HomeMy WebLinkAboutFPA2015-00005 HMP GEO multi parcels - FPA Application - 1/27/2016 MASON COUNTY PUD NO.1 FPA
Cv19 10 20is 00605
3 ACRE FOREST PRACTICES
APPLICATION
PERTAINING TO TAX PARCEL 42223-34-00000
To%
MC .
JANUARY, 2016
Project#MA15-012 Revision 0 MAS LINTY
BROWN
& KYSAR
INC. SHELTON, WA
P.O.Box 1720 1 Battle Ground,WA 98604 1 (p)3W.687.3966 I www.bki;cc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION......................:.................................................... 1
STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN...................................................... 2
HABITATMANAGEMENT PLAN............................................................................... 3
GEOTECHNICALSTUDY...........................................................................................4
FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION
APPLICATION
SITE LOCATION MAPS
SEPA CHECKLIST
FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION 1 1
coU�"" MASON COUNTY
(360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352
BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352
-' Mason County Bldg. III,426 West Cedar Street
14. 1854 +"lT
`4 Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.masonma.us
Steven Taylor
Mason County PLTD 1
N 21971 Hwy 101
Shelton, WA 98584
Byron Woltersdorf
Brown& Kysar
P.O. Box 1720
Battle Ground, WA 98604
November 4, 2015
Letter of Incompleteness
RE: 42223-40-00000, 42223-34-00030, and 42223-34-60020
Dear Mr. Taylor and Mr. Woltersdorf,
I recently received your forest practices application (FPA) on the above referenced
parcels. I know that you worked hard to prepare a complete application but unfortunately
it is incomplete and can not be processed in its current condition. Below is a list of the
item(s)that need more attention before the application can be deemed complete:
(1) According to your application this is a 4-acre even aged clear cut for future
commercial/industrial development. I understand from your SEPA environmental
checklist answers, that no stumping or unnecessary brush removal is proposed under
this permit. All development in Mason County, including Class IV General FPAs are
subject to the requirements of the 2005 WSDOE Stormwater Manual. When more
than one-acre of ground is disturbed or 5,000 sq ft of new impervious surface created
under a development permit, an engineered stormwater and erosion control plan is
required. In cases in which those two thresholds are not met, a written Best
Management Practices narrative is required. I noticed that you did include some
generic drawing of silt fencing, wattle installation, check dams, etc, but these
drawings,by themselves, do not meet either standard. I am attaching a submittal
checklist for an engineered plan and an example of an approved BMP narrative.
Instead of relying on me to assume which category this project falls into, I need you
to tell me in writing which category this project is in and to proved me the appropriate
documents. Please contact Loretta Swanson of Mason County Public Works at ext.
769 if you have any technical question on stormwater and erosion control.
(2) A site map conforming to the requirements of Mason County Ordinance 11.05,
Section 11.05.120 is required for all Class IV G applications. You did submit a site
map, but it does not meet County requirements for a Class IV G FPA. Please review
the list of the 9 items required for a FPA site plan and provide me with a suitable site
plan. I have enclosed a base map for your use with 20'contours and an approximate
scale of 1"= 100'. If you place all of the required information(which can be found
on the signature page of the application)this should work.
(3) Looking at contour maps of your general location, I am concerned that that there is a
steep slope(pit wall)located about 200'north of the north end of your harvest unit
(see enclosed map). According to the Landslide Hazard chapter of the Mason County
Critical Areas Ordinance an development proposal (including Class IV G FPAs)
within 300'of slopes over 15% and at least 10 tall, need a special geotechnical
review. For slopes 15 to 40%this would be a geological assessment and for slopes
over 40%a geotechnical report is required. I am enclosing submittal checklist for
both types of documents. As an aside, it looks like your moratorium release
application may also require a geo-review for slopes to the west. Both of these
projects as well as future site development can be addressed in a single assessment or
report.
(4) When I reviewed your cancelled 2011 FPA, I observed a number of trees on the PUD
1 property that showed evidence of pileated woodpecker forage. As I explained to
you at the time,pileated woodpeckers are listed as a species of"importance" in the
Fish and Wildlife chapter of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance. Since
leaving the affected trees in place was not an option,we discussed your options for
hiring a biologist to write a habitat management plan to prescribe appropriate
mitigation,which would be implemented prior to FPA approval through the Mason
Environmental Permit process. Did you ever look into that?
It is possible that additional information could be required once the review begins. In
order to keep this case from automatic expiration,please respond within 180-days. If you
have any questions,please contact me at extension 571 or by e-mail at:
mms@co.mason.wa.us. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael MacSems,
FPA Reviewer
cc: Loretta Swanson (MCPW)
I
I
1
Mason County
Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan Submittal Checklist
r
r Project Name: Mason County PUD No.1 Type IV FPA
r Parcel #'s: 42223-34-0000
r County Project No.:
i
Author of Report: Byron Woltersdorf
r Minimum Requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual
i
The Stormwater checklist identifies the minimum requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual.
r The Checklist is intended to identify the locations within the plan that addresses the minimum
requirements. Mason County will not perform a technical evaluation of the submittal. Rather, the
checklist provides a guide to allow Mason County to review the submittal and determine if the applicant
has addressed the minimum features that make up a Stormwater plan.
► It is incumbent upon the applicant and his/her engineer to fulfill all the applicable requirements of the
2005 Stormwater Plan as it relates to the proposed project. Review by Mason County is intended to
determine if the plan has addressed the minimum requirements. Applicant's engineer shall be responsible
for the technical accuracy of the submitted Stormwater plan.
► During construction of the project, the Stormwater plan engineer of record or his/her authorized
representative shall inspect the site to ensure the stormwater plan is being implemented as designed. Upon
completion of the project, the engineer or his authorized representative shall be required to certify that the
► stormwater plan has been implemented as designed.
Failure to meet the minimum requirements could result in delay or rejection of the application until the
deficiencies are corrected.
► Section I—Construction SWPPP Narrative
1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements
x a. Describe how each of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Element has been
addressed though the Construction SWPPP.
►
x b. Identify the type and location of BMPs used to satisfy the required element.
x c. Written justification identifying the reason an element is not applicable to the proposal.
► 12 Required Elements—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
x 1. Mark Clearing Limits, See page/paragraph Page 2(Clearing limits mama and flagged)
1 x
2. Establish Construction Access, See page/paragraph Page 2(BMP C105)
►
x 3. Control Flow Rates, See page/paragraph Page 2(BMP C235,BMP C209)
► x 4. Install Sediment Controls, See page/paragraph Page 3(BMP C233,BMP C200)
► x 5. Stabilize Soils, See page/paragraph Page 3(BMP C120,BMP C121)
L\Community DevelopmentTAC\STORMWATER 1 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
►
x 6. Protect Slopes, See page/paragraph Page 3(NIA-explained in narrative)
x 7. Protect Drain Inlets, See page/paragraph Page 3(NIA-explained in narrative)
x 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets, See page/paragraph Page 3,4(NIA-explained in narrative)
x 9. Control Pollutants, See page/paragraph Page 4(Loggers to exercise caution when filing/maintaining equipment)
x 10. Control De- Watering, See page/paragraph Page 4(N/A-explained in narrative)
x l l. Maintain BMPs, See page/paragraph Page 4(BMPs monitored weekly and after storm events)
Page 4(Incorporate practices and BMPs.Complete logging as soon as
x 12. Manage the Project, See page/paragraph possible)
2. Project Description
x a. Total project area. Acres 4 Sq. Ft. 174,240 f
NIA b. Total proposed impervious area. Acres Sq. Ft.
NIA c. Total proposed are to be disturbed, included off-site borrow and fill areas. F
Acres '3,2- Sq. Ft.
NIA d. Total volumes of proposed cut and fill. Cubic Yards P 0
3. Existing Site Conditions
x a. Description of the existing topography. See page/paragraph Page z-Paragraph 2
x b. Description of the existing vegetation. See page/paragraph Page z-Paragraph 3 0
x c. Description of the existing drainage. See page/paragraph Page 2-Paragraph a 0
4. Adjacent Areas
x 1. Description of adjacent areas that may be affected by the site disturbance
NIA a. Streams, See page/paragraph 0
NIA b. Lakes, See page/paragraph 1
NIA C. Wetlands, See page/paragraph
NIA d. Residential Areas, See page/paragraph {
x e. Roads, See page/paragraph Access road is awayfrom highway
NIA £ Other, See page/paragraph 1
NIA II. Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water.
(Minimum distance of 400 yards), See page/paragraph
5. Critical Areas
i
x a. Description of critical areas that are on or adjacent to the site.
See page/paragraph Potential landslide hazard area(Sheet 3),HMP Report(pileated woodpecker)-see Section 3
I
x b. Description of special requirements for working in or near critical areas.
See page/paragraph Geotech site analysis to provide recommendations
I:\Community DevelopmentTAC\STORMWATER 2of5 Updated May 20,2009
6. Soils
Description of on-site soils.
x a. Soil name(s), See page/paragraph Sandy loam,sand and gravel
x b. Soil mapping unit, See page/paragraph Gk
- c. Erodibility, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation(Page 2),Section 6.14(Page 16)
- d. Settleability, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Section 6.6(Page 11)
=e. Permeability, See page/paragraph
Geotechnical site investigation(Page 2)
f. Depth, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Section 4.2.1(Page 5),Appendix B-Subsurface Exploration Logs
I
g. Texture, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Section 4.2.1(Page 5)
I
I
h. Soil Structure, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Appendix A(Lab Test Results),Appendix B(Exp.Logs)
7. Erosion Problem Areas
r x Description of potential erosion problems on site. See page/paragraph Page 2,3-Element 3 SWPPP
r 8. Construction Phasing
1 N/A a. Construction sequence, See age/paragraph
r N/A b. Construction phasing (if prop sed) , See page/paragraph
r 9. Construction Schedule
r N/A I. Provide a proposed construction schedule, See page/paragraph
' N/A II. Wet Season Construction Activities
1
1 a. Proposed wet season construction activities, See page/paragraph
1 b. Proposed wet season construction restraints for environmentally sensitive/critical areas. See
page/paragraph
1 10. Engineering Calculations
Provide Design Calculations.
1 N/A a. Sediment Ponds/Traps, See page/paragraph
N/A b. Diversions, See page/paragraph
R N/A c. Waterways, See page/paragraph
R N/A d. Runoff/Stormwater Detention Calculations, See page/paragraph
11. Operations and Maintenance.
N/A An operation and maintenance schedule shall be provided for all proposed stormwater facilities and
BMPs, and the party (or parties)responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. An
R operation and maintenance (O&M) Declaration of Covenant will be required to cover all privately
R owned and maintained stormwater facilities. O&M Declaration of Covenant forms are available at
the Mason County Permit Assistance Center, 426 W. Cedar Street, Shelton, WA 98584. The
proponent shall record a copy of the completed Declaration with the Mason County Auditors' office.
R A copy of the recorded document must be submitted to the Permit Assistance Center together with
R this completed Checklist. See page/paragraph to be provided atfull build out of site,not a part of this application
R I:\Community DevelopmentTACWORMWATER 3 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
R
R
Section II—Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
1. General
x a. Vicinity Map, See page/paragraph Plan sheet I-Cover Sheet
x b. Clearing and Grading Approval Block, See page/paragraph Plan sheet 2-Stormwater and Erosion control Plan
x c. Erosion and Sediment Control Notes, See page/paragraph Plan sheet I-Cover sheet
2. Site Plan
x a. Legal description of subject property
x b.North Arrow
x c. Indicate boundaries of existing vegetations, e.g. tree lines,pasture areas, etc.
None on site(SWPPP
x d. Identify and label areas of potential erosion problems, See page/paragraph narrative Element 3)
NIA e. Identify any on-site or adjacent surface waters, critical areas and associated buffers
NIA f. Identify FEMA base flood boundaries and Shoreline Management boundaries(if applicable), See
page/paragraph
x g. S ow existing and proposed contours
NIA h. 1,dicate drainage basins and direction of flow for individual drainage areas
NIA i. Label final grade contours and identify developed condition drainage basins
x j. Delineate areas that are to be cleared and graded
NIA k. Show all cut and fill slopes indicating top and bottom of slope catch lines
3. Conveyance Systems
x a. Designate locations for swales, interceptor trenches, or ditches
NIA b. Show all temporary and permanent drainage pipes, ditches, or cut-off trenches required for erosion
and sediment control
NIA c. Provide minimum slope and cover for all temporary pipes or call out pipe inverts
NIA d. Show grades, dimensions, and direction of flow in all ditches, swales, culverts, and pipes
NIA e. Provide details for bypassing off-site runoff around disturbed areas
NIA f. Indicate locations and outlets of any dewatering systems
4. Location of Detention BMPs
x a. Identify location of detention BMPs.
5. Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities
x a. Show the locations of sediment trap(s), pond(s), and pipe structures.
NIA b. Dimension pond berm widths and inside and outside pond slopes.
NIA c. Indicate the trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions.
NIA d. Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structure.
I:\Community Development\PAC\STORMWATER 4of5 Updated May 20,2009
MA e. Provide typical details of gravel cone and standpipe, and/or other filtering devices.
NIA f. Detail stabilization techniques for outlet/inlet.
NIA g. Detail control/restrictor device location and details.
NIA h. Specify mulch and/or recommended cover of berms and slopes.
NIA i. Provide rock specifications and detail for rock check dams.
NIA j. Specify spacing for rock check dams as required.
NIA k. Provide front and side sections of typical rock check dams.
NIA 1. Indicate the locations and provide details and specifications for silt fabric.
NIA in. Locate the construction entrance and provide a detail.
I
6. Detailed Drawings
NIA a. Any structural practices used that are not referenced in the Ecology'Manual should be explained and
illustrated with detailed drawings.
7. Other Pollutant BMPs
NIA a. Indicate on the site plan the location of BMPs to be used for the control of pollutants other than
sediment, e.g. concrete wash water.
8. Monitoring Locations
NIA a. Indicate on the-site plan the water quality sampling locations to be used for monitoring water quality
on the construction site, if applicable.
i
i
I certify that the stormwater plan submitted for this project fulfills the applicable provisions of the 2005
DOE Stormwater Manual.
0 WASy7 §�
Byron Woltersdorf,P.E. 01-19-2015
Engineer Datew k
J
,Q 37948 ,
SAL
Appl&VA Date
y/z/dot
Place eng. stamp and sign/date above.
I:\Community DevelopmentTACWORMWATER 5 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
Page 1 of 2
Michael MacSems - RE: PUD 1 FPA
From: Byron Woltersdorf<byronw@bki.cc>
To: Michael MacSems <mms@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/2/2016 3:41 PM
Subject: RE: PUD 1 FPA
See Below
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Regards
Byron Woltersdorf, PE I Environmental,Permits&Real Estate
Direct: 360.607.0643
Brown &Kysar,Inc
From: Michael MacSems [mms@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 1:35 PM
To: Byron Woltersdorf<byronw@bki.cc>
Subject: RE: PUD 1 FPA
Byron,
Regarding the SWPPP for the FPA, I have a few follow up questions, which are:
Checklist question I.(6).e: I need help finding the discussion of"permeability" on Page 2.
[Byron] Second paragraph "On site soils are comprised of well drained sandy loam, sand and gravel,The
National Cooperative Soil Survey classifies soils on these parcels and wholly Gk(Grove Gravelly sandy loam, 5
to 15%slopes.)"
I.(5).(a): Regarding the location sediment traps, ponds, and pipe structures; the submittal checklist says
that this information is provided, but I don't see any on Sheet 2, and I am of the understanding from
item I.(10).(a), that these features are not required for this project -- please confirm.
[Byron] The site uses BMP's C200 and C233 Interceptor dike and swale and Silt fence respectively to infiltrate
stormwater runoff. Sheet flow is going to be produced with this project and they are not conveying
stormwater runoff to a central location for infiltration therefore; traps, ponds or pipes are not being used at
this time. When the PUD comes in for site application approval a more detailed proposal will be depicted.
I1.(5). (1): The checklist says "N/A" but a silt fence location is shown on Sheet 2.
[Byron] Details are shown on Sheet 4 of 4 BMP C233
II.(5).(m): The checklist says "N/A" but I do see that a stabilized construction entrance/exist is shown
file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56BOCE41 Masonmail10016134621... 2/3/2016
Page 2 of 2
on the Sheet 2.
[Byron] Location of Construction Entrance is on Sheet 2 of 4 and Details are shown on Sheet 4 of 4 BMP C105
Please address these questions so that I can have a record of it.
Thanks,
Michael
>>> Byron Woltersdorf<byronw(aki.cc> 2/2/2016 10:09 AM>>>
Cool
Let me know if you need anything.
Regards
Byron Woltersdorf, PE I Environmental, Permits& Real Estate
Direct: 360.607.0643
Brown&Kysar, Inc
file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56BOCE4I Masonmail10016134621... 2/3/2016
Mason County Review Checklist
For a Stormwater Plan LG��
Instructions:
This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Stormwater Plan. The Stormwater Plan is
reviewed for completeness with respect to the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. If an
item is found to be not applicable, the Plan should explain the basis for the conclusion. The Plan is also
reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not
understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the
application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved
with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director.
Applicant's Name: 1 I CIWI,,. C.C41 1.i
Permit# F0 Parcel#
Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: L4 2? t 3 - (-fb _ Q)C! 3 4 " OC)30 G
SECTION I— Construction SWPPP Narrative
(1) Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements:
(a) Describe how each of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Element has been
addressed through the Construction SWPPP.
OK? Comment:
(b) Identify the type and location of BMP's used to satisfy the required element.
OK? Comment: -
(c) Written justification identifying the reason'en element is not applicable to the proposal.
OK? ti Comment:
(d) 12 Required Elements—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(1) Mark Clearing Limits.
OK? Comment:
(2) Establish Construction Access.
OK? Comment: ��I'd-k C
(3) Control Flow Rates.OK? �' Comment: /y�.J-�\
C. �—
(4) Install Sediment Controls.
OK? Comment:
(5) Stabilize Soils. n
OK? Comment: �"2
(6) Protect Slopes. n � �' A
OK? Comment: U' J
(7) Protect Drain Inlets. 3 NIA
J f�
OK? U Comment: !V /
(8) Stabilize Channels and Outlets.
OK? ,, Comment: L4
(9) Control Pollutants.
OK? ✓ Comment:
(10)Control De-Watering.
OK? Comment:
(11)Maintain BMP's.
OK? 1, Comment:
(12)Manage,the Project.
OK? ✓ Comment:
Page 1 Form Effective May 2009
(2) Project Description.
(a) Total project area (acres/square feet).
OK? Comment:
(b) Total Proposed impervious area (acres/square feet). ,
OK? Comment: � � k_e,t % I,} 4-
(c) Total proposed area to be disturbed, included off-site borrow and fill areas (acres/square feet).
OK? Comment: L `',` _ :+—
(d) Total volumes of proposed cut and fill (cubic yards).
OK? Comment: 1 _ _ i . I
(3) Existing Site Conditions.
(a) Description of the existing topography.
OK? Comment: ) = Z
(b) Description of the existing vegetation.
OK? Comment: ,
(c) Description of the existing drainage.
OK? Comment:
(4)Adjacent Areas.
(1) Description of adjacent areas which may be affected by the site disturbance
(a) Streams A
OK? Comment: �P5 Ov at
(b) Lakes
OK? Comment: Al
(c)Wetlands n/
OK? Comment: /V /x
(d) Residential Areas n�/
OK? Comment: ( v
(e) Roads n
OK? Comment: / y / A
(f) Other
OK? Comment: /V
(II) Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water
(minimum distance of 400 yards).
OK? Comment: Sol
(5) Critical Areas:
(a) Description of critical areas that are on or adjacent to the site.
OK? I, Comment: >> 3
(b) Descriptiog of special requirements for wor ing in or near critical areas.
OK? V Comment: A-
(6) Soils: Description of on-site soils.
(a) Soil name
OK? v Comment: ^-<-���
(b) Soil mapping unit
OK? Comment: G Y�
(c) Erodibility
OK? Comment: �G
(d) Settleability
OK? Comment: e
(e) Permeability
OK? Comment:
(f) Depth
OK? Comment:
(g) Texture , -
OK? ' Comment:
Page 2 Form Effective May 2009
(h) Soil Structure
OK? Comment: U )
(7) Erosion Problem Areas.
(a) Description of potential erosion problems on site
OK? Comment: a'�� N
(8) Construction Phasing.
(a) Construction sequence.
OK? Comment: V 1- cC, '
(b) Construction phasing (if proposed).
OK? Comment: 1 G
(9) Construction Schedule.
I. Provide a proposed construction schedule
OK? Comment: -Sr—V-\g 4
II. Wet Season Construction Activities
(a) Proposed wet season construction activities.
OK? L'r. Comment:
(b) Proposed wet season construction restraints for environmentally sensitive/critical areas.
OK? Comment:
(10)Engineering Calculations. Provide design calculations.
(a) Sediment Ponds/Traps.
OK? , Comment: tN of
(b) Diversions.
OK? Comment:
(a) Waterways. ),
OK? I Comment:
(b) Runoff/Stormwater Detention Calculations.
OK? Comment: 11
(11)Operations and Maintenance
(a). An operation and maintenance schedule shall be provided for all proposed stormwater facilities
and BMPs, and the party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be
identified. An operation and maintenance (O & M) Declaration of Covenant will be required to
cover all privately owned and maintained stormwater facilities. O & M Declaration of Covenant
forms are available at the Mason County Permit Assistance Center, 426 W. Cedar Street,
Shelton, WA 98584. The proponent shall record a copy of the completed Declaration with the
Mason County Auditors' office. A copy of the recorded document must be submitted to the Permit
Assistance Center together with this completed Checklist.
OK? Comment: _ iD, Ldcu� �. (� (( bU�Icla,i a�
S AZ
SECTION II— Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
(1) General.
(a) Vicinity Map. ple",
OK? Comment:
(b) Clearing and Grading Approval Block
OK? r, Comment:
(c) Erosion and Sediment Control Notes.
OK? Comment: 5 �
(2) Site Plan.
(a) Legal description of subject property.
OK? Comment:
(b) North Arrow.
OK? Comment:
Page 3 Form Effective May 2009
r
(c) Indicate Pundaries of existing vegetation, e.g. tree lines, pasture areas, etc.
OK? + Comment:
(d) Identify and label areas of potential erosion problems.
OK? Comment: S�'s P, 'c')._ oU' —
(e) Identify any on-site or adjacent surface waters, critical areas and associated buffers.
OK? Comment: i V
(f) Identify FEMA base flood boundaries and Shoreline Management boundaries (if applicable).
OK? r Comment:
(g) Show existing and proposed contours.
OK? Comment:
(h) Indicate drainage basins and direction of flow for individual drainage areas.
OK?_j Comment: --
(i) Label final grade contours and identify developed condition drainage basins.
OK? i. Comment: a- ;__ ;
Q) Delineate areas that are to be cleared and graded.
OK?_ Comment:
(k) Show all cut and fill slopes indicating top and bottom of slope catch lines.
OK? ; Comment: �L
(3) Conveyance Systems.
(a) Designate locations for swales, interceptor trenches, or ditches.
OK? Comment: 4 i.
(b) Show all temporary and permanent drainage pipes, ditches, or cut-off trenches.
OK? Comment:
(c) Provide minimum slope and cover for all temporary pipes or call out pipe inverts.
OK? Comment: ti k-
(d) Show grades, dimensions, and direction of flow in all ditches, swales, culverts, and pipes.
OK? Comment: y l +
(e) Provide details for bypassing off-site runoff around disturbed areas.
OK? V Comment: \1
(f) Indicate locations and outlets of any dewat ring systems.
OK? ,. Comment:
(4) Location of Detention BMP's.
(a) Identify location of detention BMP's. .
OK? , Comment: L
(5) Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities.
(a) Show the locations of sediment trap(s), pond(s), and pipe structures.
OK? Comment:
(b) Dimension pond berm widths and inside and outside pond slopes.
OK? Comment: ;
(c) Indicate the trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions.
OK? Comment: ", -�
(d) Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structure.
OK? Comment:
(e) Provide typical details of gravel cone and standpipe, and/or other filtering devices.
OK? Comment:
(f) Detail stabilization techniques for outlet/inlet.
OK? r Comment: �,. 1
(g) Detail control/restrictor device location and etails.
OK? Comment:
(h) Specify mulch and/or recommended cover of berms and slopes.
OK? I,' Comment: 7
(i) Provide,rock specifications and detail for roc check dams.
OK? Comment:
(j) Specify spacing for rock check dams as rluired.
OK? ✓ Comment: V ;}-
Page 4 Form Effective May 2009
r
(k) Provide front and side sections of typical rock check dams.
OK? +` Comment: 4-
(1) Indicate the locations and provide details and specifications for silt fabric.
OK? Comment: •,.` i ,. 1
(m) Locate the construction entrance and provide detail. ;7
OK? Comment:
(6) Detailed Drawings.
(a) Any structural practices used that are not referenced in the Ecology Manual should be explained
and illustrated with detailed drawings.
OK? r Comment:
(7) Other Pollutant BMP's.
(a) Indicated on the site plan the location of BMP's to be used for the control of pollutants other than
sediment, e.g. concrete wash water.
OK? � Comment: i.
(8) Monitoring Locations.
(a) Indicate on the site plan the water quality sampling locations to be used for monitoring water
quality on the construction site, if applicable.
OK? I Comment: 'V I C/'V�
Are the Documents signed and stamped? �)
Type and #of Licenser
If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? ' o
nv "`
Reviewed by �"` S on
Time spent in review: Z (n mow►.
SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE:
Reviewed by on
Time spent in second review:
THIRD REVIEW/ UPDATE:
Reviewed by on
Time spent in third review:
Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Stormwater Plan.
Page 5 Form Effective May 2009
AyOt7 COOT
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FPA -
Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street
•,,. PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
44�d www.co.mason.wa.us (360)427-9670 Belfair(360)275-4467 Elma (360)482-5269
FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION/NOTIFICATION
Type IV General
This application should be accompanied with an Environmental Checklist (SEPA) as well as an activity map/site plan which addresses
items listed below.
TYPE OR PRINT IN INK:
1. Landowner,Timber Owner and Operator information.
Legal Name of LANDOWNER Legal Name of TIMBER OWNER Legal Name of OPERATOR
Mason PUD#1 Same Same
Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address:
N 21971 Hwy. 101
City, State,Zip City, State,Zip City, State,Zip
Shelton, WA 98584
Phone(360 877-5249 Phone( ) Phone( )
Email: stevent@mason-pud1.org Email: Email:
2. Contact person information.
Contact Person Phone(360 877-5249
Steven Taylor, General Manager stevent mason- ud1.or
Email: @ p g
3. If you are harvesting timber,enter the Forest Tax Reporting Account Number of the Timber Owner: #800-888-888
For tax reporting information or to receive a tax number,call the Department of Revenue at(800)548-8829.
4. Legal description where the forest practices will occur.
Parcel Number Sub Division('/4'/4 Section Township Range E/W
4222-33-400000 All 3.3ac SE1/4,SW1/4 23 22N 4 W
4222-33-400030 portion
4222-33-400020 portion
5. Answer each question as it applies to your proposed forest practice.
a. [i]No. [] Yes. Is the activity within an urban growth area?
b. [■]No. [] Yes. Is the activity within a public park?
C. [i]No. [] Yes. Is the activity within 500 feet of a public park? Park name:
d. [■]No. [] Yes. Is the activity located on lands platted after January 1, 1960?
e. [.]No. [] Yes. Is the activity within 200 feet of saltwater lake river/creek/stream pond
wetland seasonal runoff slopes which exceed 15%?
f. What is the expected duration of FPA? 21 days
Proposed start date: January 2016 Proposed end date: February 2016
Page 1 of 4
6. Are you cutting or removing timber?
[]No. [.] Yes. Complete the table below and identify all timber harvest and salvage activity boundaries on the
activity map.
Acres Volume to be Steepest Slope in
Unit# Harvest Type Yarding Method net Harvested mb Harvest Unit
all units Even age Feller, Rub Tire Skd -4.0 0.110 MBF -7%
7. Are you constructing or abandoning roads?
[o]No. [] Yes. Complete the table below. Show locations and identify all road activities on the activity map.
None Total Length Steepest Side Slope Abandonment Date
Type of Activity feet % Mo/Yr
Road Construction NA Does Not Apply
Temporary Road Construction Atypical Con. entrance 100' 5% At completion
Road Abandonment NA
Work in or over typed water may require a Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA)from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW). If you have questions concerning the HPA,visit the WDFW website at www.wdfw.wa.Qov/habitat.htm.
8. Are you installing or replacing water-crossings?
H No. [] Yes. Complete the table below. Show locations and identify all proposed water-crossings on the activity map.
Crossing Crossing Dimensions Crossing Crossing Dimensions
Identifier T width x length) Identifier Type width x length)
9. Mark the following activities that will be done in or over typed water.
Activity in or over: Type I Stream Type II Stream Type III Stream Type IV Stream Type V Stream
Removing culverts of bridges
Equipment crossing
Ground skidding
Suspending cables
Cable yarding
Falling and bucking
Other
10. Is any activity in a wetland or wetland buffer?
H No. [] Yes. Complete the table below. Show locations and identify all wetlands and buffers on the activity map.
Wetland Wetland Type Activity Type in Activity Type in Total Wetland Total Area Total Area
Identifier (I,II,III,IV, Wetland Buffer Area(acres) Drained(acres) Filled(acres)
other
11. Describe how the following are identified on the ground.
• Harvest boundaries/unit corners: Flagging
• Right-of-way limits and centerlines for road work,culverts and bridges: Paved,gravel and maintained marked with flagging
• Critical areas and critical area buffer boundaries: NONE
Page 2 of 4
12. Have you reviewed this forest practices activity area to determine whether it may involve historic sites and/or Native American
cultural resources? [,]No. [I Yes.
13. We affirm that the information contained herein is true,and understand that this proposed forest practice is subject to the Forest
Practices Act and Rules and Mason County Forest Practices Conversion Ordinance as well as all other federal,state or local
regulations. Compliance with the Forest Practices Act and Rules and the Mason County Forest Practices Conversion Ordinance
does not ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act or other federal state or local laws.
Signat f LANDOWNER Signature of TIMBER OWNER Signature of OPERATOR
(if differenVhan landowner) (If differe t gat 1
Print name: G�4Ux� ke5~fc! print name: (S�2 �lvs �� � Print name:
Date: Date: Date: to-(,/y 5' -F� c✓
Additional information: (Optional)
Per Mason County Ordinance 11.05,Section 11.05.120,a site map shall accompany this application which includes the
following information.
I Harvest boundaries and tree retention areas.
H The approximate location of any structures.
III The location of all existing and proposed streets,right-of-ways,easements,skid roads,haul roads,and landings
within the proposal.
IV The location of future land development including stormwater management facilities and vegetation to be retained
for site landscaping,open space,wildlife habitat,screening,and/or buffers.
V Site topography at contour intervals of 40 feet.
VI Critical areas and critical area buffers regulated pursuant to the Critical Areas Ordinance.
VII Drainage ways and culverts.
VIII Site area targeted for further harvest including proposed timing.
IX North arrow and scale shall be shown on all site plans.The scale shall be no smaller than one inch to 200 feet.
Staff asks that,at a minimum,the corners of the harvest unit(s)be flagged for clear identification.
Page 3 of 4
NOTE: Copies of all FPA Applications will be forwarded to Mason County Public Works for stormwater and erosion
control review.Projects which disturb more than one acre(regardless of total lot size)will require an engineered
stormwater plan consistent with the Mason County Stormwater Ordinance(Chapter 14.48.)and the 1992 WSDOE
Stormwater Manual(2005 in Belfair&Allyn UGA's).Applicants will be charged for Public Works staff time to review
these plans and applications.
Property owners should also be aware that the Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE)might ask for a
NPDES(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System)Permit.The threshold for such a permit is equivalent to
Mason County's threshold.WSDOE will notify applicants through SEPA review if a NPDES is required.An NPDES is
not a perquisite for FPA approval.It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain this permit when required.
FPA FEE: $255.00 with SEPA SEPA FEE: 0-9.99 Acres$630
$375.00 without SEPA 10 to 20 Acres$755
Over 20 Acres$945
EIS(DS)$2,525+70/hr
Departmental Review
(For Office Use Only)
Site visit:
Date approved:
Mason County Community Development
I:PLANNINGTACTPA.DOC 12/15/2008
Page 4 of 4
1 �
Mason County Map Output Page Page 1 of 1
Mason Comity Map
LEGEND
FedefatLandS
Htytways City or Shelton
Rivers d Stroems ( county eoundary(DNR)
Parcels commissioner I>strlcts
/ Sections S Lakes
t ('�FPA boundary Tovmshlps i Puget Sound d tlai;r Lary:.
IO
p �� / '�,
FPA boundary
Load out area /
Load out area
I Erosion control
/ �.. xxnr;; Site stabilization
Potential Storm
Facilities
+10 Screening landscape
_ Buffer Area Future
1 _ Potential Storm
It Facilities /
1
DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LL1BlLD71":
The data used to make this map have been tested for
1.10 / Screening landscape accuracy.and every elTon has been made to ensure that
Buffer Area Future these data are timely.accurate and reliable.Ilowever.
fMason County makes no guarantee or wan-ant-'to its
J accuracy
as to labeling.dimensions.or placement or
/ location of any map features contained herein.The
Erosion control _ boundaries depicted by these data are approximate,and
Site stabilization / are not necessarily accurate to suncying or rngirpo e e
standards.and are intended)for informational purposes
No�gtiao j only.Mason County does not assume any legal)iabilit\
or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a
manner not intended by Mason County.In no event shall
f . Mason County be liable for direct.indirect.incidental.
consequential•special,or ton damages ofany kind.
including.but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits or
benefits arising from use ol'or reliance on the intorrnation
contained herein
.�o
92009-Mason County GIS
100 W.Public Works Dr
Shelton,WA 98584
http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/serviet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=amason_ov&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True... 9/17/2015
Mason County Map Output Page Page l of 1
. "I Mason County Map
LEGEND
. ' - Roa9s � ;vdorat Land;
Migrwrays CnyorShenon
Rwors d Streams County Boundary(QNR)
Paroets commissioner Dstnci
Sections sr Lakes
Tonnshps f Puget Sound 8 L.ar.r Lo"••.
i°
DISCLAIMER AND LIMIT ATION Oh LIABILI JY:
r The data used to make this map have been tested for
accuracy,and every enian has been made to ensure dtat
these data are timely.accurate and reliable I lowever.
► _1 %lawn County makes no guarantee or warranty to its
e-•' ♦ �� accuracy as to labeling.dimensions.or placement or
/r location of any map features contained herein.The
boundaries depicted by these data are approximate.and
are not necessarily accurate to surveying or cnginevi in,,
ap standards.and are intended for informational lorloscs
8� only Mason County does not assume any legal ttabilm
aHo� or responsibility arising from the use ol'this map in a
N4, q manner not intended by Mason County.In no event shall
Mason County be liable for direct.indirect,incidental.
1 if consequential.special,or tort damages of am kind.
f" including.but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits or
benefits arising from use ofor reliance on the information
contained herein
P+•y�' A,� � ••-4� ''✓ - `+►�� ��P- ti•, 0, 2009-Mason County GIS
�' �',� ,• ✓�" �..� �'+T��. I' ,. 1W W.Public Works Dr
Shelton,WA 98584
http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=amason_ov&ClientVersion=4.0&Form=True... 9/17/201 S
9
NOTE
STAPLE TOP TIE
1. Poet shall have sufficient atrerlgtll and durabil'Ity
SELF-LOCIONG TIE-NYLON Na(MIN.GRADE), it STEEL TAM POST t0 support the fence through the life Of the project
601 MIN.TENSILE STRENGTH,W STABILZED
y� 2s2 VM=POST SELF-LOCIONO TIE-NYLON W(MIN.GRADE),
FENCING 500 MIN.TENSILE STRENGTH,UV STABILIZED
FENCING MATERIAL
�, wTagalAL
B-PMAX
VERTICAL POST
I
b� b
ELEVATION
FENCE ON SLOPE
ENVIRONMENTALLY
'r 'r
SENSITIVE AREA
F �lRMLE) BOUNDARY ELEVATION
HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE OR
POLYPROPYLENE MESH,AND SHALL BE
UV RESISTANT,ORANGE COLOR �.
aTATE OF
•w•PROTECTED
D LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT(DEEPER FOR
UNSTABLE SOIL_
2-2 WOOD OR MARK W.MAURER
STEEL TAM POST CERTIFICATE NO.000596
rrnur,w�sneeuwan Ma.rntasnn���r.�e
garre��uamt�®raw. n�rrwiwsmeswc
>w.�anus• uarnm�.
TYPICAL SECTION
HIGH VISIBILITY FENCE
WORK STANDARD PLAN 1-10.10-01
AREA SHEET i OF 1 SHEET
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Pasco SakoBch 111 06-11-09
ran Lsa�eo�a� un
ISOMETRIC
POST-SFF STD.SPEC."1.3(6)A
NOTES
ATTACH IN A MANNER THAT ASSURES FABRIC
IS FIRMLY HELD BY THE BACKUP SUPPORT
IN A WAY THAT REDUCES THE POTENTIAL 1 Install the ends of the silt fence to point slightly upslope to prevent
FOR FABRIC TEARING sediment from flowing around the ends of the fence.
2. Perform maintenance in accordance with Standard Speclflcatlon•
FASTEN GEOTEXTILE TO 8-01.3(9)A and 8-01.3(16).
ggCKUp POSTI EVER/Or(IN.)o.C. 3. Splices shall never be placed in low spots or sump locations.If
SUPPORT splices are located in low or sump areas,the fence may need to be
reinstalled unless the Project Engineer approves the installation.
z
BACKFILLED 6I 4. Install sift fencing parallel to mapped contour lines.
COMPACTED b
NATIVE SOIL
GEOTEXTILE
A
SELF�OCKING TIE-NYLON M(MIN.GRADE), _ SEE NOTE 1
FLOW 1200 MIN.TENSILE STRENGTH,UV STABILIZEDIt
-
AQ /
BURY GFOTEXTILE
IN TRENCH
GEOTEX TILE FOR SILT FENCE-SEE STANDARD
SPECIFICATION SECTION
t� 9-33.2(1),TABLE 6
1�
NOTE A
DURING EXCAVATION,MINIMIZE DISTURBING THE GROUND
AROUND TRENCH AS MUCH AS IS FEASIBLE,AND SMOOTH BACKUP
SURFACE FOLLOWING EXCAVATION TO AVOID CONCENT- 0'!^' POST SUPPORT
-RATING FLOWS WOOD OR STEEL.COMPACTION MUST BE ADEQUATE TO A' .�.� (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL)
PREVENT UNDERCUTTING FLOWS. o`�"j
TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL
(STEEL POSTS SHOWN)
INSTALL BACKUP SUPPORT FOR STATEGTON
of
�(`rin[�M2 VNGISTERED
THE GEOTEXTILE-SEE STANDARD yU✓!� REGISTERED
SPECIFICATION SECTION 6.01.3(9)A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ANDRA L.SALISBURY
ISO
TYPICAL SILT FENCE CERTIFICATE 40.000060
WITH BACKUP sUPPORT
= SEE NOTE 1 _ J ISOMETRIC ABI FXT away neowrn s.m�.e
c (STEEL POSTS SHOWN) ��X LE)
W
SILT FENCE
WITH BACKUP SUPPORT
STANDARD PLAN 1-30.10-02
SPUCED Sa TO PREVENT SILT LADEN WATCE SECTIONS ER FROM CLOSE
ESCAPING THRODUGGH EH THE ER SHEET 7 OF 1 SHEET
FENCE AT THE OVERLAP. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Pasco Bakotich 111 3/22M
SPLICE DETAIL All 81^axs�onu.ofrx �^TE
(STEEL POSTS SHOWN) —w.",0—Sr D.p r 4T...F-.A—
POST-SEE STD. NOTES
= SPEC.a-a1.318)A
1. Install the ends of the sift fence to point slightly upslope to prevent
m sediment from flowing around the ends of the fence
m _ T 2. Perform maintenance inaccordance with Standard Specifications
FASTEN GEOTEXTILE TO B-01.3(9)A and B-01.3(15).
POST EVERY 6'(IN.)O.C.
3 Splices shall never be placed in low spots or sump locations.If
GEOTE)MLE splices are located in low or sump areas,the fence may need to be
reinstalled unless the Project Engineer approves the installation.
z
BACKFILLED a 4. Install sift fencing parallel to mapped contour lines.
COMPACTED b
NATIVE SOIL
_ SELF-LOCKING TIE-NYLON INS(MIN.GRADE),
FLOW / 1200 MIN.TENSILE STRENGTH,UV STABILIZED
SEE NOTE 1
BURY GEOTEXTILE
IN TRENCH
� V /
NOTE
DURING EXCAVATION,MINIMIZE DISTURBING THE GROUND
AROUND TRENCH AS MUCH AS IS FEASIBLE,AND SMOOTH -Y�GEOTEXTILE FOR SILT FENCE-SEE STANDARD
SURFACE FOLLOWING EXCAVATION TO AVOID CONCENT- SPECIFICATION SECTION
RATING FLOWS.COMPACTION MUST BE ADEQUATE TO g® 9-33.2(1),TABLE a
PREVENT UNDERCUTTING FLOWS. �' f, POST
WOOD OR STEEL
TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL (TYPICAL)
(STEEL POSTS SHOWN)
STATE OF
FASTEN TO POST Mn (� WASHINOTON
EVERY 6'O.0 �� ��Vrn'(y�,V�j REGISTERED
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ANDRA L.SALISBURY
CERTIFICATE NO.000900
I / FABRIC(GEOTEXTILE)
(TYPICAL) __wre mrwwwcr.uwwrnr-xu
/ TYPICAL SILT FENCE u
SEE MOTE 1 WITHOUT BACKUP SUPPORT
ISOMETRIC SILT FENCE
(STEEL POSTS SHOWN)
STANDARD PLAN 1-30.15-02
SPLICED FENCE SECTIONS SHALL BE CLOSE ENOUGH SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
TOGETHER TO PREVENT SILT LADEN WATER FROM APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
ESCAPING THROUGH THE FENCE AT THE OVERLAP.
Pasco Bako6ch 111 3J22/13
SPLICE DETAIL 81-�w —
(WOOD POSTS SHOWN) T w_hWq`n S_Dq.rr-n Tr -Pw0 _
N POST-SEE STD. NOTES
z ISMC.W.S($)L
1. Install the ends of the high visibility sift fence to point slightly upslope
m to prevent sediment from flowing around the ends of the fence.
a�3 - T 2. Perform maintenance in accordance with Standard Speclflcallona
9-01.3(9)A and 8-01.3(16).
FASTEN GEOTEXTILE TO 3. Splices shall never be placed in low spots or sump locations.If
POST EVERY W'(IN.)O.C. splices are located in low or sump areas,the fence may need to be
reinstalled unless the Project Engineer approves the installabon.
GEOTEXTILE 4. Install sift fencing parallel to mapped contour lines.
Ag®
s
BACKFILLED a -
COMPACTED /�-_
NATIVE SOIL �� SELFIOCKING TIE^NYLON.(MIN.GRADE), 4Y �/ SEE NOTE 1
1201Y MIN.TENSILE STRENGTH,W STABILIZED
BURY GEOTEXTILE
IN TRENCH
mod'
GEOTEXTILE FOR HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE
COLOR-ORANGE-SEE STANDARD
�n Iy SPECIFICATION SECTION
. � 8-3
3
.2(1),TABLE B
NOTE
DURING EXCAVATION,MINIMIZE DISTURBING THE GROUND
AROUND TRENCH AS MUCH AS IS FEASIBLE,AND SMOOTH
SURFACE FOLLOWING EXCAVATION TO AVOID CONCENT-
RATING FLOWS.COMPACTION MUST BE ADEQUATE TO
PREVENT UNDERCUTTING FLOWS. S'
TYPICAL INSTALLATION DETAIL / J
(STEEL POSTS SHOWN)
POST-
WOOD OR STEEL
(TYPICAL) M STATE OF
� �(� V� WASHINGTON
/ TYPICAL HIGH VISIBILITY SILT FENCE V V REGISTERED
SEE NOTE 1 WRHOUT BACKUP SUPPORT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ISOMETRIC
(STEEL POSTS SHOWN) ANDRA L.SALISBURY
FASTEN GEOTEXTILE To f /f CERTIFICATE NO.000860
POST EVERY 6'(IN.)O C. / wu osawaaaw�aaur
�i r c�uvir.a s m n w e er�wv
FABRIC(GEOTEXTILE)
(TYPICAL)��-
HIGH VISIBILITY
SILT FENCE
STANDARD PLAN 1-30.17-00
SPUCED FENCE SECTIONS SHALL BE CLOSE ENOUGH TOGETHER SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
TO PREVENT SILT LADEN WATER FROM ESCAPING THROUGH THE APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
FENCE AT THE OVERLAP.JOINING SECTIONS SHALL NOT BE PLACED
IN LOW SPOTS OR IN SUMP LOCATIONS. Pasco Bakof9Ch III 3122113
arAre aeon eaafa� wIe
SPLICE DETAIL ink
(WOOD POSTS SHOWN)
9 NOTE
Perfarrn maintenance in 9=rdenoe with Standard
FENCE
SILT
STD.PLANM 100 GEOTE)MLE FOR TEMPORARY SILT FENCE Specification 8-O'1.3(9jA and 8-01.3(15).
PLACE SAND SAGS AS REQURED -SEE STD.SPEC.%Z&2(1),TABLE S
) AROUND CULVERT TO PROVIDE
pj SUPPORT FOR SILT FENCE
I
i
POST-SEE STD.SPEC.601.8(0)A)
i I
� I
QQ A b
CULVERT,BOX CULVERT,OR PIPE ARCH h EMBED POSTS INTO SAND
-END TREATMENT VARIES BAGS AS REQUIRED
W
O`ll��oF9 �
1
b
�G�o FLOWS
QUO
SILT FENCE DESIGN J
EDGE OF GEOTEXTLE�`• ~
SECTION OA
COMPOST BERM-SEE
8M PLAN 1.80.10
(y STATE OF
��� as0
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
MARK W.MAURER
O.OW
a� CERi1FICATE N0.0006a8
,.+rarr.saisceu.a+e.raw..�sa.r.a�we
CULVERT,BOX CULVERT,CN POPE ARCH w�oc.o.w.merr�.awi w�rra�mma..c
wowwro�n�w• wasp
-END TREATMENT VAREA
EROSION CONTROL
AT CULVERT ENDS
o�
STANDARD PLAN 1-30.20-00
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Owl
Pasco askodlch IN 09-20-07
'r RIR LAWBIaI®1 MR
Wei glow llOb D�p���l Ter�h/�
COMPOST BERM DESIGN �//
NOTES
0
1. Wattles shall be in accordance with Standard Sp
ecification
a' CONTOUR LINE(TYP.) 9-14.5(5). Install Wattles along contours. Installation shall
INt be in accordance with Standard Specification 8-01.3(10)
m ANGLE TERMINAL END UPHILL 24"TO 48" 2. Securely knot each end Of Wattle. Overlap adjacent Wattle
TO PREVENT FLOW AROUND WATTLE Y•Y•24"UN-TREATED ends 12"behind One another and SBCUfely tie together.
ALLOWABLE ALTERNATIVE / (TYP.) WOODEN STAKE(TYP.)
TIE-DOWN METHOD / 3. Compact excavated soil and trenches to prevent undercutting.
WATTLE 2! Additional staking may be necessary to prevent undercutting
1616 16 4. Install Wattle perpendicular to flow along contours.
TRENCH-SEE NOTE 1
5. Wattles shall be inspected regularly,and immediately after
a rainfall produces runoff,to ensure they remain thoroughly
entrenched and in contact with the soil.
8. Perform maintenance in accordance with Standard Speci-
Ir In fication 8-01.3(15).
�1 7. Refer to Standard Specification 8-01.3(16)for removal.
\ I.
O
�♦ Q�+OG \ W DIAMETER
MINIMUM
2"•2".24"WOODEN
.._..__ \ •\ STAKE(TYP.)
WArnE DETAIL
STAGGER OVERLAPS(TYP.)
AREA AVAILABLE FOR SEDIMENT
TRAPPING(TYP.)
PLAN VIEW STATE OF
VASHINGTON
�f7n(tt� REGISTERED
6PACING VARIES-SEE WATTLE c,�lll V IV� LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
BPACINO TABLE(TYR) U
Sandra L. Salisbury
i SANDRA L.SALISBURY
8"DIAMETER LICENSE NO.BW
WATTLE SPACING TABLE i oAtE .„eo ToM, .zo+
SLOPE MAXIMUM SPACING I � ^�.wr.r.+tea•
VATTLE(TYP.)"
1H:1V 1a-Ir SEE DETAIL WATTLE INSTALLATION
2N:1v zlr-Ir ON SLOPE
aH:1v x-tr STANDARD PLAN 1-30.30-01
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
411'IV 47-T APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
SECTION O Pasco Bakotich M 6110113
T_ a*.n oeaaHero�
WATTLE INSTALLATION ON SLOPES ��/w.Iyy.,arr Mynw,MYN T�pnl�lMn
NOTES
1 Compost Sods shall be In accordance with Standard Specification
9.14.5(6).
ANGLE TERMINAL END UPHILL 24"10 43"
Ak TO PREVENT FLOW AROUND SOCK 2. Securely knot each end of Compost Sock.Overlap ad)acent Compost
(TYP.) Sods ends 12"behind one another and securley 4e together.
3. Compost to be dispersed on site as determined by the Engineer,
ALLOWABLE ALTERNATIVE CONTOUR LINE when vegetation covers the surface.
TIE-DOWN METHOD (TYP) 4 If Erosion Control Blanket is specified,place Compost Sods on top
0 of blanket.See Standard Plan 1-60.10.
5 Install Compost Sods perpendicular to flow along contours
rc
LL -A p slope side of the Compost Sods
m � when accumulation has reached 112 of the effective height of the
Compost Sods.o
SPACING VARIES(TYP.) 7. Perform maintenance in accordance with Standard SpecMcatlon
DISTURBED FACING
SOCK 1. 8-01.3(16).
SPACING TABLE
AREA 6. Refer to Standard Specification 8-01.3(16)for removal.
BIODEGRADABLE
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET-
\ SEE NOTE 4
�� \ �PO\pG \\ r .•..' COMP SEE DETAIL SOCK(TYP.)-
11 2".2"+24"UNTREATED
1 \ WOODEN STAKE(TYP.) PROTECTED
STAGGER OVERLAPS J AREA
(TYP.) n.
\ SECTION O
-; PLAN VIEW
DRAINAGE GRATE(CIRCULAR
' GRATE SHOWN)
STATE OF
2".Z".24` UNTREATED = Aa® nn�1 wAS NGTON
WOODEN STAKE , �� 2"-2"-24" UN-TREATED WOODEN REGISTERED
EXCESS SOCK MATERIAL. J STAKE,SPACED EVERY 36"O.C.(TYP.) �u� LMDSCAPE ARCHITECT
DRAWN IN AND TIED OFF--
SECURELY(TYP.) Yk Q ��m L.S�etwly
COMPOST SOCK- SANDRA L.SALISBURY
SEE NOTE 1 �/ t4 LICENSE NO.860
COMPOST SOCK^
•-\ EROSION CONTROL BLANKET- I�I�/ SEE DETAIL DATE: 'Mn°6 +1
•- I SEE NOTE 4
8" DIAMETER
COMPOST SOCK SPACING TABLE
SLOPE MAXIMUM SPACING o 1r
10' a' liall
COMPOST SOCK
1V - z '1H VAM7= I OVERLAP STANDARD PLAN 1-30.40-01
2H 1V 20-a' (M')
I SHEET i OF 1 SHEET
3H IV 30'-Cr it APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
- - MINIMUM�"111
aH ,v 40'-a' Pasco Bakotich!!! W1QH3
ISOMETRIC VIEW .0k `T"1E___ —
COMPOST SOCK DETAIL CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION 7 Vh-h —si. C.p�.171—P—Y.
o NOTES
INLET OEOTE)MLE 1. Prefabricated units may be used in ieu of the design
shown on this plan upon approval of the Engineer.
2. Structure shall be constructed such that geotextie
material shell be fastened to posts creating a seam-
less joint
} j 3. Ensure that ponding height of water does not cause
1 flooding on adjacent roadways or private property.
4. Perform maintenance in accordance with Standard
Specification 9-01.3(15).
A --
}
1
PLAN VIEW
(CROSS BRACES NOT SHOWN)
FASTEN CROSS BRACES TOGETHER MATH
POST(SEE STD.SPEC."1.3(QIA). SCREM,NAILS.NYLON TIES OR WARE ATTACH WOOD OR METAL CROSS
BRACES TO STABILE WOOD
aaQ
OEOTE)MLE FOR TEMPORARY SILT FENCE I
-SEE STD.SPEC&M.2(1),TABLE e_,�f
1 2
IS
COMPACTED NATNE SOIL h STATE OF
WASHI
F10� 1 dvjl)(✓d LANDSCAPE
RCH
GRATE
�� LN09�('lE ARCHTEO Cf
MARK W.MAl1RER
SILT FENCE-SEE�... CERTIFICATE NO,000608
STD.PLAN 130.10
Y•y j rIINY�YOpOMY MMY�Y,YIi 111II !lYIYJ
* 2! wR11i10111W�Y101{.Yn,W nlN
BURY OEOTD(TILE IN TRENCH _�-_ 1 �`
INLET TEMPORARY SILT FENCE
INLETFOR INLET PROTECTION
Q��� IN UNPAVED AREAS
STANDARD PLAN 1.40.10-00
ISOMETRIC VIEW SHEET 1 of 1 SHEET
(ENTIRE FENCE NOT SHOWN APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
SECTION O FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES)
Pasco Baitotich 111 09-2O-07
36'MAX.BETWEEN BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL- GENERAL NOTES
STAKES SEE STANDARD SPECIFICATION
9.14.6(4)(TYP.) BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL- 1. Check Dams shall meet the requirements of Standard
2'.2'■24'UN-TREATED SPACE CHECK DAMS SO THAT SEE STANDARD SPECIFICATION Specifications 8-01.3(6)and 9-14.5(4).
J WOODEN STAKE(TYP.) PgNTS-A-AND'B'ARE AT M74.6(4)(TYP.)
B SPILLWAY THE SAME ELEVATION 2. In channels,install the sloped ends of the Check Dam a
8"MINIMUM DIAMETER minimum of 8"higher than the spillway to ensure water
W°o e (7YP) flows over the dam and not around it.
v �� FLowLwE 3. Perform maintenance in accordance with Standard
cry. ^' Specification 8-01.3(15).
m ,\ 4. Remove ti 8-01.3(18)Dams in accordance with StandardSpecifica
CHANNEL PROFILE-SECTION O
0
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION BIODEGRADABLE CHECK DAM
NOTE
BIODEGRADABLE CHECK DAM 1 Biodegradable Check Dams may need additional or
modified staking to prevent undercutting or scouring.
SPILLWAY SIDE PROTECTION
VARIES-S' Or
MIN.
NON-BIODEGRADABLE CHECK DAM
r MIN. NOTES
EXISTING
CHANNEL - I
1. Non-Biodegradable Manufactured Check Dam devices approved
EFFECTIVE DAM HEIGHT for use under Standard Specification 9-14.5(4)shall be installed
VARIES BASED per manufacturers recommendations and shall perform in accord-
ELEVATION ON FLOW
ance with Standard Specification 8-01.3(6).
EFFECTIVE HEIGHT 2. Rock Check Dams shall be placed outside of the clear zone or@DAM,
STATE OF
VARIES BASED NON-BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL- behind traffic bamer. WASeuNGTON
ON FLOW SPILLWAY- SEE STANDARD SPECIFICATION REGISTERED
9-14.6(4)B (TYP.) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
3. To ensure adequate damming bins,Rock Check Dams used assediment control may need to be enhanced with plastic that Sandra L.Salisbury
B'MIN. SPACE CHECK DAMS SO THAT POINTS"A•AND Ir meets the requirements of Standard Specification 9-14.5(3) SANDRA L.SALISBURY
,Vor fabric that meets the eotextile re uirements of StandardLICENSE NO.860
ARE THE SAME ELEVATION SPILLWAY Specification 9.33.2(1)Table 6. q June S,2013
tiwaor.uaAa�aw�aau
r•NM'•Fr� +a reawnearrr
A
_____ _____________________B nw�waow.nrrwmA wr.ar.....r.i.ww.a.m.�m..r.
FLp_=i .1V �' �w.raanov.ov.w..emrmwaa�nr
FLOVN3NE CHECK DAMS ON
CHANNELS
EXTENDED SECTION O STANDARD PLAN 1-50.20-01
SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
Pasco Bakodch UI 611W13
srAn kiFalaN uas�k wre
NON-BIODEGRADABLE CHECK DAM
1
i MIN.
m 3 QUARRY
?-O'BETR.INO DEPTH 1l7 d1 SPALLS b COARSE COMPOST
III ir
7— ,,
GROUND LINE X
Yx
TEM ORARY SILT FENCEOR COMPOST SOCK `
SECTION
OUTFLOW CHAPINEL IS
CONSTRUCTED BY EXCAVATION NOTE 2X
S71
' I PLACE GEOTEXTILE UNDER THE SPILLWAY AND SIDE SLOPES.PROVIDE A
1'.P DEPTH OVERFLOW CONTINUOUS LAYER BETWEEN THE GRAVEUROCK AND THE NATIVE EARTHEN MATERIAL
X-1'-P FOR SLOPES 4M:1 V OR FLATTER
X-V-B'FOR SLOPES STEEPER THAN 4HAV
1� d1 COMPACTED NATIVE MATERIAL
Z CONSTRUCTED BY EXCAVATION TYPICAL SECTION
OR EMBANKMENT
COMPOST BERM DETAIL
SEDIMENT TRAP BOTTOM 1'-P DEPTH
OF 2'.4'ROCK
1'-P DEPTH OF 3M-1 12'
VWSHED GRAVEL BACKFILL PROVIDE GEOTEXTILE
SEE STD.SPEC.SECTION 9M
SECTION OA
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP
EXISTING ROAD
25'-P R MIN.OYP.)
ISTATE OF
4'-B'QUARRY SPALLS ()�� m"NOTON
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
V MARK W.MAURER
1 CERTFlCATE NO.OOOSYB
qR MIfM•iI11�l���COLI�
AS REQUIRED-I MIN..
EXCEPT MAY BE REDUCED 1srnwnen�ra•�rrrvnom.�uanaear
TO OO'MIN.FOR SITES WITH
LESS THAN ONE ACRE OF EXPOSED 901E MISCELLANEOUS
1 PLACE CONSTRUCTION GEOTFMIL.E FOR EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
SOIL STABILIZATION AND A MINIMUM OF OAV 1'-Cr MN.
CRUSHED ROCK UNDER THE SPALLS,FROM THE STANDARD PLAN 1-80.10-01
EDGE OF THE EXISTING ROADWAY TO THE RADIUS
RETURNS,OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET
INGRESS/EGRESS AREA 16-PMIN. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION
13ONETIOC VIEW Pasco BskoBch 111 08-11-09
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SEPA CHECKLIST
$385 - Single Family (Mason County Permit Center Use)
$630 - Non-Single Family 0 to 9.99 Acres SEP -
$755 -10 to 20 Acres
$945 - Over 20 Acres Date Rcvd:
$2,525 + 70/hr- EIS (IDS)
PN:
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of
this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or
avoid impacts from the proposal) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are
significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or
give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be
able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really
do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply".
Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental
effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional
information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
There is a fee required, for the processing of the checklist, see above for the appropriate fee. Please make your check
payable to"Mason County Treasurer".
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project: Mason PUD#1 3ac FPA conversion
2. Name of applicant: Steven Taylor, General Manager
Property owner: Mason PUD#1
3. Applicant mailing address: N 21971 Hwy. 101, Shelton, WA. 98584
Applicant phone numbers: 360.877.5249
4. Date checklist prepared: January 15, 2016
5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County
Mason County SEPA Checklist 1
6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable):
November 2015, until completed
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,
explain.
The harvest site will be used as part of the future expansion of Mason PUD#1's Operation and administration facilities
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to
this proposal.
A Habitat Management Plan(HMP)has been prepared for on-site Pileated Woodpecker forage habitat. The mitigation area
will require approximately 0.50 to 0.60 acres of retained timber on-site. This area is slated to be positioned in the
Northwest corner of the FPA site. See Reeve Sherwood Consulting, LLC report for clarity.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the
property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
Not for the FPA but a land use application and conditions of approval for the future site development.A right/left turn
lane on Highway 101 may need approval from the state prior to future development.
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and
site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.
You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional
specific information on project description.)
This FPA conversion is approximately 4 acres in size and will be used for a portion of the overall master plan for the
Mason PUD#1 operation and administration facility. The total site is approximately 20 acres which includes four tax
parcels. This FPA conversion includes harvesting timber from tax lot 42223-34-00000 and portions of lot 42223-34-00020
and 42223-34-00020.
Tax lot 42223-34-00100 was previous harvested under a state FPA and will be part of the site plan development which has
had variance request submitted to lift the development moratorium under a separate proposal.
12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of
your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site
plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
to this checklist.
The land is adjacent to the southeast corner of the intersection of North Potlatch Road and Highway 101 Shelton
Washington. The land lies in the SW 114, SE 114 of Section 23, Township 22 North, Range 4 West. Within Tax Lots
42223-34-00000 and portions of 42223-34-00020 and 42223-34-00030. Please see map for clarity.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 2
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH:
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other(explain).
Generally sloping up from east to the west at abort 7 to 9%.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The steepest slope is about 9%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know
the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
As classified by USDA National Cooperative Soil Survey, the harvest site in 100%Grove gravelly sandy loam(Gk map
unit symbol)and is classified as not being prime farmland.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
None known,A Geo-techincal evaluation has been conducted for the adjacent site and moratorium release. The report is
attached to this application.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of
fill.
There is not any need for filling or grading for this FPA because the stumps are going to be left in place until final
land use is granted.Rubber tired skidders can access the whole harvest site. Grading of the future developed site could
be about 27000 yd's cut and 28,000 yds fill.Fill material will be generated from on-site cuts.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Erosion control and stormwater Best Management Practices will be employed on-site to minimize and mitigate
sediment leaving the site.Some minor on-site erosion could happen but should be limited to within the site and project
boundary.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
The end project could end up with 20 to 35%of the site being covered with buildings,parking,storage and
landscaping resulting in different degrees of imperviousness.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
At full build out, the site will utilize conveyance, sediment retention and stormwater runoff BMP's that will include
treatment, landscape, retention and infiltration where appropriate to meet Mason County's and Ecology's clean
water requirements. The Final Site design will also incorporate Low Impact Development storm facilities to treat
runoff from drive and parking areas.
2. AIR:
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood
smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities, if known.
During harvest the use of logging equipment and log trucks may cause dust to enter the air in completed during the dry
season.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None Known
Mason County SEPA Checklist 3
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
all equipment is equiped with measures to reduce impacts and also timing of work to be completed will be
considered to reduce dust in the air.
3 WATER:
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and
seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
No there is not any bodies of water,streams of wetlands within 200 feet of the site.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described waters? If yes,
please describe and attach available plans.
None
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or
wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and
approximate quantities if known.
None
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of
waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No, all stormwater runoff is planned to infiltrated on-site.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
No ground water will be withdrawn or discharged for this FPA.Full build out of the site may use infiltration of
stormwater runoff after treatment for runoff control.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 4
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any
(for example; domestic sewage, industrial, containing the following chemicals..., agricultural, etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served
(if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve.
At this time there is not any discharge anticipated.
c. Water runoff(including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal, if any(include
quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters?
For the FPA standard BMP's will be employed to keep stormwater runoff from leaving the site. where possible the vegetation
(under growth of the trees)will be left in tact. Where ground cover is disturbed or non-existent grass seed and hay mulch will
be employed to reduce the possibility of erosion. The runoff pattern will not be changed but sediment laden water will not be
allowed to leave the site at higher levels than allowed by the state DOE. The runoff will be conveyed to the roadside ditch of
Hwy 101.After some time the water, if not infiltrated into the ground will be conveyed to Puget Sound.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so, generally describe.
No
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
As mentioned above, BMP for erosion control and treatment of runoff will be applied to this project.See SWPPP
prepared for this project.
4. PLANTS:
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
x other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Marketable trees and some under brush as needed to clear the land for the next phase of the site development.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 5
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,
if any:
At full build out the site will be stabili ed with the required landscape plantings.
6. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the
site:
Birds: awk eron eagle ongbir other Pileated Woodpecker
Mammals: deer bear, elk, beaver, other
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known. The Pileated Woodpecker is not a listed species but is a bird of importance with the State.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Ground vegetation will be left as much as practical at the end of the FPA but will be removed for full build out.A Habitat
Mitigation Area will be set aside and enhancedper the recommendations of the Reeve Sherwood report. The HMA will
be located in the NW corner of the site.
6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES:
a. What kinds of energy(electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed project's
energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
None,for full build out electricity will be needed for heating.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe.
No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed
measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
None for this proposal, the PUD is researching the viability of placing a community solar array on-site. Also building
material, and techniques will be used to reduce energy impact at full build out.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 6
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,
spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
None
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Fire and Medical if an accident occurs during the felling and harvesting of trees.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Have safety meeting prior to starting the project and the beginning of each work week.
b. Noise.
1) What types of noise exist in the area that may affect your project(for example: traffic, equipment,
operation, other)?
Off-road vehicles, chain saws, heavy equipment and log trucks leaving the site.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a
long-term basis(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hour's noise would
come from the site.
The noise levels would be consistent with construction vehicles. The logging operation will occur during the daylight hours
Monday through Friday.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
This FPA project will be completed in a short time period and all vehicles are equiped with mufflers. For chain saw the
operator will wear hearing protection.
8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE:
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The property south of the site is the current main office and operation center for Mason PUD#1. East across Hwy 101 is
commercial, west and north is timber production. The property west and adjacent to this project was recently harvested
prior to Mason PUD41 acquiring ownership and is currently going through the county hearing process to remove the
development moratorium.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
On TL 42223-34-00000 there are not any structures. TL 42223-34-00020 and 00030 have Mason PUD#1 main office
operations facilities.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what?
Mason County SEPA Checklist 7
Not with this proposal, but at full build-out an existing structure known as the womens club will be removed.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Rural Commercial2(RC2), Rural Residential20(RR20)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Rural
g. If applicable,what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? none
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive"area? If so, specify.
Only that area as identified in the Reeve Sherwood Report.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
None
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans:
As required.
9. HOUSING:
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None
10. AESTHETICS:
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;what is the principal exterior
building material(s) proposed?
None
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None
Mason County SEPA Checklist 8
11. LIGHT AND GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
None
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal:
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None
12. RECREATION:
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Fishing, hiking, boating
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None
13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION:
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known
to be on or next to the site? If so,generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance
known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None
Mason County SEPA Checklist 9
14. TRANSPORTATION:
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street
system. Show on site plans, if any.
The site has access to HWY. 101 via N Potlatch Rd.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system?
Show on site plans, if any.
Yes, it is served by Route 8 of the Mason Transit Authority(MTA).
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
The completed project will have parking for equipment, staff, and customers for doing regular business with Mason
PUD#1. The project will eliminate no existing parking spaces.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including
driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
Half-width frontage improvements and center right/left turn lane maybe required at the intersection of HWY101 and
N Potlatch RD.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
O.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
Unknown. A daffic study may have to be completed prior to frill build out.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
As needed and required based on a traffic impact study.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service(for example: fire protection, police protection,
health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe:
Yo.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any:
None at this time.
16. UTILITIES:
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site ec rici ra a e <E use service telephone
ni ary sew a tic syste other:
tsoo'sown
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity that might be needed.
None at this time. Mason PUD#1 is the electric and water purveyor in this area.
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying
on them to make its decision. h'o/
Applicant Signature: Y��e `� Lr Date: t 16
Mason County SEPA Checkhs 10
BROWN
& KYSAR
INC.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
For
Mason PUD 1 -4ac Forest Practice Application
Prepared For
Mason County
Owner Developer Operator/Contractor
Mason County PUD No.1 NA NA
N 21971 HWY 101
Shelton, WA 98584
Project Site Location
SE1/4, SW1/4, of Section 23, Township 22 North, Range 4 West
Parcel No. 42223-34-00000 and part of Parcel No.'s 42223-34-00030 & 42223-60020
SWPPP Prepared By
Brown and Kysar, Inc.
1315 Grace Ave
Battle Ground, WA, 98604
360-687-3966
Byron Woltersdorf, P.E, Permits, Environmental and Real Estate
SWPPP Preparation Date
January 19, 2016
Approximate Project Construction Dates
January 2016, until completed
P.O.Box 1720 1 Battle Ground,WA 98604 1 (p)360.687.3966 1 www.bki.cc
SWPPP ELEMENTS NARRATIVE
Page 2
TYPE IV FOREST PRACTICE APPLICATION SWPPP ELEMENTS NARRATIVE
(Follows Template Guidelines)
Project Description
This project involves the clearing of all timber on tax parcels 42223-40-00000, and partial tax
parcels 42223-34-00030 and 42223-34-60020, totaling about 4ac.The property is located west
of Hwy 101 and south North Potlatch Road in Shelton WA, but under Mason County
jurisdiction. Existing access will be used and no new roads are planned be constructed with this
F PA.
On site soils are comprised of well drained sandy loam, sand and gravel, The National
Cooperative Soil Survey classifies soils on these parcels and wholly Gk (Grove Gravelly sandy
loam, 5 to 15% slopes.) A Geotechnical report will be completed in accordance with Mason
County Resource Ordinance. The subject area is located within the Hood Canal drainage basin.
The project is planned to start November, 2015 and will take approximately 1 week to remove
the trees. Logging may be done with a faller and excavator to yard and load log trucks. Slash
will be removed by burning or truck depending on the conditions of the site and weather.
Existing vegetation consists of consistent marketable timber with underbrush.
The final intended use of this land after logging will be conversion of all —20 acres to Mason
PUD 1 main office and operation facility that could also house a training center for line crews
and a community solar project for PUD customers.
Element 1 — Preserve Vegetation/Mark Clearing Limits
The clearing limits will be marked and flagged, trees within the site will be cut and removed.
The North boundary is N Potlatch Road, the West boundary is denoted by the cut line of state
FPA #2417239 and the South and East boundaries are the improved areas of Mason PUD 1
current operation facilities adjacent to Hwy 101.
Element 2— Establish Construction Access
The logging access will occur at the existing driveway access located on North Potlatch Road at
the north boundary of the harvest area. A construction entrance may need to be improved to
meet BMP C105 "Stabilized construction entrance/exit" if necessary to control sediment
tracking.
• BMP C105: Stabilized construction entrance/exit
Element 3—Control Flow Rates
The logging will take place on minimal sloping ground with an estimated grade of 6%to 9%
sloping from the west down to the east. The soil is well drained and there is no anticipated
P.O.Box 1720 1 Battle Ground,WA 98604 1 (p)360.687.3966 1 (f)360.687.5139 1 www.bki.cc
SWPPP ELEMENTS NARRATIVE
Page 3
runoff or erosion from this site. The south and east boundaries are down slope from the planed
logging operation and will utilize BMPs C235 "Straw Wattles", C209 "Outlet Protection" as
needed. These BMPs will promote Infiltration of runoff within the site boundary. No offsite
runoff is anticipated.
• BMP C235: Wattles
• BMP C209: Outlet Protection
Element 4— Install Sediment Controls
A berm C200"Interceptor Dike and Swale" along with BMP C233 "Silt Fence" will be placed
along the South and East boundaries. As there is not any runoff anticipated from this site, the
suggested BMPs will promote infiltration of runoff into the very sandy, gravely soils. No runoff
is anticipated from the site.
• BMP C200: Interceptor Dike and Swale
• BMP C233: Silt Fence
Element 5—Stabilize Soils
Were necessary Worked soils will utilize BMPs C120 "Temporary and Permanent Seeding" and
C121 "Mulching." Were the loading operation takes place there will most likely be worked soils
that need to be stabilized.
• BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding
• BMP 121: Mulching
Element 6— Protect Slopes
N/A; No cuts are proposed with this logging operation and therefore BMPs are not needed for
slope protection.
Element 7— Protect Drain Inlets
N/A
For the same reason as above in Element 6 there are no roads or conveyance systems
proposed.
Element 8—Stabilize Channels and Outlets
P.O.Box 1720 1 Battle Ground,WA 98604 1 (p)360.687.3966 1 (f)360.687.5139 1 www.bki.cc
SWPPP ELEMENTS NARRATIVE
Page 4
N/A
Same reasoning as above.
Element 9—Control Pollutants
Loggers will exercise caution when filing and maintaining their equipment to control potential
pollutants.
Element 10—Control De-Watering
N/A
Dewatering is not being completed under this application.
Element 11— Maintain BMPs
Performance of implemented BMPs shall be monitored on a weekly basis and after storm
events. If it is necessary to improve and repair BMPs, it shall happen on an as needed basis.
Inspections can be performed by Mason County PUD No.1 staff since the site is adjacent to
their current facilities.
Element 12— Manage the Project
Project management shall incorporate practices and BMPs stated in Elements 1 through 11.
Logging to be completed as soon as possible.
Element 13— Protect Low Impact Development BMPs
N/A
No LID BMPs.
P.O.Box 1720 1 Battle Ground,WA 98604 1 (p)360.687.3966 1 (f)360.687.5139 1 www.bki.cc
MASON COPEVENTION PLAN
CONTACT INFORMATION
MASON COUNTY PUD#1 (OWNER/APPLICAI
STEVEN TAYLOR �.
GENERAL MANAGER MAT ON
N 21971 HWY 101 , et Title
SHELTON, WA 98584 ■ Pi COVER SHEET
P2 STORMWATER RUNOFF AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
BROWN&KYSAR(APPLICANT): �t:+P3 POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE CRITICAL AREAS
P4 DETAILS
B IR ON WOL TERSD ORF, P.E.
1315 SE GRACE AVE., SUITE 201
BATTLEGROUND, WA 98604
(360) 607-0643
byron w@bki.cc Know what's below.
Call before you dig.
SITE ADDRESS:
22021 N US HIGHWAY 101 UTILITY NOTE
SHELTON, WA 98584 UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION AS SHOWN ARE
PER LOCATES PROVIDED BY PUBLIC UTILITY AND
MASON COUNTY PUD #1 AND OBSERVED EVIDENCE
OF ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES. BROWN &
VICINITY MAP KYSAR INC. MAKES NO CERTIFICATION AS TO THE
g NTS LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
r
IHOODSP
$ SITE LOCATION
PRELIMINARY SITE PLANNING
COVER SHEET
3
MASON COUNTY PUD NO.1 naDsoNci COUNTY
N 21971 HWY. 101 Rwo
_ SHELTON, WA 98584
SHELTON, WA CONTRACT NO: BKI PROJECT NO:
REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DESIGNER REVIEWER
0 01/19/16 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP PPG BAW
iE
BROWN
PARCEL 42223-34-00000, 42223-34- 9 &KYSAR O p 1
42223-34-60020 INC
THIS LINE IS 1"LONG AT THE CORRECT SCALE REVISION 1 / 4
�- --�
-ERRING LIMITS TO BE MARKED AND FLAGGED. NORTHERN
DUNDARY IS N POTLATCH RD., WESTERN BOUNDARY IS
VSTING CUT LINE OF STATE FPA #2417239, SOUTHERN
ND EASTERN BOUNDARY MARKED WITH SILT FENCE.
,WILD
J� VSTING GRAVEL ROADS ENTERING NORTHERN BOUNDARY
�* ) BE USED. BMP C105 - STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION
VTRANCE/EXIT TO BE IMPLEMENTED IF NECESSARY TO
DNTROL SEDIMENT TRACKING.
LOGGED AR£..
NP C209 - OUTLET PROTECTION TO BE USED WHERE
NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION TCESSARY AT TOE OF SLOPE TO PROMOTE INFILTRATION
= RUNOFF WITHIN THE SITE BOUNDARY.
UP C120 - TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING, BMP
121 - MULCHING TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO STABILIZE
DRKED/EXPOSED SOILS.
TE CLEARING PLANNED TO START NOV.. 2015 REQUIRING
PPROXIMATELY A WEEK OF LABOR.
PARCEL 42223-34-00100
0
NOT PART OF THIS 0 100' 200'
APPLICATION
SILT FENCE ol
BMP C233 _ PRELIMINARY SITE PLANNING
STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN
—
,. _ MASON COUNTY PUD N0.1 MASON COUNTY
�'' N 21971 HWY. 101 Rem
SHELTON, WA 98584
- CONTRACT N0: BKI PROJECT N0:
AREA �' '�� -'°'' REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DESIGNER REVIEWER
76
' 0 01/19/16 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP PPG BAW
C
P BROWN
&KYSAR O P2
INC
THIS LINE IS 1"LONG AT THE CORRECT SCALE REVISION 2 / 4
LEGEND
SLOPE > 5%ANDSLIDE F
'AVEL P/T
HAZARD AREA BUFFER ZONE
PARCEL 42223-J_ PROPERTY BOUNDARY
\
\
\ NOT PART OF 71
2
i
i�
N_
/ 0 200' 400'
PRELIMINARY SITE PLANNING
POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
MASON COUNTY PUD N0.1 MASON u�;
N 21971 HWY. 101
SHELTON, WA 98584
CONTRACT NO: BKI PROJECT NO:
REVI DATE I REVISION DESCRIPTION DESIGNER REVIEWER
p 0 01/19/16 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP PPG BAW
8
if
g
BROWN
&KYSAR
O P3
INC
THIS LINE IS 1"LONG AT THE CORRECT SCALE
REVISION 3 4/
_Vs IFE fro.
fREC f4,)rfM
mores
1. Watlfs ff[n M h a,aprdar g OM L" kw fpacNsaaan
S FAafc ,,_(TRETD beiattdFdflp�ShndWSPWW4mNWaaA10)
poet ET4Rv o-(N)Dc.
GEOTEATILE-` _ 2 Sautab b"eaa11 atd d Wadb Omw us"m Wadb
f r.r.x IaaTfFAY® N0 12*Edlad Nla wI0-and 8—.*IY 09-&-.
fEGGmI srA�(rpl
ercvluty a 3 CaRpact frafamd 901 ald aaldw tp OIaFNd IfdalE�aM,O.
CdIPACTED� b
runvE sGR ` • ATRE � /dtlMiwd a1allYlp�Y a�b Paws GnderaAtrlp.
alama Udlaa papndlmAw M Ion MWV C.M.a.
FL
fEU-LOCIM4 nE-NnON M IWN ORADEI. 5. NNals WW M�pd afd MgWo 1. W m dNO*-W
OW I=11N TFNBIE STRENGTK Uv STAS
v •AiFIY profit n ff to w t"AInN^"-04M'
MIdN�CISd efd In ci~ t th. W.
ParfWm manlerWrDa n aCoon*to W Stfrdard SpacF
�, Ifcanp,I 3-o1.x,s1
7. Rehv w Standard Spocifitation 841.3416)for removal.
KOY GEMEKTRF
b
t�' r�Eswt
air
j i
MOTE �...
pURRIG IXGVAnON MINIMIZE pSIMM.0 THE GAOtMP
AROUND TRENCH AS MUCH AS IS FEASafLE.AND SMOOTH
SURFACE FOLLOV.IHG IXC/vA t0 wvOp['NCENT-
RATING F —.LOYS COWACTION WST BE ApE01MTE TO
!'REVENT MDERCIfTTING FLOWS
TYMAL WSTALLAT)ON DETAIL
ISTE6 POSTS SF1OWK
SPATE OF
":OA�� WAaNNGTd
REGsrEREp
i'' %� P.P� xnaietnlRs �rwTna_� p�d LArc�uwEARwr�t
Sandra L.sMif4ury
• % SANpM L ulaaGNY
��� LIGEIE ND.am
/ MlE AM ta.a)tf
WE NOTE I • �•• `�
°kT�ewrnEIIdL
� WATTLE INSTALLAnoN
ON SLOPE
pp - STANDARD PLAN 1-30.30-01
sIHT,OF,SFEEI __.__
g APPROVED FOR PUSI.ICATION
Prco��R 6MOJ73
SL.OpES
SILT FENCE DETAI
E
i
n
EXISTI!
PRELIMINARY SITE PLANNING
y DETAILS
MASON COUNTY PUD NO.1 MASON COUNTY
N 21971 HWY. 101 pelt D
SHELTON, WA 98584
PUCE CONSTRUC'
CRRUS eo ROOCCKuiCONTRACT NO: BKI PROJECT NO:
EDGE OF THE EMI
RETURNS,OR AS C EV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DESIGNER REVIEWER
0 01/19/16 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP PPG BAW
g
BROWN&KYSAR OP4
INCg REVISION 4 / 4
€ THIS LINE IS 1"LONG AT THE CORRECT SCALE
Mason County
Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan Submittal Checklist
Project Name: Mason County PUD No.1 Type IV FPA
Parcel #'s: 42223-34-0000
County Project No.:
Author of Report: Byron Woltersdorf
Minimum Requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual
The Stormwater checklist identifies the minimum requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual.
The Checklist is intended to identify the locations within the plan that addresses the minimum
requirements. Mason County will not perform a technical evaluation of the submittal. Rather, the
checklist provides a guide to allow Mason County to review the submittal and determine if the applicant
has addressed the minimum features that make up a Stormwater plan.
It is incumbent upon the applicant and his/her engineer to fulfill all the applicable requirements of the
2005 Stormwater Plan as it relates to the proposed project. Review by Mason County is intended to
determine if the plan has addressed the minimum requirements. Applicant's engineer shall be responsible
for the technical accuracy of the submitted Stormwater plan.
During construction of the project, the stormwater plan engineer of record or his/her authorized
representative shall inspect the site to ensure the stormwater plan is being implemented as designed. Upon
completion of the project, the engineer or his authorized representative shall be required to certify that the
stormwater plan has been implemented as designed.
Failure to meet the minimum requirements could result in delay or rejection of the application until the
deficiencies are corrected.
Section I—Construction SWPPP Narrative
1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements
x a. Describe how each of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Element has been
addressed though the Construction SWPPP.
x b. Identify the type and location of BMPs used to satisfy the required element.
x c. Written justification identifying the reason an element is not applicable to the proposal.
12 Required Elements—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
x 1. Mark Clearing Limits, See page/paragraph Page 2(Clearing limits marked andJlagged)
x 2. Establish Construction Access, See page/paragraph Page 2(BMP C105)
x 3. Control Flow Rates, See page/paragraph Page 2(BMP C235,BMP C209)
x 4. Install Sediment Controls, See page/paragraph Page 3(BMP C233,BMP C200)
x 5. Stabilize Soils, See page/paragraph Page 3(BMP C120,BMP C121)
IACommunity DevelopmentTAOSTORMWATER 1 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
x 6. Protect Slopes, See page/paragraph Page 3(N/A-explained in narrative)
x 7. Protect Drain Inlets, See page/paragraph Page 3(N/A-explained in narrative)
x 8. Stabilize Channels and Outlets, See page/paragraph Page 3,4(N/A-explained in narrative)
x 9. Control Pollutants, See page/paragraph Page 4(Loggers to exercise caution when f:ling/maimaining equipment)
x 10. Control De- Watering, See page/paragraph Page 4(N/A-explained in narrative)
X 11. Maintain BMPs, See page/paragraph Page 4(BMPs monitored weekly and after storm events)
Page 4(Incorporate practices and BMPs.Complete logging as soon as
x 12. Manage the Project, See page/paragraph possible)
2. Project Description
x a. Total project area. Acres 4 Sq. Ft. 174,240
N/A b. Total proposed impervious area. Acres Sq. Ft.
N/A c. Total proposed are to be disturbed, included off-site borrow and fill areas.
Acres ?. Sq. Ft.
N/A d. Total volumes of proposed cut and fill. Cubic Yards
3. Existing Site Conditions
x a. Description of the existing topography. See page/paragraph Page 2-Paragraph 2
x b. Description of the existing vegetation. See page/paragraph Page 2-Paragraph 3
x c. Description of the existing drainage. See page/paragraph Page 2-Paragraph 2
4. Adjacent Areas
x I. Description of adjacent areas that may be affected by the site disturbance
N/A a. Streams, See page/paragraph
N/A b. Lakes, See page/paragraph
N/A c. Wetlands, See page/paragraph
N/A d. Residential Areas, See page/paragraph
x e. Roads, See page/paragraph Access road is away from highway
N/A f. Other, See page/paragraph
N/A II. Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water.
(Minimum distance of 400 yards), See page/paragraph
5. Critical Areas
x a. Description of critical areas that are on or adjacent to the site.
See page/paragraph Potential landslide hazard area(Sheet 3),HMP Report(pileated woodpecker)-see Section 3
X b. Description of special requirements for working in or near critical areas.
See page/paragraph Geotech site analysis to provide recommendations
I:\Community DevelopmentTAOSTORMWATER 2 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
6. Soils
Description of on-site soils.
x a. Soil name(s), See page/paragraph Sandy loan,sand and gravel
x b. Soil mapping unit, See page/paragraph Gx
c. Erodibility, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation(Page 2),Section 6.14(Page 16)
d. Settleability, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Section 6.6(Page 11)
e. Permeability, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation(Page 2)
f. Depth, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Section 4.2.1(Page 5),Appendix B-Subsurface Exploration Logs
g. Texture, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Section 4.2.1(Page S)
h. Soil Structure, See page/paragraph Geotechnical site investigation-Appendix A(Lab Test Results),Appendix B(Exp.Logs)
7. Erosion Problem Areas
x Description of potential erosion problems on site. See page/paragraph Page 2,3-Element 3 SWPPP
8. Construction Phasing
NIA a. Construction sequence, See page/paragraph
NIA b. Construction phasing (if proposed) , See page/paragraph
9. Construction Schedule
NIA I. Provide a proposed construction schedule, See page/paragraph
NIA 11. Wet Season Construction Activities
a. Proposed wet season construction activities, See page/paragraph
b. Proposed wet season construction restraints for environmentally sensitive/critical areas. See
page/paragraph
10. Engineering Calculations
Provide Design Calculations.
NIA a. Sediment Ponds/Traps, See page/paragraph
NIA b. Diversions, See page/paragraph
NIA c. Waterways, See page/paragraph
NIA d. Runoff/Stormwater Detention Calculations, See page/paragraph
11. Operations and Maintenance.
NIA An operation and maintenance schedule shall be provided for all proposed Stormwater facilities and
BMPs, and the party (or parties)responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. An
operation and maintenance (O&M) Declaration of Covenant will be required to cover all privately
owned and maintained stormwater facilities. O&M Declaration of Covenant forms are available at
the Mason County Permit Assistance Center, 426 W. Cedar Street, Shelton, WA 98584. The
proponent shall record a copy of the completed Declaration with the Mason County Auditors' office.
A copy of the recorded document must be submitted to the Permit Assistance Center together with
this completed Checklist. See page/paragraph to be provided at full build out of site,not a part of this application
I:\Community DevelopmentTAC\STORMWATER 3 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
Section II—Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
1. General
x a. Vicinity Map, See page/paragraph Plan sheet 1-cover sheet
x b. Clearing and Grading Approval Block, See page/paragraph Plan sheet 2-Stormwater and Erosion control Plan
x c. Erosion and Sediment Control Notes, See page/paragraph Plan sheet i-cover sheet
2. Site Plan
x a. Legal description of subject property
x b.North Arrow
x c. Indicate boundaries of existing vegetations, e.g. tree lines,pasture areas,etc.
None on site(SWPPP
x d. Identify and label areas of potential erosion problems, See page/paragraph narrative Element 3)
N/A e. Identify any on-site or adjacent surface waters, critical areas and associated buffers
N/A f. Identify FEMA base flood boundaries and Shoreline Management boundaries(if applicable), See
page/paragraph
x g. Show existing and proposed contours
N/A h. Indicate drainage basins and direction of flow for individual drainage areas
N/A i. Label final grade contours and identify developed condition drainage basins
x j. Delineate areas that are to be cleared and graded
N/A k. Show all cut and fill slopes indicating top and bottom of slope catch lines
3. Conveyance Systems
x a. Designate locations for swales, interceptor trenches, or ditches
N/A b. Show all temporary and permanent drainage pipes,ditches, or cut-off trenches required for erosion
and sediment control
N/A c. Provide minimum slope and cover for all temporary pipes or call out pipe inverts
N/A d. Show grades,dimensions, and direction of flow in all ditches, swales, culverts, and pipes
N/A e. Provide details for bypassing off-site runoff around disturbed areas
N/A f. Indicate locations and outlets of any dewatering systems
4. Location of Detention BMPs
x a. Identify location of detention BMPs.
5. Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities
x a. Show the locations of sediment trap(s), pond(s), and pipe structures.
N/A b. Dimension pond berm widths and inside and outside pond slopes.
N/A c. Indicate the trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions.
N/A d. Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structure.
I:\Community DevelopmentTAC\STORMWATER 4 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
NIA e. Provide typical details of gravel cone and standpipe, and/or other filtering devices.
NIA f. Detail stabilization techniques for outlet/inlet.
NIA g. Detail control/restrictor device location and details.
NIA h. Specify mulch and/or recommended cover of berms and slopes.
NIA i. Provide rock specifications and detail for rock check dams.
NIA j. Specify spacing for rock check dams as required.
NIA k. Provide front and side sections of typical rock check dams.
NIA 1. Indicate the locations and provide details and specifications for silt fabric.
NIA m. Locate the construction entrance and provide a detail.
6. Detailed Drawings
NIA a. Any structural practices used that are not referenced in the Ecology Manual should be explained and
illustrated with detailed drawings.
7. Other Pollutant BMPs
NIA a. Indicate on the site plan the location of BMPs to be used for the control of pollutants other than
sediment, e.g. concrete wash water.
8. Monitoring Locations
NIA a. Indicate on the site plan the water quality sampling locations to be used for monitoring water quality
on the construction site, if applicable.
I certify that the stormwater plan submitted for this project fulfills the applicable provisions of the 2005
DOE Stormwater Manual.
WA31j7� ,
Byron Woltersdorf,P.E. 01-19-2015
Engineer Date
k 37948M1
FCISCE �'
KCAL
Appl&af VDateott
Place eng. stamp and sign/date above.
IACommunity DevelopmentTAOSTORMWATER 5 of 5 Updated May 20,2009
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
BIOLOGIST REVIEW
r �
r .
FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION 3
REEVE
�► SHERWOOD
CONSULTING. LLC
Habitat Management Plan
Parcel: 42223-34-00000
Mason County, Washington
1.0 Introduction
The details of a Habitat Management Plan for the proposed construction of a new
operations facility for Mason County Public Utility District#1 within a property supporting
pileated woodpecker(Drycopus pileatus)habitat are discussed in this report(see Figure 1
&2). Pileated woodpecker is regulated as a species of importance in the Mason County
Resource Ordinance due to their state listing status of Candidate. The proposed mitigation
focuses on the management of important habitat features and protection&enhancement of
a forested area within the property.
2.0 Project Description
Use of the property by Mason County PUD#1 will be for the construction of a new
operations facility which will consist of administrative buildings,maintenance buildings
and a utility"lay-down" storage yard. Standing dead trees(snags)with observed signs of
Pileated woodpecker use are within the identified project area(see Photos 14). Some of
the standing dead trees are used by the woodpeckers for foraging and therefore important to
the use of the site by the regulated species. No indicators of nesting or roosting of pileated
woodpeckers have been observed.
Removal of all trees from the majority of the property will be mitigated by protection of a
140' x 180' (—0.58 acres)in the northwest corner of the property(see Figure 2). A number
of snags from the portion of the property that is to be cleared, will be replanted within this
protected area. This action is possible because the PUD has the equipment capable of
auguring out a hole and then placing a tree into it and or through the use of an excavator
equipped with grapple buckets capable of digging a hole and then grabbing a tree and
positioning it into a hole. A number of snags unable to be replanted(due to deteriorated
condition)will also be placed within the protected area as nursing logs and to help maintain
insect populations(see Figure 3). The western approximately 30 feet of this area does not
have any trees currently. The project will also plant 30 Douglas fir tree rooted starts on 15-
foot centers. The wide spacing of these trees will allow the trees to grow lots of limbs and
create a good buffer to the cleared lands to the west. The old access road that is currently
being used in this area will be abandoned and several of the proposed log piles will be
placed on and along this road.
REEVE ... CONSULTING, ANTHONY .. 97321
. REEVE
SHERWOOD
CONSULTING. LLC
3.0 Project Area Description
The property consists of a predominantly>80%coniferous forest with the dominant tree
species being Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)interspersed with western hemlock
(Tsuga heterophylla),a mix of deciduous trees comprised of dogwood(Cornus florida)
and madrone(Arbutus menziesii)with an understory consisting of salal(Gautheria
shallon),Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosus), evergreen huckleberry(Vacciniium ovatum),
trailing evergreen blackberry(Rubus laciniatus), rhododendron(Rhododendron
macrophyllum)and various mosses and ferns. This stand of timber has a fairly high
percentage of dead and dying trees present. A total of 10 trees were observed to show
pileated woodpecker foraging activity but this may have been an overestimate because
other birds were also utilizing the area(see Photos 14). Photo 4 shows a non-typical
pileated woodpecker hole.
The landscape topography consists of a gentle slope,consisting of a gravelly sandy loam
soil(see Soil Maps), from the western edge sloping down toward Highway 101. At
Highway 101,the slope becomes steeper. The slope also becomes steeper as it approaches
Sheldon Road to the north.
4.0 Species Information _
Pileated woodpecker is listed as a candidate species by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife(WDFW),and is a Species of Importance in Mason County. The pileated
woodpecker lives in coniferous and deciduous forests,preferring large, dead trees for
nesting. The pileated woodpecker digs characteristically rectangular holes in trees to find
ants. Pilieated woodpeckers seldom use clearcuts,but will forage in clearcuts or
shelterwood cuts if substantial foraging habitat is retained. The presence of standing dead
trees with foraging excavations are indicative of woodpecker use within any given
property.
The WDFW recommendations for coniferous forests(stands with>70%conifer stems)of
about 60 years of age or older include maintain>70%canopy closure and an average of>5
nest snags/10 ha(2 snags/10ac)that are>76 cm dbh(30 in)and 12 snags/ac as foraging
trees. Due to the observed indicators of use of the site by pileated woodpecker for foraging,
removal of standing dead trees will be mitigated by protection of the existing snags and the
creation of additional foraging habitat within the protected portion of the property. Eight
snags from the portion of the property that is to be cleared,will be replanted within this
protected area to supplement existing snags. A minimum of ten logs will be placed on the
ground within the protected area to act as nurse logs and to help maintain insect
populations.
REEVE ... CONSULTING, ANTHONY .. 97321
REEVE
SHERWOOD
CONSULTING. LLC
5.0 Mitigation
5.1 Preservation of-,.58 acres of existing habitat
The northwestern corner of the property will be preserved and enhanced for pileated
woodpecker habitat. This location was chosen because it is adjacent to similar conifer
forest habitat to the north across Sheldon Road. All the trees currently in this 140' x 180'
area will be left to mature. This will maintain the 70%canopy closure that WDFW states
is a preferred condition. The existing dead trees will also be left unless they are leaning out
into the proposed PUD facilities area or are in danger of falling out onto Sheldon Road.
The only reason any of these would be removed is if they presented a danger to the staff
using the facilities or the public traveling on the adjacent road. This area will also be
enhanced by moving 8 dead 30' trees which will be removed from the cleared area and
planted into this protection area. The placing of these dead trees along with the existing
dead trees will provide good foraging opportunities for the Pileated woodpecker and other
birds. This will be accomplished by the tree being cut down in the clearing area and then
moved over to the protection area. Holes will be drilled into the ground with the same
equipment that the PUD uses to plant poles along the roadways or with an excavator. The
dead trees will then be placed into the holes and the ground compacted around them. An
additional 10 dead trees will be hauled to the site from the cleared area and set on the
ground and in piles to provide additional insect habitat and thus providing more food for
the woodpeckers to harvest(see Figure 3). The western edge (-30')of this protection area
will be planted with 30 Douglas fir tree starts that will be planted on 15 foot centers so they
can grow up and become very bushy and provide hiding cover. The protection area will be
clearly marked as no cutting and the trees to be moved from the cleared area will also be
flagged before clearing starts. Location for placement of these trees and log piles will also
be flagged in the protection area.
6.0 Monitoring
Monitoring of the project will consist of being present during the logging operation to
ensure that all live and dead trees within the protected area are not cut and to give
assistance in the placement of the dead trees. The mitigation map shows the approximate
location of the proposed dead trees and nurse log pile locations. Site specific modifications
may occur during the construction due to ground conditions and habitat impact
minimization techniques. An as-built drawing will be provided to Mason County Planning
department within 30 days of conclusion of timber harvest and mitigation construction and
will represent the conclusion of the monitoring.
REEVE ... CONSULTING, ANTHONY .. .
Zvi
REEVE
SH ERWOOD
C0N5LLTING. LLC
7.0 Conclusion
The proposed preservation and enhancement of the—.58 acre area located in the
northwestern portion of the PUD#1 property will not only provide foraging habitat but will
also have the potential to provide nesting habitat as the trees continue to mature and die.
The placement of additional dead trees on the ground will provide additional foraging
opportunities and make for insect colonization of current and future dying trees. The
placement of this protected area adjacent to other forested habitats is another reason why it
is believed that this project will be a success.
References
Lewis,J. and J.M. Azerrad 2003, WDFW PHS Management Recommendations, Volume
IV Birds, Pileated Woodpecker(Dryocopus pileatus)
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey(1/6/2016)
Pojar,J. and A. MacKinnon,2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast(2°d Edition).
Lone Pine Publishing,Vancouver, B.C.
Figures
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Map
Figure 3. Mitigation Map
Figure 4. Soil Survey Map
Photos 1-4
Mason �� _ ' - —.�-i��•�'� ����
Hoodsport
r�
i
r*.
:fir �+►�� -�" �- � �,,; �� - '� .
Skokom sh ��.n ,' rf / � ;•� • ~,��/"
-N' 41 �`� '""mod' _.� � _ •• r . fj,� µ .
;�.tir •�,,, �',i'p_�' ♦ .he�t n .•'! ;,. ,�+i��¢. ` Goo$1e earth
Approximate Project Area
106
I „�,���• - rer;p-tom:5:5�2013 i�i 4?325�80= Ion-]23.083978° elcv J72h 'eye ak ]Z23 m�Q
ManagementHabitat
FigureREEVE
SHERWOO
CONSULTING.LLC
NOT ONLY 01/17/2016
- _ - -
-lot 1111
Sheldon Road
Habitat Protection �•� f ���;
Area #i
J t (180'x140') a'�
i
>lJ. To Be Cleared
Highway 101
RaS
• , - �. WF
A
P-
` —
�" ���� � •`` r s., �- '` alp_� I `��' I
A REEVE Habitat Management Plan Project Site Map
N
V SHERWOOD Figure 2
CONSULTING,LLC
NOT for Construction Use;For Permitting Illustration ONLY 01/17/2016
S
K Gravel Road:
-^! To be abandoned
y
r� Le end
}• �, .c."' "`�''' ;," =Planted Snag
`_`r ` �� rw pl+'r ♦ • Sheldon Road -Placed Nursury
. ♦ ,X Log
• a
� •. . :• '^r Y" .- r ❑ =Protected Area
•
1 �• ! • • •� '' / T11
'tip ," ..M j�t.. • ♦ `VC• l '-
j', :• ♦♦ ~ + 4 ED
=Tree planting
•
-k Area
♦ ♦ • -1! -;may' ,`ti
�:} 'i yo"� .t; '�. •� .cam��'i,
7J.
-~
r '` v' r .y• - .fit+ _- .".' �x M�' `< � '
PIC-
i,
i i z
i REEVE Habitat Management Plan Mitigation Map
vProject Detail
SHERWOOD
CONSULTING.LLC N Figure 3
01/17/2016
487300 487500 487700 a87900 488100 488300 489500
Approximate Project
Location
v
4A 27T a ..
497300 4V5DD 487700 4W900 488100 488300 488500 488700 480900 49910D
3
b -
? Map Sale:19,970 if pmrted on A lands pe(11"x 8.5")#*L
N Metes
0 100 200 400 600
A — Feet
0 450 900 1800 2700
Map projedw:Web MermOx Cd 000rcnees:WGS84 Edge bm:UfM Zore ION WGS84
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/6/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3
Soil Map—Mason County,Washington
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest(AOq F;§ Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:31,700.
Area of Interest(AOI) StonySpot� pO Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Soils do Very Stony Spot
Q Soil Map Unit Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
^u Wet Spot misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
ry Soil Map Unit Lines placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
Soil Map Unit Points t; Other soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale.
Special Line Features
Special Point Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
V Blowout Water Features measurements.
Streams and Canals
® Borrow Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Transportation Web Soil Survey URL: http:/twebsoilsurvey.nrrs.usda.gov
a( Clay Spot Rails Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857)
Closed Depression ,y Interstate Highways Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
Gravel Pit us Routes projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the
., Gravelly Spot Major Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more accurate
Landfill Local Roads calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
Lava Flow Background
the version dates)listed below.
Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography
Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington
.&- Mine or Quarry Survey Area Data: Version 11,Sep 15,2015
® Miscellaneous Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000
® Perennial Water or larger.
Rock Outcrop Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Data not available.
.+. Saline Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Sandy Spot imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting
Severely Eroded Spot of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/6/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3
Soil Map—Mason County,Washington
Map Unit Legend
Mason County,Washington(WA645)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Gk Grove gravelly sandy loam,5 to 170.1 33.9%
15 percent slopes
Hd Hoodsport gravelly sandy loam, 14.3 2.9%
5 to 15 percent slopes
He Hoodsport gravelly sandy loam, 11.8 2.4%
15 to 30 percent slopes
Hf Hoodsport gravelly sandy loam, 119.5 23.8%
30 to 45 percent slopes
Ma Made land 3.8 0.8%
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 319.4 63.7%
Totals for Area of Interest 501.3 100.0%
u= Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/6/2016
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3
Reference Photos
�k 1
p
� r
f
r
'ye as -•,� - '
$" `yam'�....r'a._ ...•i• �.r s
•t
Photo I TypicalPileated Woodpecker foraging holes
``. �� ,. � 1 r y �' , fir•• .�! r`al:�
. IRG •
4 F "� ► `.
Photo 2 TypicalPileated Woodpecker foraging holes
s
Photo . Pileated Woodpecker • • holes
it AT�7 � �d•�.
V
;� �I" Imo., �•. �. � �.`'`
Photo 4 Potentially notPileated Woodpecker hole
Geotechnical Site Investigation
Mason County PUD No. 1
Potlatch, Washington
December 10, 2015
Geotechnical m Environmental m Special • - 11917 NE 95th Street
Vancouver, Washington
Columbia West 98682
Phone: 360-823-2900
Fax: 360-823-2901
' MCA - 4• � 1,�,::'`,!E ;
www.columbiawestengineering.com
Geotechnical ■ Environmental ■ Special Inspections.
Columbia West
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1
POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
Prepared For: Mr. Byron Woltersdorf
Brown & Kysar, Inc.
1315 SE Grace Avenue, #201
Battle Ground, Washington 98604
Site Location: 21971 N. Highway 101
Parcel Nos. 42223-34-00000, 42223-34-60020,
42223-34-00030, 42223-34-00080
Potlatch, Washington
Prepared By: Columbia West Engineering, Inc.
11917 NE 95th Street
Vancouver, Washington 98682
Phone: 360-823-2900
Fax: 360-823-2901
Date Prepared: December 10, 2015
Geotechnical •Environmental*Special Inspections
11917 NE 95 Street Vancouver,Washington 98682 • Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901
www.adumbi nsssWngme&*7gaom
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF APPENDICES
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General Site Information 1
1 .2 Proposed Development 1
2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOIL CONDITIONS 1
3.0 REGIONAL SEISMOLOGY 2
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FIELD INVESTIGATION 4
4.1 Surface Investigation and Site Description 4
4.2 Subsurface Exploration and Investigation 5
4.2.1 Soil Type Description 5
4.2.2 Groundwater 5
5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT 6
5.1 Geologic Literature Review 6
5.2 Slope Reconnaissance and Slope Stability Assessment 7
5.3 Geologic Hazard Assessment Conclusion 8
6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8
6.1 Site Preparation and Grading 8
6.2 Engineered Structural Fill 9
6.3 Cut and Fill Slopes 9
6.4 Foundations 10
6.5 Slabs on Grade 11
6.6 Settlement 11
6.7 Excavation 11
6.8 Lateral Earth Pressure 12
6.9 Seismic Design Considerations 13
6.10 Soil Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement 14
6.11 Drainage 14
6.12 Bituminous Asphalt and Portland Cement Concrete 15
6.13 Wet Weather Construction Methods and Techniques 16
6.14 Erosion Control Measures 16
6.15 Utility Installation 17
7.0 CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS 17
REFERENCES
FIGURES
APPENDICES
Geotechnl,ai. Env ir..n n.-n 0. Sj-,- —w-,t�ins
Columbia W M4
—
E n g i n e e r i n g , I n ,
4projectsV SU 5337-mason wunty pud 1(bki)\geotechnicaMeport\15337,mason putl 1 geotechnical site invesfigation.docx rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page ii
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title ,
1 Site Location Map
2 Exploration Location Map
3 Typical Cut and Fill Slope Cross-Section
4 Minimum Foundation Slope Setback Detail
5 Typical Foundation Drain Detail
Geotechnical.Environmental.Special Inspections
Columbia West -
E n 9 1 n e e r i n g , 1 ,. xgects\75\75337-mason county pud 1(hki)�geotechnicaRreport\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site investigation.dou,rev.12115
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page iii
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
LIST OF APPENDICES
Number Title
A Analytical Laboratory Test Reports
B Exploration Logs
C Soil Classification Information
D Photo Log
E Report Limitations and Important Information
Geotechnical a Environmental.Special Inspections
Columbia West r
E n 9 1 n e e r i n g , I n c xo)ects\15\'15337-mason county pud 1(bki)\geotechnical\report\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical she invesdgation.Aocx,rev.12/15
GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1
POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Columbia West Engineering, Inc. (Columbia West) was retained by Brown and Kysar, Inc.
to conduct a geotechnical site investigation for the proposed Mason County PUD No. 1
project located in Potlatch, Washington. The purpose of the investigation was to observe
and assess subsurface soil conditions at specific locations and provide geotechnical
engineering analyses, planning, and design recommendations for proposed development.
The specific scope of services was outlined in a proposal contract dated November 18,
2015. This report summarizes the investigation and provides field assessment
documentation and laboratory analytical test reports. This report is subject to the
limitations expressed in Section 7.0, Conclusion and Limitations, and Appendix E.
1.1 General Site Information
As indicated on Figures 1 and 2, the subject is located at 21971 N. Highway 101 in
Potlatch, Washington. Proposed development will potentially impact tax parcels
42223-34-00000, 42223-34-00020, 42223-34-00030, and 42223-34-00080 which total
approximately 40.48 acres. The site is bounded by quarry operations and undeveloped
acreage to the north and west, residential development to the south, and Highway 101 to
the east. The regulatory jurisdictional agency is Mason County, Washington. The
approximate latitude and longitude are N 47' 22' 31" and W 123' 09' 19", and the legal
description is a portion of the SE '/4 of Section 23, T22N, R4W, Willamette Meridian.
1.2 Proposed Development
Preliminary correspondence with the client indicates that proposed development includes
an office and operations center expansion to the existing Mason County PUD No. 1
headquarters site. Proposed development may include construction of new buildings,
paved areas, underground utilities, and stormwater management facilities. Columbia West
has not reviewed a preliminary grading plan but understands that cut and fill areas will
likely be proposed. This report is based upon proposed development as described above
and may not be applicable if modified.
2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOIL CONDITIONS
The subject site lies on the Olympic Peninsula adjacent to the Great Bend of Hood Canal.
The site is located near the toe of a till plain terrace situated between the Olympic
Mountains and Hood Canal. The Puget lobe of the Cordilleran glaciation likely intermingled
with alpine Olympic Mountain glaciers and covered the area with up to approximately 1500
feet of ice.
According to the Geologic Map of the Shelton Quadrangle, Washington (Washington
Department of Geology and Earth Resources, Open File Report 2003-15, Logan, 2003),
G otechnical.Env,.. —,tal Special Inspections
Columbia West-'oh
h
E n g i n e e n g
siprojects\15\15337-—on county pud 1(bku)geotechnicalVeporW 5337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site inveshgation.docx mv.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 2
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
near-surface geology is expected to consist of continental glacial deposits emplaced
during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. Formations on the site are mapped as
Pleistocene-aged, loosely-consolidated proglacial and recessional outwash sand and
gravel (Qgo) and glaciofluvial advance outwash of sand and gravel with fine-textured
lacustrine constituents (Qga).
The Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource
Conservation Service [USDA NRCS], 2014 Website) identifies surface soils as Grove
gravelly sandy loam. Grove soils generally consist of somewhat excessively-drained,
coarse-textured, glacial outwash. Although onsite soils may vary from the broad USDA
descriptions, Grove soils have a very low water capacity, low shrink/swell potential, and a
slight to moderate erosion hazard based primarily upon slope grade.
3.0 REGIONAL SEISMOLOGY
Recent research and subsurface mapping investigations within the Pacific Northwest
appear to suggest the historic potential risk for a large earthquake event with strong
localized ground movement may be underestimated. Past earthquakes in the Pacific
Northwest appear to have caused landslides and ground subsidence, in addition to severe
flooding near coastal areas. Earthquakes may also induce soil liquefaction, which occurs
when elevated horizontal ground acceleration and velocity cause soil particles to interact
as a fluid as opposed to a solid. Liquefaction of soil can result in lateral spreading and
temporary loss of bearing capacity and shear strength.
There are several major known fault zones in the vicinity of the site that may be capable of
generating potentially destructive horizontal accelerations. These fault zones are
described briefly in the following text.
Seattle Fault Zone and Local Faults
The Seattle fault zone is located approximately 19 miles northeast of the site and consists
of several east-trending faults that form a zone approximately 3 to 5 miles wide and 40
miles long, extending from the Cascade Range foothills across the Puget Lowland to the
Kitsap Peninsula. Various strands of the fault zone lie below Seattle, Bellevue, and
Bremerton. Evidence indicates that surface-deforming earthquakes on the Seattle fault
have occurred as recently as 1 ,000 years ago. To the south of the Seattle fault zone lies
the Tacoma fault, an east-trending fault located approximately 10 miles east of the site and
also considered potentially active. Coastal marsh uplift and subsidence north of the
Tacoma fault indicate activity as recently as 1 ,000 years ago. Both the Seattle fault zone
and the Tacoma fault are considered potentially active and capable of producing possible
damaging earthquakes.
Local faults include the Saddle Mountain Faults. The Saddle Mountain faults are
northeast-striking faults that are present along the southeastern flank of the Olympic
Mountains, directly west of the Puget lowlands located approximately 5 miles north of the
site. These northeast-striking faults cut volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks of the Eocene,
Crescent Formation and cut Pleistocene and Holocene glacial and colluvial deposits.
Geotechnical s Environmental s Special Inspections
Columbia Westin
E n g n e e n g , I n s:\projects\15\15337-mason county pod 1(bki)\geotechnicalveport\15337,mason pod 1 geotechnical site investigation tlocx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 3
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
Additional, evident or inferred, local faults and structures exhibiting Holocene activity
include the Hood Canal Fault, Olympia Fault, and the Lucky Dog Structure.
Portland Hills Fault Zone
The Portland Hills Fault Zone consists of several northwest-trending faults located along
the northeastern margin of the Tualatin Mountains, also known as the Portland Hills, and
the southwest margin of the Portland Basin. The fault zone is approximately 25 to 30
miles in length and is located approximately 120 miles south of the site. According to
Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995), there is no
definitive consensus among geologists as to the zone fault type. Several alternate
interpretations have been suggested.
According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, the fault was originally mapped as
a down-to-the-northeast normal fault, but has also been mapped as part of a regional-
scale zone of right-lateral, oblique slip faults, and as a steep escarpment caused by
asymmetrical folding above a south-west dipping, blind thrust fault. The Portland Hills fault
offsets Miocene Columbia River Basalts, and Miocene to Pliocene sedimentary rocks of
the Troutdale Formation. No fault scarps on surficial Quaternary deposits have been
described along the fault trace, and the fault is mapped as buried by the Pleistocene aged
Missoula flood deposits.
However, evidence suggests that fault movement has impacted shallow Holocene deposits
and deeper Pleistocene sediments. Seismologists recorded a M3.2 earthquake thought to
be associated with the fault zone near Kelly Point Park in November 2012, a M3.9
earthquake thought to be associated with the fault zone near Kelly Point Park in April
2003, and a M3.5 earthquake possibly associated with the fault zone occurred
approximately 1 .3 miles east of the fault in 1991. Therefore, the Portland Hills Fault Zone
is generally thought to be potentially active and capable of producing possible damaging
earthquakes.
Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Fault Zone
Located approximately 120 miles southwest of the site, the northwest-striking,
approximately 50-mile long Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone forms the
northwestern boundary between the Oregon Coast Range and the Willamette Valley, and
consists of a series of discontinuous northwest-trending faults. The southern end the fault
zone forms the southwest margin of the Tualatin basin. Possible late-Quaternary
geomorphic surface deformation may exist along the structural zone (Geomatrix
Consultants, 1995).
According to the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, the Mount Angel fault is mapped as
a high-angle, reverse-oblique fault, which offsets Miocene rocks of the Columbia River
Basalts, and Miocene and Pliocene sedimentary rocks. The fault appears to have
controlled emplacement of the Frenchman Spring Member of the Wanapum Basalts, and
thus must have a history that predates the Miocene age of these rocks. No unequivocal
evidence of deformation of Quaternary deposits has been described, but a thick sequence
Geotechnical.Environmental.Special Inspection
Columbia Wests
E n g i n e e r i n g , I n c s Vojectst15t15337-mason county pud 1(bki)lgeotechnicalVeponV 5337,mason pud 1 geolechnical site investigation.docx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 4
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
of sediments deposited by the Missoula floods covers much of the southern part of the
fault trace.
Although no definitive evidence of impacts to Holocene sediments have clearly been
identified, the Mount Angel fault appears to have been the location of minor earthquake
swarms in 1990 near Woodburn, Oregon, and a M5.6 earthquake in March 1993 near
Scotts Mills, approximately four miles south of the mapped extent of the Mt. Angel fault. It
is unclear if the earthquake occurred along the fault zone or a parallel structure.
Therefore, the Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone is considered potentially
active.
Cascadia Subduction Zone
The Cascadia Subduction Zone has recently been recognized as a potential source of
strong earthquake activity in the Portland/Vancouver Basin. This phenomenon is the result
of the earth's large tectonic plate movement. Geologic evidence indicates that volcanic
ocean floor activity along the Juan de Fuca ridge in the Pacific Ocean causes the Juan de
Fuca Plate to perpetually move east and subduct under the North American Continental
Plate. The subduction zone results in historic volcanic and potential earthquake activity in
proximity to the plate interface, believed to lie approximately 20 to 50 miles west of the
general location of the Oregon and Washington coast (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995).
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FIELD INVESTIGATION
A geotechnical field investigation consisting of visual reconnaissance and eight test
pits (TP-1 through TP-8) was conducted at the site on November 19, 2015. Test pit
exploration was performed with a track-mounted excavator. Subsurface soil profiles were
logged in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) specifications.
Disturbed soil samples were collected from relevant soil horizons and submitted for
laboratory analysis. Analytical laboratory test results are presented in Appendix A.
Exploration locations are indicated on Figure 2. Subsurface exploration logs are presented
in Appendix B. Soil descriptions and classification information are provided in Appendix C.
Photo logs are presented in Appendix D.
4.1 Surface Investigation and Site Description
Situated on what may be described as a broad glaciofluvial fan delta overlooking the Hood
Canal, the subject site is located at 21971 N. Highway 101 in Potlatch, Washington. Gently
sloping downgradient to the southeast, site elevations range from approximately 160 feet
above mean sea level (amsl) at the northwest site corner to 80 feet amsl adjacent to
Highway 101. The site appears mostly undeveloped and was recently logged. In the
southeast corner of the site, multiple structures and paved areas are associated with the
existing Mason County PUD No. 1 headquarters. Near the center of the site, a residential
structure and detached carport were also observed.
Field reconnaissance indicates the presence of drainage ravine slopes along the north
property boundary and east-facing terrace slopes located west of the site. Apparent cut
and fill slopes associated with ongoing quarry operations were also observed in these
areas. Review of site topographic mapping indicates that portions of these slopes exceed
Geotechnical a Environmental a Special Inspections
Columbia West�irJr
E n g + - 1, 4 r s:\pmjects\15\15337-mason county pud 1(bki)\geotechnical\report\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site investigation do-,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 5
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
15 percent in grade and may represent a potential landslide hazard area according to ,
Mason County Code. Geometry, geomorphic features, and potential hazards associated
with slopes exceeding 15 percent are discussed at length within Section 5.0, Geologic
Hazard Assessment.
4.2 Subsurface Exploration and Investigation
Test pits TP-1 through TP-8 were advanced at the site to a maximum depth of nine feet
below ground surface (bgs). Exploration locations were selected to observe subsurface
soil characteristics in proximity to proposed development areas and are indicated on
Figure 2.
4.2.1 Soil Type Description
The field investigation indicated the site is generally covered with approximately two to
three inches of sod and topsoil in the observed locations. Underlying the topsoil layer,
subsurface soils resembling the USDA Grove gravelly sandy loam soil series description
were encountered. Subsurface lithology was reasonably consistent at explored locations
and may generally be described by soil types identified in the following text.
Soil Type 1 — Silty SAND with Gravel and Cobbles
Soil Type 1 was observed to primarily consist of reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty
SAND with gravel and cobbles. Soil Type 1 was observed below the topsoil layer in test pit
TP-8 and extended 18 inches below ground surface where it was underlain by Soil Type 2.
Analytical laboratory testing conducted upon a representative soil sample obtained from
test pit TP-8 indicated approximately 23 percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve and
an in situ moisture content of approximately 21 percent. Atterberg Limits analysis indicated
that Soil Type 1 is non-plastic. Soil Type 1 is classified SM according to USCS
specifications and A-1-b(0) according to AASHTO specifications.
Soil Type 2 — Poorly- to well-graded GRAVEL with Sand and Cobbles
Soil Type 2 was observed to primarily consist of light brown to grayish brown, moist,
medium dense, poorly- to well-graded GRAVEL with sand, cobbles, and occasional trace
silt. Soil Type 2 was observed below the topsoil layer in test pits TP-1 through TP-7 and
below Soil Type 1 in test pit TP-8 and consistently extended to the maximum depth of
exploration.
Analytical laboratory testing conducted upon representative soil samples obtained from
test pits TP-1 and TP-5 indicated approximately 2 to 5 percent by weight passing the
No. 200 sieve and in situ moisture contents ranging from 6 to 13 percent. Atterberg Limits
analysis indicated that Soil Type 2 is non-plastic. Soil Type 2 is classified GP and GW
according to USCS specifications and A-1-a(0) according to AASHTO specifications.
4.2.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered within test pits explored to a maximum depth of nine
feet below ground surface. Groundwater was also not observed within quarry cut slopes
located north and west of the site. Review of nearby well logs obtained from the State of
Washington Department of Ecology indicates that static groundwater levels in the area
Geotechnical.Environmental.Special Inspections
Columbia West r
E n g 1 n s:\projects\15\15337-mason county pud 1(bki)\geotechnical\repodU 5337.mason pud 1 geotechnical site inves6galion.docx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 6
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
may range from 30 to 60 feet below ground surface. Variations in ground water elevations
likely reflect the screened interval depth of these wells, changes in ground surface
elevation, and the presence of multiple aquifers and confining units. The Hood Canal is
located approximately 650 feet southeast of the site and may influence groundwater levels
at lower elevations in the area.
Groundwater levels are often subject to seasonal variance and may rise during extended
periods of increased precipitation. Perched groundwater may also be present in localized
areas. Seeps and springs may become evident during site grading, primarily along slopes
or in areas cut below existing grade. Structures, roads, and drainage design should be
planned accordingly. Piezometer installation and long-term monitoring, beyond the scope
of this investigation, would be necessary to provide more detailed groundwater
information.
5.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Mason County Code Section 8.52.140 defines landslide hazard area requirements for
development proposed on parcels subject to Mason County jurisdiction. As previously
indicated, portions of slopes located north and west of the project boundary exceed 15
percent in grade and may represent a potential landslide hazard area according to Mason
County Code.
Columbia West conducted geologic hazard assessment to evaluate whether a landslide
hazard is present at the site proposed for development, and if so, to provide mitigation
recommendations. The geologic hazard assessment was based upon physical and visual
reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory analysis of collected soil samples, and
review of maps and other published technical literature. The results of the geologic hazard
assessment for potential landslide hazards are discussed in the following text.
5.1 Geologic Literature Review
As previously discussed, the Geologic Map of the Shelton Quadrangle, Washington
(Washington Department of Geology and Earth Resources, Open File Report 2003-15,
Logan, 2003), indicates that near-surface geology consists of continental glacial deposits
emplaced during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. Gently sloped areas of the
site are mapped as Pleistocene-aged, loosely-consolidated proglacial and recessional
outwash sand and gravel (Qgo). Ravine and east-facing terrace slopes are mapped as
glaciofluvial advance outwash of sand and gravel with fine-textured lacustrine constituents
(Qga) transitioning to highly compacted fine- to coarse-textured till (Qgt) on the upland
terrace. Landslide deposits (Qls) are not mapped on the subject site or within 500 feet of
the project boundary.
Columbia West also reviewed the Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal
Area (Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth
Resources, Smith, et al., 1977) to assess site slope characteristics. The site is primarily
mapped as Class 1 which is designated `Areas believed to be stable'. Areas along the
drainage ravine slopes and east-facing terrace slopes are mapped as Class 3, `Areas
inferred to be unstable'. Areas of former or active landslides (Classes 4 and 5) were not
Geotechnical.Environmental.Special Inspections hk
Columbia West-�r
E q n e y . I s:\projects\15\15337-mason county putl 1(bki)\geotechnicalVeportU 5337,mason putl 1 geotechnical sfle investigation tlocx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 7
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
mapped on the subject site. Located several hundred feet north of the project boundary, a ,
swath of land along Highway 101 is mapped as Class 4, `Former landslide areas'.
5.2 Slope Reconnaissance and Slope Stability Assessment
To observe geomorphic conditions, Columbia West personnel conducted visual and ,
physical reconnaissance of ravine slopes and east-facing terrace slopes. Soils observed
near the slopes primarily consisted of competent, poorly- to well-graded sand and gravel
with trace to some silt. Observation of cut slopes within the nearby quarries indicated
coarse textured soil profiles consistent with materials observed within test pit explorations.
Review of site survey data and topographic mapping obtained from Mason County GIS
indicates that the vertical height of the ravines slopes, as measured from toe to crest,
ranges from 20 to 40 feet. Slope grades range from approximately 20 to 30 percent with
localized steeper areas. Adjacent to Highway 101 , near the eastern edge of the ravine,
quarry operations have exposed a hillside cut with slope grades approaching 60 percent.
Topographic mapping of the east-facing terrace slopes indicates vertical slope heights
range from approximately 320 to 380 feet and slope grades vary from 20 to 45 percent.
Quarry operations near the toe of the slope have similarly exposed a hillside cut with slope
inclinations approaching 50 to 60 percent.
Grades within the site boundary generally slope downgradient to the southeast and range
from 5 to 10 percent. Along the western edge of the existing Mason County PUD No. 1
headquarters site, grading and excavation activity has exposed near vertical cut slopes
ranging from approximately 10 to 15 feet in height.
Field reconnaissance indicated that the observed slopes were generally planar and
exhibited little to no signs of instability. With the exception of unvegetated quarry cut
slopes, slopes currently support vegetation associated with deciduous trees and
understory fauna consisting of grasses and shrubs. Scarps or tension cracks were not
observed and there was no direct evidence of large-scale mass slope movements or
historic landslides. Groundwater was not encountered within test pits explored near the
slopes, and seeps or springs within quarry cut slopes or undisturbed slope faces were not
directly observed.
According to Mason County Code, Section 8.52.140.1.A.VI, any area with a slope of 40
percent or steeper and with a vertical relief 10 or more feet, except areas composed of
consolidated rock, are classified landslide hazards. Therefore, portions of slopes located
north and west of the property boundaries may be considered landslide hazards as defined
by Mason County Code. The general location of slopes exceeding 40 percent in grade are
indicated on Figure 2. Mitigation of the landslide hazard as defined by Mason County
Code may be achieved by maintaining appropriate hazard buffers required by Mason
County and following the engineering and planning recommendations presented in Section
6.0, Design Recommendations.
Oversteepened cut slopes located adjacent to the existing Mason County PUD No. 1 office
also meet Mason County's criteria for a landslide hazard area. However, in Columbia
West's opinion, these slopes do not represent a landslide hazard and may be appropriately
Geotechniwl.Environmental s Special Inspections
Columbia West
g n e e r i s:\pro jects\15\15337-mason county pud 1(W)\geotechnicalVeport\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site investigation.docx,rev.12115
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 8
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
mitigated during site improvements construction through an engineered retaining wall
solution or appropriate cut and fill slope construction as described in Section 6.3, Cut and
Fill Slopes.
5.3 Geologic Hazard Assessment Conclusion
Based upon literature review, field reconnaissance, and subsurface exploration, Columbia
West's geologic assessment indicates that a landslide hazard is not present within the site
boundary indicated on Figure 2 and that site soils and subsurface conditions are generally
compatible with proposed development occurring within this boundary. Project design and
construction should adhere to the design recommendations presented in this report with
special consideration given to grading and drainage recommendations. If improvements
are proposed within 300 feet of slopes exceeding 40 percent in grade, additional
exploration and a quantitative analysis of slope stability, outside the scope of this
investigation, is required per Mason County Code.
Columbia West's geologic assessment was based upon field exploration, literature review,
observed site conditions, and best-available topographic mapping of the site in its present
condition. As discussed, surface mining activity was observed at the toes of the northern
ravine slope and east-facing terrace slope. Project stakeholders should be aware that
continued alteration to the toes of these slopes due to offsite mining activity may increase
the potential for global slope instability presenting long-term risks to the subject site.
6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
The geotechnical site investigation suggests the proposed development is generally
compatible with surface and subsurface soils, provided the recommendations presented in
this report are utilized and incorporated into the design and construction processes. The
primary geotechnical concerns associated with the site are landslide hazard areas. Design
recommendations are presented in the following text sections.
6.1 Site Preparation and Grading
Vegetation, asphalt, organic material, unsuitable fill, and deleterious material that may be
encountered should be cleared from areas identified for structures and site grading.
Vegetation, other organic material, and debris should be removed from the site. Stripped
topsoil should also be removed, or used only as landscape fill in nonstructural areas with
slopes less than 25 percent. The stripping depth for sod and highly organic topsoil is
anticipated to be approximately two to three inches. The required stripping depth may
increase in areas of existing fill, heavy organics, or previously existing structures. Actual
stripping depths should be determined based upon visual observations made during
construction when soil conditions are exposed. The post-construction maximum depth of
landscape fill placed or spread at any location onsite should not exceed one foot.
Previously disturbed soil, debris, or unconsolidated fill encountered during grading or
construction activities should be removed completely and thoroughly from structural areas.
This includes old foundations, basement walls, utilities, associated soft soils, and debris.
Trees, stumps, and associated roots should also be removed from structural areas,
Geotechnical.Environmental a Spacial Inspections
Columbia West r
E y i n e e r i y , t s:\projects\15V 5337-mason county putl 1(Dki)\geotechnicaf\report\75337,mason putl 1 geotechnical sAe investigatioaeocx,rev.12115
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 9
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
individually and carefully. Resulting cavities and excavation areas should be backfilled with
engineered structural fill.
Test pits excavated during site exploration were backfilled loosely with onsite soils. These
test pits should be located and properly backfilled with structural fill during site
improvements construction.
Site grading activities should be performed in accordance with requirements specified in
the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), Chapter 18 and Appendix J, with exceptions
noted in the text herein. Site preparation, soil stripping, and grading activities should be
observed and documented by Columbia West.
6.2 Engineered Structural Fill
Areas proposed for fill placement should be appropriately prepared as described in the
preceding text. Surface soils should then be scarified and tilled to a depth of 12 inches.
After scarification, soils should be moisture conditioned, compacted, and tested for
compliance with recommended specifications by Columbia West prior to additional fill
placement. Engineered structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12
inches in depth and compacted using standard conventional compaction equipment. The
soil moisture content should be within two percentage points of optimum conditions. A field
density at least equal to 95 percent of the maximum dry density, obtained from the
modified Proctor moisture-density relationship test (ASTM D1557), is recommended for
structural fill placement. For engineered structural fill placed on sloped grades, the area
should be benched to provide a horizontal surface for compaction.
Compaction of engineered structural fill should be verified by nuclear gauge field
compaction testing performed in accordance with ASTM D6938. Field compaction testing
should be performed for each vertical foot of engineered fill placed. Engineered fill
placement should be observed by Columbia West.
Engineered structural fill placement activities should be performed during dry summer
months if possible. Clean native soils may be suitable for use as structural fill if adequately
moisture-conditioned to achieve recommended compaction specifications. Because they
are moisture-sensitive, fine-textured soils are often difficult to excavate and compact
during wet weather conditions. If adequate compaction is not achievable with clean
fine-textured soils, import structural fill consisting of well-graded granular material with a
maximum particle size of three inches and no more than five percent passing the No. 200
sieve is recommended.
Representative samples of proposed engineered structural fill should be submitted for
laboratory analysis and approval by Columbia West prior to placement. Laboratory
analyses should include particle-size gradation and modified Proctor moisture-density
analysis.
6.3 Cut and Fill Slopes
Fill placed on existing grades steeper than 5H-.1V should be horizontally benched at least
10 feet into the slope. Fill slopes greater than six feet in height should be vertically keyed
Geot—Imical.Environmental.Specie;Inspections
Columbia West wp-
E n g i n e e r i n y 1
s:\projects\15\15337-mason county pud 1(bki)\gectechnica1Veport\15337,mason putl 1 geotechNcal srte investigabon.tlocx,rev.12l15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 10
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
into existing subsurface soil. A typical fill slope cross-section is shown in Figure 3.
Drainage implementations, including subdrains or perforated drain pipe trenches, may also
be necessary in proximity to cut and fill slopes if seeps or springs are encountered.
Drainage design may be performed on a case-by-case basis. Extent, depth, and location
of drainage may be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer during
construction when soil conditions are exposed. Failure to provide adequate drainage may
result in soil sloughing, settlement, or erosion.
Final cut or fill slopes at the site should not exceed 2HAV without individual slope stability
analysis. The values above assume a minimum horizontal setback for loads of 10 feet
from top of cut or fill slope face or overall slope height divided by three (H/3), whichever is
greater. A minimum slope setback detail for structures is presented in Figure 4. Note that
setback recommendations apply to constructed cut and fill slopes. Slope setback criteria
for construction near landslide hazard areas are presented in Section 5.0, Geologic
Hazard Assessment.
Concentrated drainage or water flow over the face of slopes should be prohibited, and
adequate protection against erosion is required. Fill slopes should be constructed by
placing fill material in maximum 12-inch level lifts, compacting as described in Section 6.2,
Engineered Structural Fill and horizontally benching where appropriate. Fill slopes should
be overbuilt, compacted, and trimmed at least two feet horizontally to provide adequate
compaction of the outer slope face. Proper cut and fill slope construction is critical to
overall project stability and should be observed and documented by Columbia West.
6.4 Foundations
Based upon correspondence with the client, building foundations are anticipated to consist
of shallow continuous perimeter or column spread footings. Footings should be designed
by a licensed structural engineer and conform to the recommendations below. Typical
building loads are not expected to exceed approximately 3 to 4 kips per foot for perimeter
footings or 25 to 50 kips per column. If actual loading exceeds anticipated loading,
additional analysis should be conducted for the specific load conditions and proposed
footing dimensions.
The existing ground surface should be prepared as described in Section 6.1, Site
Preparation and Grading, and Section 6.2, Engineered Structural Fill. Foundations should
bear upon firm native soil or engineered structural fill.
To evaluate bearing capacity for proposed structures, serviceability and reliability of shear
resistance for subsurface soils was considered. Allowable bearing capacity is typically a
function of footing dimension and subsurface soil properties, including settlement and
shear resistance. Based upon in situ field testing and laboratory analysis, the estimated
allowable bearing capacity for well-drained foundations prepared as described above is
2,500 psf. Bearing capacity may be increased by one-third for transient lateral forces such
as seismic or wind. The modulus of subgrade reaction is estimated to be 250 psi/inch.
The estimated coefficient of friction between in situ compacted native soil or engineered
structural fill and in-place poured concrete is 0.45. Lateral forces may also be resisted by
Geotechnical.Environmental.Special Inspections
Columbia Wester
n g i n e e r i n 9 s:\projects\15\15337-rnason county pud 1(bki)\geotechnicaNeport\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical sde investigation.docx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 11
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
an assumed passive soil equivalent fluid pressure of 250 psfif against embedded footings.
The upper six inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure calculations.
Footings should extend to a depth at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade to
provide adequate bearing capacity and protection against frost heave. Foundations
constructed during wet weather conditions may require over-excavation of saturated
subgrade soils and granular structural backfill prior to concrete placement.
Over-excavation recommendations should be provided by Columbia West during
foundation excavation and construction. Excavations adjacent to foundations should not
extend within a 1.5H:1V angle projected down from the outside bottom footing edge
without additional geotechnical analysis.
Foundations should not be permitted to bear upon existing fill or disturbed soil. Because
soil is often heterogeneous and anisotropic, Columbia West should observe foundation
excavations prior to placing forms or reinforcing bar to verify subgrade support conditions
are as anticipated in this report.
6.5 Slabs on Grade
The proposed structures may have slab-on-grade floors. Slabs should be supported on
firm, competent, in situ soil or engineered structural fill. Disturbed soils and unsuitable fills
in proposed slab locations should be removed and replaced with structural fill.
Preparation and compaction beneath slabs should be performed in accordance with the
recommendations presented in Section 6.1, Site Preparation and Grading and Section 6.2,
Engineered Structural Fill. Slabs should be underlain by at least 6 inches of free-draining
1 114"-0 crushed aggregate meeting WSDOT 9-03.9(3). Geotextile filter fabric conforming to
WSDOT 2010 Standard Specification M 41-10, 9-33.2(1), Geotextile Properties, Table 3:
Geotextile for Separation or Soil Stabilization may be used below the crushed aggregate to
increase subgrade support. If desired, a moisture barrier may be constructed beneath the
slabs. Slabs should be appropriately waterproofed in accordance with the desired type of
finished flooring. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by an experienced
structural engineer in accordance with anticipated loads.
6.6 Settlement
Total long-term static footing displacement for shallow foundations constructed as
described in this report is not anticipated to exceed approximately 1 inch. Differential
settlement between comparably loaded footing elements is not expected to exceed
approximately Y2 inch over a span of 50 feet. The resulting vertical displacement after
loading may be due to elastic distortion, dissipation of excess pore pressure, or soil creep.
6.7 Excavation
To install utilities and construct site improvements, subsurface excavation is anticipated.
Soils at the site were explored to a maximum depth of nine feet using a track-mounted
excavator. Bedrock was not encountered and blasting or specialized rock-excavation
techniques are not anticipated.
Geotechnical.Environmental.Special Inspections
Columbla West ,
1 1 s:\prgects\75\75337-mason county puG 1(bki)`geotechnicaNeport\15337,meson putl 1 geotechnical site invesligation.tlocx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 12
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
Based upon laboratory analysis and field testing, near-surface soils may be Washington
State Industrial Safety and Health Administration (WISHA) Type C. For temporary
open-cut excavations deeper than four feet, but less than 20 feet in soils of these types,
the maximum allowable slope is 1 .5H-lV. WISHA soil type should be confirmed during
field construction activities by the contractor. Soil is often anisotropic and heterogeneous,
and it is possible that WISHA soil types determined in the field may differ from those
described above.
The contractor should be held responsible for site safety, sloping, and shoring. Columbia
West is not responsible for contractor activities and in no case should excavation be
conducted in excess of all applicable local, state, and federal laws.
6.8 Lateral Earth Pressure
If retaining walls are proposed, lateral earth pressures should be carefully considered in
the design process. Hydrostatic pressure and additional surcharge loading should also be
considered. Retained material may include engineered structural backfill or undisturbed
native soil. Structural wall backfill should consist of imported granular material meeting
Section 9-03.12(2) of WSDOT Standard Specifications, Backfill should be prepared and
compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by the modified
Proctor test (ASTM D1557). Recommended parameters for lateral earth pressures for
retained soils and engineered structural backfill consisting of imported granular fill meeting
WSDOT specifications for Gravel Backfill for Walls 9-03.12(2) are presented in Table 1.
The design parameters presented in Table 1 are valid for static loading cases only and are
based upon in situ existing soils or compacted granular backfill. The recommended earth
pressures do not include surcharge loads, dynamic loading, hydrostatic pressure, or
seismic design.
Table 1. Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters for Level Backfill
Equivalent Fluid Pressure Drained
Retained Soil for Level Backfill Wet Internal
Density Angle of
At rest Active Passive Friction
Undisturbed native Silty SAND with Gravel(Soil Type 1) 60 pcf 40 pcf 360 pcf 120 pcf 30'
Undisturbed native poorly-to well-graded GRAVEL with Sand 61 pcf 40 pcf 423 pcf 130 pcf 32'
(Soil Type 2)
Approved Backfill Material
52 pcf 32 pcf 568 pcf 135 pcf 38'
WSDOT 9-03.12(2)compacted aggregate backfill
The upper 6 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure calculations. If
exterior grade from top or toe of retaining wall is sloped, Columbia West should be
contacted to provide location-specific lateral earth pressures.
If seismic design is required for unrestrained walls, seismic forces may be calculated by
superimposing a uniform lateral force of 10H2 pounds per lineal foot of wall, where H is the
total wall height in feet. The resultant force should be applied at 0.6H from the base of the
wall.
Geotachnical.Environmental.Special Inspections
Columbia West-fro-
E n g i n e e r i n q , I n c s.\projects\l 5\15337-mason county pad 1(hko)geotechoical\report\l 5337.mason pud 1 geotechnical site investigation.docx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 13
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
A continuous one-foot-thick zone of free-draining, washed, open-graded 1-inch by 2-inch
drain rock and a 4-inch perforated gravity drain pipe is assumed behind retaining walls.
Geotextile filter fabric should be placed between the drain rock and backfill soil.
Specifications for drainpipe design are presented in Section 6.11 , Drainage. If walls
cannot be gravity drained, saturated base conditions and/or applicable hydrostatic
pressures should be assumed.
Final retaining wall design should be reviewed and approved by Columbia West. Retaining
wall subgrade and backfill activities should also be observed and tested for compliance
with recommended specifications by Columbia West during construction.
6.9 Seismic Design Considerations
According to the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 2012 Seismic Design Maps
Summary Report, the anticipated peak ground and maximum considered earthquake
spectral response accelerations resulting from seismic activity for the subject site are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Approximate Probabilistic Ground Motion Values for `firm rock'
sites based on subject property longitude and latitude
2%Probability of Exceedance
in 50 yrs
Peak Ground 0.50 g
Acceleration
0.2 sec Spectral 1.44 g
Acceleration
1.0 sec Spectral 0.609
Acceleration
The listed probabilistic ground motion values are based upon "firm rock" sites with an
assumed shear wave velocity of 2,500 ft/s in the upper 100 feet of soil profile. These
values should be adjusted for site class effects by applying site coefficients Fa and Fv as
defined in 2012 IBC Tables 1613.3.3(1) and (2). The site coefficients are intended to more
accurately characterize estimated peak ground and respective earthquake spectral
response accelerations by considering site-specific soil characteristics and index
properties.
Review of the Site Class Map of Mason County, Washington (Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, 2004), indicates that site soils may be represented by
Site Class C to D as defined in 2012 IBC Section 1613.3.2. Based upon observed soil
properties and review of nearby well logs and local geologic maps, site soils may be
represented by Site Class D. Site Class D indicates that minor amplification of seismic
energy may occur during a seismic event due to subsurface conditions.
Localized peak ground accelerations exceeding the adjusted values may occur in some
areas in direct proximity to an earthquake's origin. This may be a result of amplification of
seismic energy due to depth to competent bedrock, compression and shear wave velocity
of bedrock, presence and thickness of loose, unconsolidated alluvial deposits, soil
plasticity, grain size, and other factors.
Geotechnical s Environmental Special Inspections
Columbia West r-
E or g i n ! e r i in g , I n c s:\projects\15\15337-mason county pud 1 g,ki)\geo1echnical\report\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site investigation.docx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 14
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
Identification of specific seismic response spectra is beyond the scope of this investigation.
If site structures are designed in accordance with recommendations specified in the 2012
IBC, the potential for peak ground accelerations in excess of the adjusted and amplified
values should be understood.
6.10 Soil Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
According to the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington
(Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 2004), the site is mapped as very
low susceptibility for liquefaction. Liquefaction, defined as the transformation of the
behavior of a granular material from a solid to a liquid due to increased pore-water
pressure and reduced effective stress, may occur when granular materials quickly compact
under cyclic stresses caused by a seismic event. The effects of liquefaction may include
immediate ground settlement and lateral spreading.
Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are generally saturated, cohesionless, loose to
medium-dense sands within 50 feet of the ground surface. Recent research has also
indicated that low plasticity silts and clays may also be subject to sand-like liquefaction
behavior if the plasticity index determined by the Atterberg Limits analysis is less than 8.
Potentially liquefiable soils located above the existing, historic, or expected ground water
levels do not generally pose a liquefaction hazard. It is important to note that changes in
perched ground water elevation may occur due to project development or other factors not
observed at the time of investigation.
Based upon results of literature review, laboratory analysis, and the lack of groundwater
within the observed soil profile, observed site soils do not meet the criteria described
above for liquefiable soils. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction of site soils is
considered to be low.
6.11 Drainage
At a minimum, site drainage should include surface water collection and conveyance to
properly designed stormwater management structures and facilities. Drainage design in
general should conform to Mason County regulations. Finished site grading should be
conducted with positive drainage away from structures. Depressions or shallow areas that
may retain ponding water should be avoided. Roof drains, low-point drains, and perimeter
foundation drains are recommended for structures. Drains should consist of separate
systems and gravity flow with a minimum two-percent slope away from foundations into the
stormwater system or approved discharge location.
Concentrated discharge from stormwater facilities or roof drains should not be directed
near the top of slopes. Stormwater should not be allowed to collect and flow directly
across the slopes. If concentrated stormwater must be conveyed toward slopes, it should
be collected and discharged by solid pipe to the toe. If discharge at the toe is not feasible,
other mitigative measures may be implemented to control erosion and limit instability
associated with stormwater discharge. Such measures may include level spreaders or rip
rap channels. These methods of stormwater management and disposal will require
Geotechnical a Environmental a Special Inspection Ak
Columbia West�7
E n 9 5lprojects\1 5U 5337-mason county pud 1(bki)\geotechnica NrepotlV 5337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site investigatlon.docx,rev.12115
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 15
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
additional geotechnical analysis and design. Therefore, if stormwater cannot feasibly be
discharged at the toe of slopes, additional geotechnical assessment should be conducted.
Perimeter foundation drains should consist of 3-inch perforated PVC pipe surrounded by a
minimum of 1 ft3 of clean, washed drain rock per linear foot of pipe and wrapped with
geotextile filter fabric. Open-graded drain rock with a maximum particle size of 3 inches
and less than 2 percent passing the No. 200 sieve is recommended. Geotextile filter fabric
should consist of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, with AOS between No. 70 and No.
100 sieve. The water permittivity should be greater than 1.5/sec. Figure 5 presents a
typical foundation drain. Perimeter drains may limit increased hydrostatic pressure beneath
footings and assist in reducing potential perched moisture areas.
Foundation drains and subdrains should be closely monitored after construction to assess
their effectiveness. If surface or shallow subsurface seeps become evident, the drainage
provisions may require modification or additional drains. Columbia West should be
consulted to provide appropriate recommendations.
6.12 Bituminous Asphalt and Portland Cement Concrete
Columbia West recommends adherence to Mason County paving guidelines unless a
site-specific pavement design is conducted.
For dry weather construction, pavement surface sections should bear upon competent
subgrade consisting of scarified and compacted native soil or engineered structural fill.
Wet weather pavement construction is discussed later in Section 6.13, Wet Weather
Construction Methods and Techniques. Subgrade conditions should be evaluated and
tested by a licensed geotechnical engineer or designated representative prior to placement
of crushed aggregate base. Subgrade evaluation should include nuclear gauge density
testing and wheel proof-roll observations conducted with a 12-cubic yard, double-axle
dump truck or equivalent. Nuclear gauge density testing should be conducted at 150-foot
intervals or as determined by the onsite geotechnical engineer. Subgrade soil should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor dry density, as determined by
ASTM D1557. Areas of observed deflection or rutting during proof-roll evaluation should
be excavated to a firm surface and replaced with compacted crushed aggregate.
Crushed aggregate base should be compacted and tested in accordance with the
specifications outlined above. Asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted to at least
91 percent of maximum Rice density. Nuclear gauge density testing should be conducted
to verify adherence to recommended specifications. Testing frequency should be in
accordance with Washington Department of Transportation and Mason County
specifications.
Portland cement concrete curbs and sidewalks should be installed in accordance with
Mason County specifications. Curb and sidewalk aggregate base should be observed and
proof-rolled in the presence of an experienced geotechnical engineer or designated
representative. Soft areas that deflect or rut should be stabilized prior to pouring concrete.
Concrete should be tested during installation in accordance with ASTM C171, C138, C231,
C143, C1064, and C31. This includes casting of cylinder specimen at a frequency of four
Geotechnical s Environmental. .1 ial Inspections
Columbia West
E n 9 � , j 1 1:\pro)ects\15\15337-mason county pud 1(Nu)kgeotechnical\repod\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site investigation.docx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 16
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
cylinders per 100 cubic yards of poured concrete. Recommended field and analytical
laboratory concrete testing includes slump, air entrainment, temperature, and unit weight.
6.13 Wet Weather Construction Methods and Techniques
Wet weather construction often results in significant shear strength reduction and soft
areas that may rut or deflect. Installation of granular working layers may be necessary to
provide a firm support base and sustain construction equipment. Granular layers should
consist of all-weather gravel, 2x4-inch gabion, or other similar material (six-inch maximum
size with less than five percent passing the No. 200 sieve).
Construction equipment traffic across exposed soil should be minimized. Equipment traffic
induces dynamic loading, which may result in weak areas and significant reduction in
shear strength for wet soils. Wet weather construction may also result in generation of
significant excess quantities of soft wet soil. This material should be removed from the site
or stockpiled in a designated area.
Construction during wet weather conditions may require increased base thickness.
Over-excavation may be necessary to provide a firm base upon which to place crushed
aggregate. Geotextile filter fabric is also recommended. Crushed aggregate base should
be installed in a single lift with trucks end-dumping from an advancing pad of granular fill.
During extended wet periods, stripping activities may also need to be conducted from an
advancing pad of granular fill. Once installed, the crushed aggregate base should be
compacted with several passes from a static drum roller. A vibratory compactor is not
recommended because it may further disturb the subgrade. Subdrains may also be
necessary to provide subgrade drainage and maintain structural integrity.
Crushed aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry
density according to the modified Proctor density test (ASTM D1557). Compaction should
be verified by nuclear gauge density testing. Observation of a proof-roll with a loaded
dump truck is also recommended as an indication of future pavement performance.
It should be understood that wet weather construction is risky and costly. Columbia West
should observe and document wet weather construction activities. Proper construction
methods and techniques are critical to overall project integrity.
6.14 Erosion Control Measures
Based upon field observations and laboratory testing, the erosion hazard for site soils in
flat to shallow-gradient portions of the property is likely to be low. The potential for erosion
generally increases in sloped areas. Therefore, disturbance to vegetation in sloped areas
should be minimized during construction activities. Soil is also prone to erosion if
unprotected and unvegetated during periods of increased precipitation. Erosion can be
minimized by performing construction activities during dry summer months.
Site-specific erosion control measures should be implemented to address the maintenance
of exposed areas. This may include silt fence, biofilter bags, straw wattles, or other
suitable methods. During construction activities, exposed areas should be well-compacted
and protected from erosion with visqueen, surface tactifier, or other means, as appropriate.
Geotechnical is Environmental a Special Inspections
Columbia West4!�-
re
E n g i n e e r i n y s:\projects\15\15337-rson county putl 1(bki)\geotechnicafvepon mas
on son pud 1 geotechnical sde investigation
ocx,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 17
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
Temporary slopes or exposed areas may be covered with straw, crushed aggregate, or
riprap in localized areas to minimize erosion. Erosion and water runoff during wet weather
conditions may be controlled by application of strategically placed channels and small
detention depressions with overflow pipes.
After grading, exposed surfaces should be vegetated as soon as possible with
erosion-resistant native vegetation. Jute mesh or straw may be applied to enhance
vegetation. Once established, vegetation should be properly maintained. Disturbance to
existing native vegetation and surrounding organic soil should also be minimized during
construction activities.
6.15 Utility Installation
Utility installation may require subsurface excavation and trenching. Excavation, trenching
and shoring should conform to federal (Occupational Safety and Health Administration)
(OSHA) (29 CFR, Part 1926) and WISHA (WAC, Chapter 296-155) regulations. Site soils
may slough when cut vertically and sudden precipitation events or perched groundwater
may result in accumulation of water within excavation zones and trenches.
Utilities should be installed in general accordance with manufacturer's recommendations.
Utility trench backfill should consist of crushed aggregate or other coarse-textured, free-
draining material acceptable to the client, Mason County, and Columbia West. Trench
backfill material within 18 inches of the top of utility pipes should be hand compacted (i.e.,
no heavy compaction equipment). The remaining backfill should be compacted to at least
95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor moisture-
density test (ASTM D698). Clean, free-draining, fine bedding sand is recommended for
use in the pipe zone. With exception of the pipe zone, backfill should be placed in loose
lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness.
Compaction of utility trench backfill material should be verified by nuclear gauge field
compaction testing performed in accordance with ASTM D6938. Field compaction testing
should be performed at 200-foot intervals along the utility trench centerline at the surface
and midpoint depth of the trench. Compaction frequency and specifications may be
modified for non-structural areas in accordance with recommendations of the site
geotechnical engineer.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical site investigation report was prepared in accordance with accepted
standard conventional principles and practices of geotechnical engineering. This
investigation pertains only to material tested and observed as of the date of this report, and
is based upon proposed site development as described in the text herein. This report is a
professional opinion containing recommendations established by engineering
interpretations of subsurface soils based upon conditions observed during site exploration.
Soil conditions may differ between tested locations or over time. Slight variations may to
produce impacts to the performance of structural facilities if not adequately addressed.
This underscores the importance of diligent QA/QC construction observation and testing to
verify soil conditions are as anticipated in this report.
Geotechnical.Environmental a Special Inspections
Columbia West 'h
E n g e c n g , I n s.\projects\1 5\15337-mason county pud.t(bki)\geotechnica1Vepon\15337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site invesbgation.docz,rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 18
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
Therefore, this report contains several recommendations for field observation and testing
by Columbia West personnel during construction activities. Columbia West cannot accept
responsibility for deviations from recommendations described in this report. Future
performance of structural facilities is often related to the degree of construction observation
by qualified personnel. These services should be performed to the full extent
recommended.
This report is not an environmental assessment and should not be construed as a
representative warranty of site subsurface conditions. The discovery of adverse
environmental conditions, or subsurface soils that deviate significantly from those
described in this report, should immediately prompt further investigation. The above
statements are in lieu of all other statements expressed or implied.
This report was prepared solely for the client and is not to be reproduced without prior
authorization from Columbia West. Final engineering plans and specifications for the
project should be reviewed and approved by Columbia West as they relate to geotechnical
and grading issues prior to final design approval. Columbia West is not responsible for
independent conclusions or recommendations made by other parties based upon
information presented in this report. Unless a particular service was expressly included in
the scope, it was not performed and there should be no assumptions based upon services
not provided. Additional report limitations and important information about this document
are presented in Appendix E. This information should be carefully read and understood by
the client and other parties reviewing this document.
Sincerely,
COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING, Inc.
< o's L. 0,Y6
S �OF WAS&,, 'y�c
ason L. Ordway, I?E,/---�
Principal
.71
A4 9 261 o
FcIS
F,.
SS�ONAL ENG
Geotechnical.Envimnrnunal.Spacial Inspections
ColumbiaVY®st !V1 E n 9 1 n e is 1 n g , I n c s 1p,._-115v5337-—..n county p-1 IbkrT9eolecl.uwMop.M15337.nuson pud I gootechnical site inveatgoUon do".rev.12/15
Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 19
Mason County PUD No. 1, Potlatch, Washington
REFERENCES
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Soil and Rock(/), v04.08,American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999.
Geomatrix Consultants, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon,January 1995.
International Building Code: 2012 International Building Code, 2012 edition, International Code Council, 2012.
Logan, Robert, L., Geologic Map of the Shelton Quadrangle, Washington, Open File Report 87-10,Washington State
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources,Open File Report 2003-15.
Mason County Code, Landslide Hazard Areas, Section 8.52.140, Mason County,Washington
Mason County Geographic Information System,Web Application,Accessed December, 2015
Palmer, Stephen P., et a/, Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County, Washington, Washington State Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, September 2004.
Palmer, Stephen P., et a/, Site Class Map of Mason County, Washington, Washington State Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, September 2004.
Smith, et at, Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area, Washington, Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources, 1977.
Safety Standards for Construction Work, Part N, Excavation, Trenching and Shoring, Washington Administrative Code,
Chapter 296-155, Division of Industrial Safety and Health,Washington Department of Labor and Industries, February,
1993.
Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR Part 1926,Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), revised July 1, 2001.
State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Well Log Viewer,Accessed December 2015
United States Geologic Survey(USGS), 2012 Seismic Design Maps, Web Application, Accessed September 2015
Web Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture 2013 website
(http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.). -
Geotachnical.Environmental.Special Inspections
Columbiai West -
. I . . � <I 1 �.
s:yxojecls\[S\75337-mason county px1 1(bki)Igeotechnical\report\75337,mason pud 1 geotechnical site inveslgation.Aocx,rev.12/15
i/ ,icy .•�''.
W
r
S Holly
Icon
« A
SITE LOCATION goo !+
' � f•�, .V �r .,• � �#. ��. � fob g
j;;:.Iv 40 k 4,604,a�Lya /Poo"
,i �.• ,lnron
f' ,
o Sk omish Allyn-G-r*rrvw
i Noiut
_ tkrt
tilatkx:k
Harstine Island
r, Shelton
f
MAP SOURCE:Google Maps 2015
sign Drawn: GLW
SITE LOCATION MAP
Columbia West=�'� ecke : LvL ate: 12/8/2015 FIGURE
lient: BP[I Rev By Date
ab No.: 15337 LASOH COUNTY PUD NO. 1 1
71917�668ons
vn Ww iLw-eeaee File: FIGURE 1 POMATOR, N CN
Ph= 3a0ae32a04 rs 3eoae34M
�"" Scale: NTS
SLOPE GRADES EXCEEDING 40 PERCENT t N
[LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA PER MASON APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY 1, ,r_ N6
+ COUNTY CODE] 1
W E �.
S
+ SLOPE GRADES EXCEEDING 40 PERCENT
+ (LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA PER MASON
TP-1 COUNTY CODE]
TP-2
Cot
■ I
TP-7 TP-8
TP-6 TP-3
TP-4
�•i M
�iti e��, •
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT EXPLORATION
NOTES:
1. SITE LOCATION: 21971 N. HIGHWAY 101, POTLATCH,
WASHINGTON, PARCELS 422233400080, 422233400000, ;,+,•,,, ,- ,,,_,,. ,, Design: Drawn:GLw
4ITE IS PPRO 4ATELY 4 0.48 Columbia West-4�- EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP
2.SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 40.48 ACRES. Checked: Date:12 7 2015
3.DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE. ` Client: BKI Rev 8 Date FIGURE
4.BASE MAP OBTAINED FROM GOOGLE EARTH 2O15. MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1
5.SOIL EXPLORATION LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND NOT 11917NE95rhSTFEE7 Job No: 15337 2
SURVEYED. "ANCOUvt:a_WASHINGTON 98682 POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
6. TEST PITS BACKFILLED LOOSELY WITH ONSITE SOILS ON PHONE 3608232900 FAX 3608232901 CAD File:FIGURE 2
NOVEMBER 19, 2015 --1—baiw 9-g,no-ng—, IC,n la.mrwr
TYPICAL CUT AND FILL SLOPE CROSS-SECTION
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
COMPACTED ENGINEERED STRUCTURAL FILL TYPICAL CUT SLOPE;
PLACED IN 12-INCH LIFTS GRADE MAY BE DETERMINED BY
SITE CEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
BUT NOT TO EXCEED 2H:1 V
TYPICAL FILL SLOPE; I I III
GRADE MAY BE DETERMINED BY
SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER _
BUT NOT TO EXCEED 2H:1V I POSSIBLE GROUND
_I I WATER SEEP
ROUTE DRAINS THROUGH SOLID PIPE TO —
4 FEET (TYPICAL)
DAYLIGHT AT SLOPE FACE. MAINTAIN SOLID ,
PIPE TO APPROVED DISCHARGE LOCATION. _`III le Ile =a k _
DO NOT ALLOW TO FLOW OVER SLOPE FACE. i�-� 'k-�k '!.
WATEPOSSR LE GROUND
TOE BENCH/KEY - - —
POSSIBLE GROUND
�—WAFER SEEP
2 FEET (TYPICAL)
III 1 I I—" NEEC FOR DRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION
MINIMUM MINIMUM 10 FEET
5 FEET
TYPICAL DRAIN SECTION DETAIL
DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL CONSIST OF MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED MINIMUM _ L WASHED DRAIN ROCK MINIMUM
EQUIVALENT WITH AOS BETWEEN No. 70 AND No. 100 SIEVE. 2 FEET '` 2 FEET
_ MINIMUM 3-INCH DIAMETER �
WASHED DRAIN ROCK SHALL BE OPEN-GRADED ANGULAR DRAIN ROCK 1 _ PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE
WITH LESS THAN 2 PERCENT PASSING THE No. 200 SIEVE AND A L
MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF 3 INCHES.
MINIMUM MINIMUM
2 FEET 2 FEET
Geoleehnical.Environmental.Spacial Inspections � Design: Drawn:G LW
TYPICAL CUT AND FILL
Columbia West�ir Checked:LVL Date:12 8 15 SLOPE CROSS—SECTION FIGURE
NOTES: ' ' , ' " f r Client:BKI Rev B Date
1. DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE.
2.SLOPES AND PROFILES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 11917NE96thSTREET Job No: 15337 MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1 3
3.DRAWING REPRESENTS TYPICAL FILL AND CUT VANCOUVER,WASHINGTON 98682
SLOPE SECTION, AND MAY NOT BE SITE-SPECIFIC. PHONE 360823-2900 FAX 3608232901 CAD File:FIGURE 3 POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
www.columbeiwestengneenngcom C.-C • r—IF - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MINIMUM FOUNDATION SLOPE SETBACK DETAIL
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
T—
COMPACTED ENGINEERED STRUCTURAL
FILL OR COMPETENT NATIVE CUT SOIL _ 1P�
0 FEET
FOOTING
I—
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SETBACK H
,�`ti�• I DISTANCE BETWEEN BOTTOM EDGE OF FOOTING
�,P I AND FACE OF SLOPE IS 10 FEET OR SLOPE
HEIGHT DIVIDED BY 3, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE ASSUMES SLOPE
EXISTS ON ONE PROPERTY BORDER. FOR PROPERTY
CORNERS W TH ADJOINING SLOPES, ADDITIONAL
_ ENGINEERING ANALYSIS MAY BE REQUIRED.
Gootecnnicsl a Environmental.Special Inspections � Design: Drawn:G LW MINIMUM FOUNDATION
NOTES: Columbia Wester Checked:LVL Date: 12 8 15 SLOPE SETBACK DETAIL FIGURE
1. DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE. E n o . n � ` r i n 9 . I F Client: BKI Rev By Date
2.SLOPES AND PROFILES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. Job No: 15337 MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1
3.DRAWING REPRESENTS TYPICAL FOUNDATION 1 917NE9 IN STREET 4
SETBACK DETAIL. AND MAY NOT BE VANC604323 900 FAX
98662 CAD File:FIGURE 4 POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
PHONE 3608232900 f-N( 3608232901
SITE—SPECIFIC. www caiumcaiwescengneeringcam
Scale: NONE
TYPICAL PERMITER FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
FINAL EXTERIOR GRADE SHOULD PROVIDE
POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES
SLOPE TO DRAIN TOPSOIL MATERIAL
W W W W W
W W W W W W W W W W W
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC W W
(MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT)-- I= _
\4
FOOTING I I-III—III—
o . .
—) I —III—III OIF 124MINCHES
DEPTH
-III-
B
-I I �-
�I °° -1
—III I I I FILTER SAND
COMPETENT NATIVE SOIL PERFORATED OR SLOTTED 3—INCH RIGID PVC DRAIN
BEARING SURFACE OR PIPE INSTALLED AT MINIMUM 2 PERCENT SLOPE WITH
ENGINEERED STRUCTURAL FILL GRAVITY FLOW TO APPROVED DISCHARGE LOCATION
OPEN—GRADED DRAIN ROCK WITH
MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF 3 INCHES
Geotachnical a Environmental a Special Inspections Design: Drawn:GLw
�, TYPICAL PERIMETER
Columbia West-�G`rf Checked:LVL Date: 12 8 15 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL FIGURE
F.. .. . " . . . "i q t r CIient:BK1 Rev By Date
NOTES:
1. DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE. 1191 7 NE 95th STFEET Job No: 15337 MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1 5
2. DRAWING REPRESENTS TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN VAN C]IJVER,WASH FAX 3 98692
DETAIL AND MAY NOT BE SITE-SPECIFIC PHONE 3608232900 FAX 3nng=n 901 CAD File:FIGURE 5 POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
www.cdumba�wes[engneenngcarn C..C'
APPENDIX A
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Geotechnical ■ Environmental ■ Special Inspections
1 1917 NE 95�''Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 �
Phone: lumb8 westengi Fax: g.com 3-2901 Columbia West r-
www.columbiawestengineering.com
it 8.
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT
PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID
Mason County PUD No. 1 Mr. Byron Woltersdorf 15337 S15-835
Potlatch, Washington Brown&Kysar, Inc. REPORT DATE FIELD ID
1315 SE Grace Avenue,#201 11/30/15 TP 1.1
Battle Ground, Washington 98604 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY
11/19/15 JLO/MAC
MATERIAL DATA
MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE
Well-graded GRAVEL with Sand Test Pit TP-01 GW, Well-graded gravel with sand
depth=3 feet
SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE
none A-1-ai
LABORATORY TEST DATA
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE
Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913,D422
ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA
initial dry mass(g)= 30032.7 %gravel= 54.6%
as-received moisture content= 6.2% coefficient of curvature, Cc= 1.13 %sand= 43.2%
liquid limit= 0 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= 17.77 %silt and clay= 2.1%
plastic limit= 0 effective size,D(10)= 0.483 mm
plasticity index= 0 D(30)= 2.169 mm PERCENT PASSING
fineness modulus= n/a D(60)= 8.583 mm SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS
US mm act. interp. max min
6.00" 150.0 100.0%
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0%
N" k k
00 �oo0 3,00" 75.0 100.0%
2.50" 63.0 99.6%
100% 100% 2.00" 50.0 99.1%
ON I I' 1 " H HI 1 1.75" 45.0 97.1%
90% 90% J 1.50" 37.5 93.7%
j 1.25" 31.5 90.4%
1.00' 25.0 86.0%
80% 80% 718" 22A 83.1%
314" 19.0 78.7%
70% 70% 5/8" 16.0 74.7%
1/2" 12.5 69.0%
3/8' 9.50 62.6%
60% 60% 1/4" 6.30 52.0%
C #4 4.75 45.4%
.y
R 50% 50% #8 2.36 31.7%
Q #10 2.00 28.4%
#16 1.18 20.9%
o °
0 40/o #20 0.850 16.2%
#30 0.600 12.4%
30% 30% p #40 0.425 8.6%
a #50 0.300 5.9%
w #60 0.250 4.5%
20% 20% #80 0.180 3.5%
#100 0.150 3.0%
10% 10% #140 0.106 2.5%
#170 0.090 2.4%
#200 0.075 2.1%
0% 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY
100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
particle size(mm) 1/J1/20/15/J MJR
• sieve sizes -sieve data f�+----� M5
This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior written authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature
CWE-s12-r07/1�
Geotechnical ■ Environmental . Special Inspections
11917 NE 95�'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:36a823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901
www.columbiawest.engineering.com Columbia West
E n g i n e e r i n g I n c
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT
PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID
Mason County PUD No. 1 Mr. Byron Woltersdorf 15337 S 15-836
Potlatch,Washington Brown&Kysar, Inc. REPORT DATE FIELD ID
1315 SE Grace Avenue,4201 11/30/15 TP5.1
Battle Ground, Washington 98604 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY
11/19/15 JLO/MAC
MATERIAL DATA
MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE
Poorly graded GRAVEL with Sand Test Pit TP-05 GP, Poorly graded gravel with sand
depth= 1 foot
SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE
none A-1-a(0)
LABORATORY TEST DATA
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE
Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913,D422
ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA
initial dry mass(g)= 2081.4 %gravel= 47.7%
as-received moisture content= 13.2% coefficient of curvature,Cc= 0.64 %sand= 47.5%
liquid limit= 0 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= 26.41 %silt and clay= 4.8%
plastic limit= 0 effective size, D/lo>= 0.253 mm
plasticity index= 0 D(30)= 1.036 mm PERCENT PASSING
fineness modulus= n/a D/_i= 6.671 mm SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS
US mm act. interp max min
6.00" 150.0 100.0%
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0%
o 8 - 3.00' 75.0 100.0% -
°
2.50' 63.0 100.0%
100% 0 100% 2.00" 50.0 100.0%
1.75" 45.0 100.0%
90% 90% w 1.50" 37.5 100.0%
> 1.25" 31.5 96.6%
1.00" 25.0 94.8%
80% 80% 7/8" 22.4 93.7%
3/4" 19.0 91.9%
70% 70% 5/8" 16.0 85.7%
1/2" 12.5 76.7%
3/8" 9.50 69.1%
60% 60% 1/4" 6.30 58.5%
C #4 4.75 52.3%
h 50% 50% #8 2.W 41.3%
p, #10 2.00 38.8%
e #16 1.18 31.7%
40% 40% #20 0.850 27.4%
#30 0.600 22.5%
30% 30% o #40 0.425 17.8%
a #50 0.300 12.6%
11M rn #60 0.250 9.8%
20% 20% #80 0.180 7.6%
#100 0.150 6.4%
10% 10% #140 0.106 5.6%
#170 0.090 5.2%
#200 0.075 4.8%
0% 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY
100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
11/20/15 MJR
particle size(mm)
• sieve sizes � sieve data
This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior written authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature
CWE-s12-r07/12
Geotechnical ■ Environmental ■ Special Inspections
11917 NE 95"'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 �
Phone: lumb8westengi Fax: g.com 3-2901 Columbia West=v'4*,'0'-
Ewww.columbiawestengineering.com n c; i n e i -1 q I n c
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT
PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID
Mason County PUD No. 1 Mr. Byron Woltersdorf 15337 S15-837
Potlatch, Washington Brown& Kysar, Inc. REPORT DATE FIELD ID
1315 SE Grace Avenue,4201 11/30/15 TP8.1
Battle Ground, Washington 98604 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY
11/19/15 JLO/MAC
MATERIAL DATA
MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE
Silty SAND with Gravel Test Pit TP-08 SM, Silty Sand with Gravel
depth= 1 foot
SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE
none A-1-b(0)
LABORATORY TEST DATA
LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE
Rainhart "Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913,D422
ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA
initial dry mass(g)= 1773.6 %gravel= 29.7%
as-received moisture content= 20.5% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 47.4%
liquid limit= 0 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 22.9%
plastic limit= 0 effective size, D(jo)= n/a
plasticity index= 0 D(30)= 0.155 mm PERCENT PASSING
fineness modulus= n/a D(60)= 2.297 mm SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS
US mm act. interp. max min
6.00" 150.0 100.0%
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0%
0 0 3.00" 75.0 100.0%
N k 2.50" 63.0 100.0%
100% 100% 2.00" 50.0 100.0%
1.75" 45.0 100.0%
90% 90% J 1.50" 37.5 100.0%
j 1.25" 31.5 100.0%
1 1.00" 25.0 98.1%
80% 80% 7/8" 22.4 95.8% - -
3/4" 19.0 92.4%
70% 70% 5/8" 16.0 90.1%
1/2" 12.5 86.7%
3/8" 9.50 82.6%
60% 60% 114" 6.30 75.5%
� I
C #4 4.75 70.3%
u 50% 50% #8 2.36 60.4%
CL #10 2.00 58.0%
#16 1.18 52.5%
0
40 0 40/o 10 0,850 49.0%
#30 0.600 45.7%
30% 30% p #40 0.425 42.4%
Q #50 0.300 38.0%
N #60 0.250 35.7%
20% 20% #80 0.180 31.8%
#100 0.150 29.6%
10% 10% #140 0.106 26.3%
#170 0.090 24.7%
#200 0.075 22.9%
0% 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY
100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01
particle size(mm) 1 11/20/15/� / MJR
• sieve sizes -sieve data f¢1+--�--� </r
This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior written authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature
CWE-s12-r07/1,
M
APPENDIX B
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LOGS
11917 NE 95TH Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 C1*nlerhmW*l.Env1.0nWWM*a SpMW Imp•ctlons 1
Phone_ lumbie 3-29�.Fax.3g-com 2901 Columbia West
www.columbiaweste ineerin -cam
TEST PIT LOG " r ` i " 9 .
I
PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO. TEST PR NO.
Mason County PUD No. 1 Brown & Kysar, Inc. 15337 TP-1
PROJECT LOCATION CONTRACTOR EOUIPMEW ENGINEER GATE
Potlatch, Washington Mason County PUD No. 1 Excavator MACIA0 11/19/15 I
TEST PIT LOCATION APPROX SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH START TIME FINISH TIME
See Figure 2 155 ft amsl not encountered 0920 0950 '
T I
Depth Sample scs AASHTO USCS
(feet) Field Boll Survey Shc Soil Grapwc LITHOLOG11C DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS �? c by Q E 1nflltretlorl I
ID DescxipNon Type Type U N J J a_ Testing
Log
a I
z
0 �• Approximately 2 to 3 inches of dark brown, 1
organic-rich topsoil.
Grove Light brown well-graded GRAVEL with sand and 1
gravelly • O cobbles,moist,medium dense.coarse textured
sandy loam O • sand, rounded gravels.[Soil Type 2]
a O
O . 1
• O 1
O •
• O
O Cobbles up to 4 inches in diameter observed.
• O
O • I
• O
O • I
TP-1-11 • O 6.2 2.1 0 0
O •
. O
O •
l
• O
O . 1
• O
O • 1
• O 1
O •
• O Roots observed to 5.0 ft. I
O 1
• O
O '
• O 1
O •
. O I
O •
O
O • 1
• O
O • I
• O 1
O •
• O '
O • 1
• O
O . I
• O
I
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. '
Groundwater not encountered. 1
101 1 1 11
11917 NE 95TH Street Vancouver.Washington 98682 Oeobcnnle•I. Enwrenm•ntN. spectol I*..poebons
Phone_3 mbiavo -290Q Fax_36D8g-mm 32901 Columbia West
� wvrw.columblay.�estengineer7ng_wm
I
TEST PIT LOG Enajrrrrin y
1 PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO TEST PiT N0,
Mason County PUD No. 1 Brown & Kysar, Inc. 15337 TP-2
9ROJEUtLOGAIION CONIRACTCF EQUIPMENT ENGINEER GATE
1 Potlatch, Washingtor Mason County PUD No. 1 Excavator MACIJLO 11/19/15
rEST PIT LOCATION APPROx."FACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER OEF?H START TIME FINISH TIME
1 See Figure 2 115 ft amsl not encountered 1000 1020
I �
Depth Sample SCs AASHTO usCs G Infiltration
1 (teat) Flaid Soil Surrey sodSoil LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS .�c L� !r a
-'
ID Description Type Type Log U a N a_ Testing
I z
Approximately 2 to 3 inches of darn brown,
organic-rich topsoil.
rove A-' � • O Light brown poorly-to well-graded GRAVEL
GP
gravelly with sand.cobbles.and trace silt, moist.
sandy loam O • medium dense.coarse textured sand, rounded
• O gravels. (Soil Type 2)
O •
• O
O •
• O
1 0 . Cobbles up to 6 inches ir diameter observed.
• O
I O •
• O
O
• O
O •
I • O
0 .
• 0
r 0 .
I • O
O •
1 • O
O •
•
O
0 .
• O
O .
• O
O •
• O
I
O •
• O
0 -
O Becomes grayish brown. Less fines observed
� O
• O
O •
O
O •
• O
r 0 .
• O
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
I
11917 NE 95TH Street.Vancouver.Washington 98682 Deoteehm". EnVI.•egnertw. Special I"SpectAane 1
Phone_ lumbi 23-29�,Fax.3g-com 2901 ik
Columbian West
www.columbieweste ineerin -cam 417
TESTPIT LOG ` " 9 ' " e " ` nQ I n f
I
PROJECT NAME CUENT PROJECT NO. TEST PIT NO, I
Mason County PUD No. 1 Brown $ Kysar, Inc. 15337 TP-3
PROJECT LOCATION CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT ENGINEER DATE
Potlatch, Washington Mason County PUD No.1 Excavator MAC/JLO 11/19/15
TEST PIT LOCATION APPROK SURFACE ELEVATION GROUWDwATER DEPTH START TW FINISH TIME.
See Figure 2 132 ft amsl not encountered 1025 1045 '
1: I
Depth Sample SCS AASNTO USCS � m- G(n v r x
(feet) Field g Survey g� Soil Graptwe LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS c q E I stir n I
ID Description Type TypeLog U N J J a— Testing
z
0 Approximately 2 to 3 inches of dark brown,
organic-rich topsoil- '
gravelly A-' GP • O Light brown poorly-to well-graded GRAVEL i
sandy loam O • with sand,cobbles,and trace silt,moist,
medium dense.coarse textured sand,rounded
• O gravels. (Soil Type 2]
O q '
• O Becomes grayish brown.Less fines observed. '
O •
• O '
O . Cobbles up to 4 inches in diameter observed.
• O I
O • I
• O
O • I
• O I
O •
e 0 L
O •
O
O a I
• O
O • 1
• O I
5 • O 1
O • 1
• O
O • '
• O I
O •
. O I
O •
O 1
O I
• O
O • 1
• O I
O •
I
Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. 1
Groundwater not encountered,
I
I
I
I
10
I 11917 NE 95TH Street,Vancouver.Washington 986B2 6084:401"P•c»o�y
Phone-360-823.2900,Fax:36G823-2901 Columbia West
I www.columbiaweswrmjineefing.com
TEST PIT LOG ° ' ` ` r 1 n Q J'
I
I FRIIJF:CT NAME Fn,l PROJECT NO TEST PIT NO
Oason County PUD No. 1 Brown & Kysar, Inc. 15337 TP-4
''ROJECTLOCATION CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT ENGINEER GATE
Potlatch,Washington Mason county PUD No.t Excavator MACIJLO 11I19!15
TEST PIT LOCATION APPNOx SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWA'ER OEFTH START TIME FINISH TI61E
' See Figure 2 88 ft amsl not encountered 1055 1115
I �
a
DeE:I, sample scs AASHTO uscs Graphic LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS m 31 o E m Infiltration
1 laid sal surrey Snr Soil .N � . Testing
Log
ID Description Typo' Type n o a
I =
Approximately 2 to 3 Inches of dar-a brown,
organic-rich topsoil.
Grove ` A Light brown poorly-to well-graded GRAVEL
gravelly Grp • O with sand and cobbles,moist,medium dense,
sandy IoR111 O • coarse textured sand, rounded gravels,
• O (Soil Type 2)
' O •
• O
O •
I a O
O - Cobbles up to 6 inches in diameter observed.
I
• O
I O •
• O
' O
• O
O •
' • O
O •
• O
r O •
• O
O
I • O
I • O Becomes grayish brown.
O •
• O
' O •
O
O •
• O
1
O •
. O
i O •
• O
' O •
i • O
O •
I • O
O •
• O
1
Bottom of test pit at 8.5 feet_
' Groundwater not encountered,
I
I
u
11917 NE 95TH Street,Vancouver.Washirgton 98682 Oeotse m". Envimnmemal. specs rnspeftons I
Phone_ lumbis 3.29�.Fax.g-com 3-2901 Columbia West �-
www.cDlumbiaweste ineerin .ccm
TEST PIT LOG Enginrrring , inr
I
PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO. TEST PIT NO. I
Mason County PUD No. 1 Brown & Kysar. Inc. 15337 TP-5
PROJECT LOCATION CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT ENGINEER OATS
Potlatch,Washington Mason County PUD No. 1 Excavator MACIJLO 11119115
TEST PIT LOCATION APPItOX.SURFACE ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH STAR"TIME FINISH TI61E
See Figure 2 110 ft amsl not encountered 1120 1135 t
T I
Oeplh Samda SCS AASHTO uscs m +'_W y r x
ffeet) Field Son survey So/ Soil GraptuC LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS a c�? .�c� Q 1= � m Infiltration
ID Description Type Type �9 2 U Q w J a Testing
� I
Z
0 Approximately 2 to 3 inches of dark brown,
organic-rich topsoil.
I
Grove 'p;•' Ught brown poorly-graded GRAVEL with sand. t
gravelly cobbles,and trace silt, moist, medium dense,
sandy loam
TP 5 t A 1 a , .•p', . coarse textured sand, rounded gravels. 1
(Soil Type 21 13.2 4-8 0 0
O:
o:
Cobbles up to 6 inches in diameter observed.
•O.
O:
Becomes grayish brown.Less fines observed.
O:
' I
•O.
.O; I
• I
O.
I
O:
• I
O•.
O.
• I
I
I
O.
• I
I
O.
. I
O' I
O.
. I
Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feel.
Groundwater not encountered.
I
I
I
I
I 11917 NE 95TH Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 1
Phone_ lumbia 3.2904 Fax. g-com 32901 Columbia West-�r-
I www.columbiewesLengineering_cam
I
TEST PIT LOG r
I FRiUECT NAM CLIENT PROJECT NC TEST PIT N0.
Oason County PUD No. ' Brown & Kysar. Inc. 15337 TP-6
'ROJECT LOCATION CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT ENGINEER GATE
Potlatch, Washington Mason County PUD No. t Excavator MAC/JLO 11/19115
rESr PIT LOCATICN APPROx SURFACE ELEVATION .GROUNDWATER DEPTH STARTTTIAE FINISH TIME
I See Figure 2 135 ft amsl not encountered 1135 1145
I �
P c �•01
Depth Sa 0a scs AASHTO uses
04"0 Flaid SOH Surrey SM Soil G Log UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ���? �N aR g7 Testing
ID Deauipcian Type Type 4 o a
I z
C Approximately 2 to 3 inches of darA brown,
organic-rich topsoil.
Grove A-' UN Light brown poorly-to well-graded GRAVEL
gravelly O with sand.cobbles.and trace silt, moist.
sa iay loam O • medium dense,coarse textured sand, rounded
• O gravels [Soil Type 21
I O .
I • O
O •
I a O
O . Cobbles up to 6 inches in diameter observed.
I
• O
O •
• O
O
. O Becomes grayish brown. Less fines ohservod.
O •
O
I O •
• O
r O .
I • O
O •
I • O
_ O •
I
• O
I p .
• O
O •
I O
O •
I • O
I O •
• O
I O •
• O
I
O •
I • O
O •
I
Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered,
I
I
I
I
Cj
11917 NE 95TH Street,Vancouver.Washington 98682 o•otlenn". Envimn im . spo"lerpeatime I
Phone_360-823-2900,Fax:36C}823-2901 �OI���'� 1���
www.columbiewesoengineering-Gam II
TEST PIT LOG ` n n e r r I n U ' n `
PROJECT NAMES CLIENT PROJECT NO. TP-ST PIT NO I
Mason County PUD No, ' Brown & Kysar, Inc. 15337 TP-7
PROJECT L.QCATiaN CONTRACTOR EQUIPMENT ENGINEER CATE
Potlatch, Washingtor Mason County PUD No. i Excavator MAC/JLO 11119115 1
TEST PIT LOG,ATIOP{ APPROX SWFAC:E ELEVATION GROUNDWATER DEPTH START T WE FINISH TIME
See Figure 2 144 ft amsl not encountered 1150 1200 '
m
Depth Sample SCS AASHTO uscs
Graptuc
(feet? Field Sotl Survey Sole Soil UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS a c ee �oe� Q E � � Infiltration
ID Description Type Type L"9 U a N J a— Testing
Z
I
Approximately to 3 inches of dark brown,
organic-rich topsool.
Grove A-t Light brown poorly-to well-graded GRAVEL
gravelly GP 11 • O with sand cobbles.and trace silt,moist.
sandy foam • medium dense.coarse textured sand,rounded
i
• 0 gravels. [Soil Type 21 i
O •
• O i
O •
O
0 . Cobbles up to 6 inches in diameter observed.
• O
0 . i
• O
O • I
• O I
O •
• O I
O
I
e O
O • '
• O
O •
e 0
O •
O 1
O • 1
• O
Oe
O O Becomes grayish brown.Less fines observed-
0 i
O •
e
O
O 1
• O
O • I
• O 1
O •
01
Batttyn of tes,p' at 8.0 feet
Grry-ndwater not encountered
i
i
I
I
I 11917 NE 95TH Street;Vancouver,Washington 9i3$82
Phone:360•823-2900,Fax_360.823-2901 Columbia West
I www.columbiaweswngineering.com
I
TEST PIT LUG " A ` ' r
I FFu 1.1E CT NAW6 cI PROJECT NO. TEST PIT NO
Oason County PUD No. 1 Brown & Kysar. Inc. 15337 TP-8
I'°ROJECTLOCATION EQUIPMENT ENGINEER DATE
I Potlatch, Washington Nlasor County PLO No. 1 Excavator MAClJLO 11l19115
-EST PIT LOCATION AF7V,Wx -tIR'•:=EL=:Arc)N GROUNOVrATERDEPTH STARTTn,IE FINISH TIME
I See Figure 2 105 ft arnsl not encountered 1210 1230
I �
Depih Sarnde scs AASHTO uSCS
' Infiltration
rrwwl;, Field Soo survey Sod Soil C'n3phic LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 0 �
ID Description Type Type Log U li N J �_ Testing
I Z
r C Approximately 2 to 3 inches of dark brown,
organic-rich topsoil.
1 rove SM Reddish brown silty SAND with gravel and
gravelly cobbles, moist, medium dense.coarse texturec
sandy Ioaln sand, rounded gravels [Sod Type 11
TP-8.1 A-1-b(0) <u « l a
I
I
A-I G"V Light brown poorly-to well-graded GRAVE[
1 GP O with sand.cobbles.and trace silt, moist,
O • medium dense.coarse textured sand, rounder?
' • O gravels. [Soil Type 2]
O •
I
• O
r O •
• O Cobbles up to 4 inches in diameter observe.
' O •
• O
O •
' O
r O •
• O
r O •
. O
O
O
O .
• O
O •
• O
' O •
r • O
O •
• O
O •
O
I O •
I O Becomes grayish brown. Less fines observed
' Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered.
I
1
r
I
'u
APPENDIX C
SOIL CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION
SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES
Particle-Size Classification
ASTM/USCS AASHTO
COMPONENT size range sieve size range size range sieve size range
Cobbles >75 mm greater than 3 inches >75 mm greater than 3 inches
Gravel 75 mm—4.75 mm 3 inches to No.4 sieve 75 mm—2.00 mm 3 inches to No. 10 sieve
Coarse 75 mm—19.0 mm 3 inches to 3/4-inch sieve -
Fine 19.0 mm—4.75 mm 3/4-inch to No.4 sieve
Sand 4.75 mm—0.075 mm No.4 to No.200 sieve 2.00 mm—0.075 mm No. 10 to No.200 sieve
Coarse 4.75 mm—2.00 mm No.4 to No. 10 sieve 2.00 mm—0.425 mm No. 10 to No.40 sieve
Medium 2.00 mm—0.425 mm No. 10 to No.40 sieve -
Fine 0.425 mm—0.075 mm No.40 to No.200 sieve 0.425 mm—0.075 mm No.40 to No.200 sieve
Fines(Silt and Clay) <0.075 mm j Passing No.200 sieve <0.075 mm Passing No.200 sieve
Consistency for Cohesive Soil
POCKET PENETROMETER
SPT N-VALUE (UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE
CONSISTENCY BLOWS PER FOOT STRENGTH is
Very Soft 2 less than 0.25
Soft 2 to 4 0.25 to 0.50
Medium Stiff 4 to 8 0.50 to 1.0
Stiff 8 to 15 1.0 to 2.0
Very Stiff 15 to 30 2.0 to 4.0
Hard 30 to 60 greater than 4.0
Very Hard greater than 60
Relative Density for Granular Soil
SPT N-VALUE
RELATIVE DENSITY BLOWS PER FOOT
Very Loose 0 to 4
Loose 4 to 10
Medium Dense 10 to 30
Dense 30 to 50
Very Dense more than 50
Moisture Designations
TERM FIELD IDENTIFICATION
Dry No moisture. Dusty or dry.
Damp Some moisture. Cohesive soils are usually below plastic limit and are
moldable.
Moist Grains appear darkened,but no visible water is present. Cohesive soils
will clump. Sand will bulk. Soils are often at or near plastic limit.
Wet Visible water on larger grains. Sand and silt exhibit dilatancy. Cohesive
soil can be readily remolded. Soil leaves wetness on the hand when
squeezed. Soil is much wetter than optimum moisture content and is
above plastic limit.
AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
TABLE 1.Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures
Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials
General Classification (35 Percent or Less Passina.075 mm) (More than 35 Percent Passina 0,075)
Group Classification A-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7
Sieve analysis,percent passing:
2.00 mm(No.10) - -
0.425 mm(No.40) 50 max 51 min - -
0.075 mm(No.200) 25 max 10 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min
Characteristics of fraction passing 0.425 mm(No.40)
Liquid limit 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min
Plasticity index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min
General ratina as subarade Excellent to aood Fair to poor
Note:The placing of A-3 before A-2 is necessary in the'left to right elimination process"and does not indicate superiority of A-3 over A-2.
TABLE 2.Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures
Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials
General Classification (35 Percent or Less Passino 0.075 mm) (More than 35 Percent Passing 0.075 mm)
A-1 A-2 A-7
A-7-5,
Group Classification A-1-a A-1-b A-3 A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7-6
Sieve analysis,percent passing:
2.00 mm(No.10) 50 max
0.425 mm(No.40) 30 max 50 max 51 min
0.07_5_mm(No.200) 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min
Characteristics of fraction passing 0,425 mm(No.40)
Liquid limit 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min
Plasticity index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min
Usual types of significant constituent materials Stone fragments, Fine
oravel and sand sand Silty or clayey gravel and sand Silty soils Clayey soils
General ratings as subarade Excellent to Good Fair to poor
Note:Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30.Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30(see Figure 2).
AASHTO=American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP SYMBOL GROUPNAME
<5%Ines ,:Z::<Cuo4 and 15Ccs3 -GW�<15%send WNlgaded gravel
z15%Bard�Wei lgaded gravel with send
Cu<4 andfor 1>Cc>3 -GP '15%sand—te Poorly graded growl
z15%sandtl Poorly graded gravel vAth send
Anes=ML or MH GW-GM 115%sand—�Well-graded gravel with silt
Q1ze and lzC.s3 z15%saM—►Wsllyaded prowl with silt and santl
Anes=CL CH. le Glill <15%sand Wellgratled gravel wit clay(or silty clay)
GRAVEL for CLJAL) z15%sand—D Wellgatled growl wit clay and send
%growl> 5-12%Ann (or silty clay end tend)
%send
Inse=ML or MH��GP-GM <15%sand -poorly gredad gravel with silt
Cu<I and/or 1>Cc>3_ z15%send Poody graded gravel wit silt and aand
Anes=CL.CH.� GP-GC 05%sand—�Poody gredW growl wit clay(or silty clay)
(or CH.
L) z15%sand�Poorly graded gravel with clay one and
(or silty clay and sand)
lines=MLor MH GM 15%send Silty prowl
z15%send— Silty growl wit cane
>12%Anes foss=CL a CM��GC�<15% and—4l Clayey prowl
z15%sand—le Cl yy grovel with send
InM=CL-ML GC-GM <15%sane—le vary,dyey prowl
z15%sand—leSilty,clayey gravel wit sand
15%Ansa x;:Z:<Cuze and 1sUs3 -SW <15%gravel�WNISroded send
215%grave �l W ell-graded send with prowl
Cu<S and/or 1>Cc>3 -SP <15%gravel--------fe Poorly gredