subject to the 35-foot height limit per HMC 11.05.440 (see section 8.3.2.8).
A visual analysis was conducted in accordance with the view corridor review process (HMC 11.05.440(2)(e) and is provided as an attachment. The visual analysis documents how the proposed structures over 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction do not obstruct views of the shoreline from a substantial number of residences adjoining the shoreline. Compliance with the view corridor review process is detailed in section 8.3.2.8.
WAC 173-27-160 (Review Criteria for Conditional Use Permits) The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system within the master program which allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program. (1) Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following: (a) That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program; Response: The provisions of RCW 90.58.020 (Legislative findings—State policy enunciated—Use preference) are adopted by reference by the City’s SMP. The proposal’s compliance with the SMP and consistency with the applicable policies is demonstrated and detailed throughout this document and its attachments. More specifically, the relevant code provisions in RCW 90.58.020 indicate that “the public's opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally,” “uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the natural environment,” and that “[p]ermitted uses in the shorelines of the state shall be
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 127 of 140
designed and conducted in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant damage to the ecology and environment of the shoreline area and any interference with the public's use of the water.” Applicant’s comprehensive strategy to address these criteria includes impact avoidance and minimization, a comprehensive on-site mitigation project (including wetland creation, intertidal habitat creation, wetland and shoreline buffer creation and enhancement), and the removal of existing piles and a derelict overwater structure.
(b) That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; Response: There is currently no designated public use of the shoreline along the Project Site and therefore the project will not interfere with normal public use of shorelines at the Project Site. 10 The Project will improve public use of public shorelines at the IDD#1 Site by transforming an unofficial and unauthorized path into a safe, authorized public access point for residents to visit the waterfront.
(c) That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program; Response: The Project Site and the majority of the surrounding area is designated and zoned for industrial use. The proposed Project Site is surrounded by industrial uses to the east and west, a pier and Grays Harbor to the south, and a railway to the north. The proposed is compatible with the surrounding uses. The City’s SMP User Guide defers to WAC definitions for the environment designation system. The purpose or intent of High Intensity is defined by WAC 173-26-211 is “to provide for high-intensity water-oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.” The master program has designated the shoreline to the east and west of the property as High Intensity, and therefore the design of the site is also compliant with the master program’s designation of the property and surrounding areas.
The proposed use is consistent with this designation as it is a water dependent industrial use, and measures to ensure protection of ecological functions and restoration of degraded areas are included in the project proposal.
The proposed mitigation activities at IDD#1 will not alter the current use of the site, and the planned restoration measures and future recreational uses are permitted uses under the High Intensity designation.
(d) That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and
10 See Figure 16.1 of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report for the Cities Of Aberdeen, Cosmopolis, and Hoquiam.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 128 of 140
Response: Potential impacts from the proposed use are documented in section 6.0, and are proposed to be mitigated through a series of BMPs and other measures, as detailed in the mitigation plan. There are no significant adverse impacts anticipated that cannot be mitigated. Moreover, the IDD#1 Site mitigation will be performed in a manner consistent with its high-intensity designation. Any use authorized under the requested SCUP will be undertaken consistent with the Project analyzed here.
(e) That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. Response: The Project Site is planned for industrial use consistent with port activities. As a water-dependent and water-related use, both defined in WAC 173-26- 020, the site’s waterfront location in an industrial area make it appropriate for export activities. The project will be constructed and operated with no significant adverse effects to the public or natural resources, in the area. Specifically, the project will not result in any impacts to public access and will involve mitigation for terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic impacts. In addition, the project will serve the public interest by creating additional jobs during construction and operation of the project and by generating tax revenue for local and state governments. The project will also serve as a vital piece of the global supply chain for a needed commodity and will help provide an important resource for the global agricultural industry.
The proposed mitigation will improve the existing public access at IDD#1 by enhancing the existing informal (and unauthorized) pedestrian pathway located around the perimeter of the site (Sheets 33 and 34).
(2) In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Response: The applicant understands that its proposal will be reviewed in consideration of other projects and potential projects in the area. The Contanda Project is the only reasonably foreseeable action likely to occur with similar circumstances in the area, and that project does not require an SCUP. The applicant is not aware of other pending actions for developments with similar circumstances in the area. There are other vacant waterfront properties east of the proposed Project Site. Development of these areas as marine terminals could result in similar effects as the proposed project. These areas are also designated as High Intensity and zoned for industrial activity. Additional development of these areas are unlikely to result in significant cumulative impacts as they have similar characteristics to the project site and would be required to go through permitting processes to ensure no net loss of ecological function. The cumulative impacts of the Project when combined with other reasonably foreseeable developments has been considered in the SEPA checklist.
(3) Other uses which are not classified or set forth in the applicable master program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 129 of 140
demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in the master program. (4) Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized pursuant to either subsection (1) or (2) of this section. Response: The SMP identifies project-related uses (industrial, port development, and restoration) as permitted uses under the Industrial and Port Development, and Recreational Development activities list in HMC Table 11.05.430-1. Therefore these code provisions do not apply to the requested SCUP.
8.3.5 Shoreline Variance (HMC 11.05.730-3) (3) Shoreline Variances (a) The purpose of a shoreline variance is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the SMP where the strict implementation of the master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
Response: The SMP establishes a 75-foot buffer for water-related structures and uses, and BHP is applying for a shoreline variance to address the 75-foot buffer for any portions of the project that fall within the buffer (e.g. rail line, unloading facility, and storage building). If BHP were required to adhere to the setback requirements set forth in the City’s SMP, the Project would no longer be viable because the location of the rail loop, storage building, and loading and unloading facilities in relation to the shoreline are essential for operations, and the facilities have been located on the Project Site to meet a variety of regulatory, design and operational parameters, including constraints for protection of air traffic at the nearby airport, limiting wetland impacts, and reducing rail and vehicular conflicts. When fully operational, the Jansen Mine will produce 8 mtpa of potash. The export terminal site and layout must accommodate this throughput using unit trains on a loop track, a facility conveyance system that permits loading onto large vessels, and a storage building that requires a minimum square footage and height due to the needed storage capacity and operation of the conveyor system. The design enables average vessel loading times of 14 hours. Slower loading would affect vessel management plans. At the same time, the layout of the storage building and other structures at the site are dictated primarily by the FAA’s regulations governing the safe, efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace in 40 C.F.R. Part 77. As such, the proposed storage building is located within the required 75-foot buffer in the northwest corner of the site to meet operational needs while also minimizing impacts to Bowerman Airport. A single product storage building represents the most efficient design for the facility throughput and operation of the conveyance machinery required to move the product from the trains to the shiploader. In addition, on-site storage performs several functions, including buffering of train arrivals and mine production from ship loading, and maintaining adequate supply to load a marine vessel. Initially, BHP’s proposal did not locate the storage building within the 75-foot
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 130 of 140
buffer. However, BHP has modified the height and location of the potash storage building from its original proposal to its current location within the 75-foot buffer to meet the requirements of FAA-regulated air navigation surfaces associated with the nearby Bowerman Airport. A portion of the rail loop is also located within the 75-foot buffer to accommodate a rail loop that is at least 8,500 feet long. This length is necessary to accommodate the entire unit train within the site. BHP’s planned unit trains will consist of 177 covered hopper-type rail cars with three to five locomotives. This allows for continuous unloading of trains and loading of vessels at a rate of approximately 4,000 tonnes per hour. If the entire train could not be accommodated on site, a portion of the train would extend off site, which would create potential safety, security, noise, and traffic issues. The location of the rail loop is also affected by limitations for safe rail operations, which require that the rail loop have turns of no more than 11 degrees. In addition, as discussed below, strict application of the 75-foot buffer would also thwart the policies in RCW 90.58.020. As discussed above, a variance is not required for new structures above 35-feet in the High Intensity shoreline environment because “freight moving equipment” are “exempt from the shoreline height standard requirements” (HMC 11.05.440(b)), and the proposed structures are for “[i]ndustrial and port development” and the criteria in HMC 11.05.440(2)(d) have been met. See section 8.3.2.9. (b) The criteria in WAC 173-27-140 and 173-27-170 shall constitute the minimum criteria for review and approval of a shoreline variance.
Response: This section details compliance with the specific criteria established in WAC 173-27-140 (Review criteria for all development) and WAC 173-27-170 (Review criteria for variance permits).
WAC 173-27-140 (Review criteria for all development) (1) No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by the local government unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. Response: Compliance with WAC 173-27-140 was previously addressed under section 8.3.4. The project’s consistency with the policies and provisions of the SMA and the City’s SMP are detailed throughout this compliance narrative. It is understood that the City will review the proposed project to determine consistency.
(2) No permit shall be issued for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. Response: The visual analysis documents how the proposed structures over 35 feet in height in the shoreline jurisdiction do not obstruct views of the shoreline from a
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 131 of 140
substantial number of residences adjoining the shoreline. Further - as discussed above - the SMP does not prohibit the height increase, and overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. See HMC 11.05.440(b), (d)(2) and RCW 90.58.320.
WAC 173-27-170 (Review criteria for variance permits)
(1) Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Response: Not only is the proposed project is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the SMP, as discussed above, denial of the variance would thwart the policies of RCW 90.58.020 because the Project, “result[s] in long term over short term benefit[s],” “[i]ncrease[s] public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines,” and “[i]ncrease[s] recreational opportunities for the public in the shorelines[.]” For example, the project will provide several short- and long-term public benefits, including putting designated heavy industrial land to economic use, creating jobs, increasing tax revenues for local and state governments, and providing a needed commodity for world markets and a necessary resource for agricultural activities. The proposed mitigation will also improve public access to the waterfront at the IDD#1 Site by enhancing an existing informal (and currently unauthorized) pedestrian pathway that is located around the perimeter of the site while creating and enhancing wetlands. The long-term preservation of the Hoquiam River Preservation Site also provides public benefits.
Extraordinary circumstances are present because the site’s waterfront location in an industrial area make it uniquely appropriate for the proposed water-dependent and water-related export activities. See WAC 173-26-020 (41), (45). In addition, the site layout and design (in particular the configuration of the rail loop and the location of the storage building are necessary to meet operational needs while minimizing impacts on the nearby airport.
Lastly, the public interest will suffer no substantial detriment because impacts associated with the variance are limited to an area in the northwest portion of the site, which is tidally connected to Grays Harbor but offers no public access or use and is not navigable. The variance does not allow a use that would otherwise be prohibited in the area. Instead, this area is within the High Intensity designation and any ecological impacts will be fully offset by mitigation activities.
(2) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 132 of 140
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
Response: The SMP establishes a 75-foot buffer for water-related structures and uses (HMC Table 11.05.330-1). The proposed product storage building, rail loop, and unloading facility are considered water-related uses, and portions of these features are within the required 75-foot buffer in the northwest corner of the site. The location of these project elements is dictated by the operational needs of the facility and to minimize impacts to Bowerman Airport. The rail loop is designed to accommodate the 8,500-foot-long unit trains that will serve the site without the trains extending off the Project Site and affecting off-site traffic during unloading operations. The storage building requires a minimum height and square footage for capacity requirements and operation of the conveyor system. Its proposed location and height meets these operational needs while avoiding infringing on the Bowerman Airport transitional and approach surfaces.
(b) That the hardship described in (a) of this subsection is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
Response: The hardship described above is specifically related to this property for several reasons. The location of this property adjacent to Bowerman Airport places additional height restrictions on development at the site, affecting the location and position of facilities on the site (see Sheet 16). Furthermore, a functional riparian buffer and tidal ditch is present in the northwest corner of the site, adjacent to the tidal portion of Wetland C. The ditch has a surface-water connection with the waters of Grays Harbor off site to the west and is tidally influenced, making it subject to the SMP. This tidal ditch is a unique natural feature that extends the shoreline jurisdiction and further limits the ability to develop the site without impacts to shoreline buffers. Location of the rail connections and vessel loading areas are also dictated by the property’s location relative to other infrastructure and natural features. None of these conditions are the result of actions of the current property owner or deed restrictions.
(c) That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
Response: The proposed project is an industrial facility in an industrial area and on a site that is presently used for industrial purposes. The upland portion of the Project Site and surrounding properties are designated as Industrial by the comprehensive plan and as High Intensity in the SMP, and the site is zoned Industrial. Impacts to shoreline buffers as a result of the proposed project will be fully offset by the proposed off-site mitigation (included in the Mitigation Plan). Mitigation includes intertidal habitat creation and enhancements that will provide direct in-kind (the same
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 133 of 140
physical and functional type as that of the impact area) mitigation for impacts to the shoreline buffer associated with the tidal ditch and riparian area in the northwest portion of the site.
(d) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area; Response: The requested variance will allow use of the property for an industrial facility, which is an activity consistent with the use of other properties in the area. Further, the existing location, use, and configuration of the site make it uniquely appropriate for the proposed project.
(e) That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and Response: The variance requested is the minimum necessary to allow the proposed rail loop and storage building to be located in the northwest portion of the site. Only by locating the building and rail loop track as far north as shown, is it possible to obtain the required loop track length and height of the building while avoiding infringing on the Bowerman Airport runway transitional and approach surfaces. In addition, the required curve of the track preserves portions of the buffer.
(f) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Response: HMC 11.05.250 defines “public interest” as “the interest shared by the citizens of the state or community at large in the affairs of government, or some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected such as an effect on public property or on health, safety, or general welfare resulting from a use or development.” See also WAC 173-27-030(14).
The variance does not allow a use that would otherwise be prohibited in the area, and the request supports a water-related use that is dependent on a shoreline location. Impacts associated with the variance are limited to an area in the northwest portion of the site, which is tidally connected to Grays Harbor but offers no public access or use and is not navigable. This area is within the High Intensity designation and ecological impacts will be fully offset by mitigation activities, as detailed in the Mitigation Plan and throughout this document. Further, there is no public access to this portion of the site.
For the above stated reasons, the public interest will not suffer a substantial detrimental effect. In contrast, the project will provide several benefits serving the public, including putting designated heavy industrial land to economic use, creating jobs, and increasing tax revenues. In addition, the proposed mitigation will improve the existing public access at IDD#1 by enhancing the existing informal and unauthorized pedestrian pathway located around the perimeter of the site (Sheets 33 and 34).
(3) Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c), or
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 134 of 140
within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property; Response: Portions of the proposed rail loop and storage building are located waterward of the OHWM within the tidally influenced ditch and associated wetlands and, thus, are subject to this provision. As indicated in response to subsection (2)(a) above, locating project elements to completely avoid the OHWM would limit the use of the property in such a manner as to prevent reasonable industrial use. The location of project elements is dictated by the operational requirements of the facility and the unique conditions at the site, including the Bowerman Airport runway approach and transitional surfaces that extend over the site (see Sheet 16). Relocating the rail loop and storage building south, and outside of the tidally influenced ditch, would cause encroachment on the approach and transitional surfaces and shorten the overall rail track length, which in turn would preclude the site from meeting the requirements for facility operations.
(b) That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (f) of this section; and Response: Consistency with the criteria established under subsection (2)(b) through (f) is addressed above.
(c) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected. Response: The waterway affected by the rail loop and storage building in the northwest portion of the site is an artificially created tidal ditch that is not navigable or used by the public. The ditch is shallow and narrow and, thus, is unsuitable for watercraft. In addition, the connection to the greater harbor is through a culvert that leads to large tidal flats that prevents navigation access. The ditch is located on Port of Grays Harbor property that is a designated industrial site and is not open or accessible to the general public. The Project Site is in an industrial area; use for vessel traffic serving industrial facilities is expected by existing City shoreline plans and regulations and the waterway’s navigation is not impaired by the Project.
Public access to IDD#1 will be enhanced as part of the compensatory mitigation for the project, and these improvements will enhance the quality of the existing public access to the site. The shoreline in question provides some ecological functions that benefit the public, and mitigation is being proposed to replace those functions. Therefore, granting the requested variance will not impact the public rights of navigation or use of the shorelines.
(4) In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 135 of 140
circumstances exist the total of the variances shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Response: This project is located in an industrialized area along the shoreline of Grays Harbor. Similar tidal channels and ditches could exist on other sites in the area, which future development or redevelopment might impact. In particular, there are other vacant waterfront properties east of the proposed Project Site, and development of these areas as marine terminals could result in similar effects as the proposed project. However, these areas are also designated as High Intensity and zoned for industrial activity, and similar to the proposed project, site-specific mitigation associated with these future projects could offset impacts and limit adverse effects to the shoreline environment. Thus, additional development of these areas would not be expected to result in significant cumulative impacts as they are intended for industrial use, have similar characteristics, and would be required to go through permitting processes to ensure no net loss of ecological function.
(5) Variances from the use regulations of the master program are prohibited. Response: The proposed use is allowed in the High Intensity designation, and a variance from the use regulations of the SMP is not requested. The request is for a location variance.
9.0 CONCLUSION As demonstrated by this narrative and attached materials that together comprise the submittal packet, the proposed project has been designed to comply with the applicable provisions of the City of Hoquiam Municipal Code and Shoreline Master Program. BHP respectfully requests City approval of the applications for a Land Use Conditional Use Permit, Critical Areas Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and a recommendation to Ecology for approval of the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Shoreline Variance.
10.0 REFERENCES Amec Foster Wheeler (AMEC). 2018. “Site Flooding Assessment Including Sea Level Rise Analysis.” February.
Ausenco. 2018. “JOL - Potential Flooding Mitigation.” January.
Ausenco. 2019. “PGH Tsunami and Sea Level Rise Study Commentary.” February.
Anderson, Paul S., Susan Meyer, Dr. Patricia Olson, Erik Stockdale. 2016. “Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program.” Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. October 2016 Final Review. Publication no. 16-06-029.
BergerABAM. 2015. “Port of Grays Harbor – Westport Marina, Maintenance Dredging Biological Evaluation.” March.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 136 of 140
BergerABAM. 2017a. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.” July.
BergerABAM. 2018a. “Visual Analysis.” June.
BergerABAM. 2018b. “Summary of 3-D Overwater Shading Modeling.” June.
BergerABAM. 2018c. “Wetland and Waterbody Delineation and Assessment – IDD#1 Mitigation Site.” August.
BergerABAM. 2018d. “Maintenance Dredging Technical Memorandum.” September.
BergerABAM. 2018e. “Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.” March.
BergerABAM. 2019. “Dredged Material Characterization Report.” January.
BHP. 2019. “Grays Harbor Consultation Summary Report.” July.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. “Region 10, Best Management Practices for Piling Removal and Placement in Washington State.” February 18, 2016. Available at: https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Portals/27/docs/regulatory/Forms/EPA%20B MPs%20for%20Piling%20Removal%202-18-16.pdf
Eungard, D.W., Forson, C., Walsh, T.J., Edison, G. & Arcas, D. 2018. “Tsunami Hazard Maps of Southwest Washington – Model Results from a ~2500-Year Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake Scenario. Washington Geological Survey.” May.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2017. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 53027C0881D Panel No. 881 of 1295 and No. 53027C0882D Panel No. 882 of 1295. Effective February 3, 2017.
Golder Associates, Inc. (Golder). 2019. BHP – IDD#1 Mitigation Site – Hydraulic, Surface Water, Groundwater, and Coastal Assessment. July 29.
Grays Harbor Council of Governments (GHCOG). 2011. “Hidden Coast Corridor Management Plan.” June.
Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication-Draft Publication.
ICF. 2016. “Final Environmental Impact Statement Westway Expansion Project.” September.
ICF. 2018. “Cultural Resources Technical Report (Terminal 3 project site).” February.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 137 of 140
ICF. 2019. “Archaeological Monitoring Results for the BHP Billiton Canada, Inc. Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility Mitigation Area, IDD No. 1 and Historic Context for Mitigation Area, POGH Terminal 4.” June.
Kittelson & Associates. 2017. “BHP Billiton Canada, Inc. Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility Traffic Impact Analysis.” November 2017.
Kittelson & Associates. 2019. “Rail Considerations Related to the BHP Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility.” August.
Nightingale, B. and C.A. Simenstad. 2001a. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. White Paper. Dated May 9, 2001. Seattle, WA. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00051/wdfw00051.pdf.
Nightingale, B. and C.A. Simenstad. 2001b. Dredging Activities: Marine Issues. White Paper. Dated July 13, 2001. Seattle, WA. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/00055/wdfw00055.pdf.
NOAA Fisheries. 2019a. NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region website. Accessed on 9 July 2019 at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/.
NOAA Fisheries. 2019b. Endangered and threatened marine species under NMFS Jurisdiction. Accessed 9 July 2019 at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm.
Ramboll. 2017. “Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility Noise Assessment.” December.
Ramboll. 2018. “Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) Notice of Construction Application.” September.
Ramboll 2019. “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analyses; includes Diesel Particulate Matter Health Impact Assessment.” July.
Shannon and Wilson. 2019. Geotechnical Engineering Report, BHP Potash Export Terminal, Hoquiam, Washington. July.
Thom, R.M. 1981. Primary productivity and organic carbon input to Grays Harbor Estuary, Washington. Grays Harbor and Chehalis River Improvements to Navigation Environmental Studies. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 71 pp. Seattle, WA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA- NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey. Accessed on 18 May 2017 at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2018. Components of a Complete Eelgrass Delineation Report. 9 January 2018.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 138 of 140
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2019. “DMMP Suitability Determination.” 19 February 2019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Particulate Matter (PM) Pollution Website, "Particulate Matter (PM) Basics." https://www.epa.gov/pm- pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). Accessed on 9 July 2019 at https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/index
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019b. “List of endangered species for Grays Harbor County, supplemented with species profiles and occurrence information.”
Walsh, Timothy J. et al. 2000. Tsunami Hazard Map of the Southern Washington Coast. Modeled Tsunami Inundation From a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earth Quake. Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2006. Wetland Mitigation in Washington State – Part 1 Agency Policies and Guidance and Part 2: Developing Mitigation Plans (Version 1). Ecology Publication #06-06-011a. Dated March 2006.
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2019. Washington State Coastal Atlas Map. Accessed 9 July 2019 at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/Map.aspx
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2019a. Forage Fish Spawning Map – Washington State. Accessed 9 July 2019 at http://wdfw.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=19b8f74e2d 41470cbd80b1af8dedd6b3&extent=-126.1368,45.6684,- 119.6494,49.0781%20.#!)
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2019b. PHS on the Web. Available at http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/. Accessed on 9 July 2019.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2019c. SalmonScape. Accessed on 9 July 2019 at http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/map.html
Washington State Department of Health (DOH). 2019a. Office of Environmental Health and Safety. Commercial Shellfish Map Viewer. Accessed on 9 July 2019 at https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/oswpviewer/index.html
Washington State Department of Health (DOH). 2019b. Shellfish Safety Information map. Accessed on 9 July 2019 at https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/biotoxin/biotoxin.html
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 139 of 140
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2017. “Natural Hazards mapper.” Accessed on 19 July 2017 at https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/protectiongis/geology/?Theme=natural_hazards
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 2001. “Washington State Shorezone Inventory.” Aquatic Resources Division, Nearshore Habitat Program. Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Transportation, Highways and Local Programs Division. 2010. “Washington State Scenic and Recreational Highways Strategic Plan (2010 to 2030).”
WSP. 2019a. “Eelgrass Survey and Tier 1 Delineation.” July.
WSP. 2019b. “Alternatives Analysis.” June.
WSP. 2019c. “Critical Areas Assessment.” July.
WSP. 2019d. “Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA)” July.
WSP. 2019e. “Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Permit Application Narrative.” July.
WSP. 2019f. “Wetland and Waterbody Delineation and Assessment (Terminal 3 project site).” June.
WSP. 2019g. “Mitigation Plan.” July.
WSP. 2019h. “March 2019 Fifth Quarter Groundwater Monitoring Report (Terminal 3).” May.
WSP. 2019i. “March 2019 Fourth Quarter Groundwater Monitoring– IDD No. 1 Site Summary Report.” May.
Proposed Grays Harbor Potash Export Facility WSP USA, WA17.0202.00 Land Use and Shoreline Master Program Compliance July 2019 Hoquiam, Washington Page 140 of 140
APPENDIX A SHEETS
APPENDIX B PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS
APPENDIX C SEPA CHECKLIST
APPENDIX D JARPA
APPENDIX E CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT
Mitigation Plan Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation and Assessment, Project Site Wetlands and Waterbody Delineation and Assessment, IDD#1 Eelgrass Survey and Tier 1 Delineation Report Geotechnical Engineering Report
APPENDIX F BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES
APPENDIX G DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SUITABILITY DETERMINATION
APPENDIX H CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT – PROJECT SITE
APPENDIX I ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING RESULTS FOR MITIGATION AREAS
APPENDIX J NOISE ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX K VISUAL ANALYSIS
APPENDIX L TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RAIL CONSIDERATIONS MEMORANDUM
APPENDIX M SITE FLOODING ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING SEA LEVEL RISE
APPENDIX N UPDATED AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSES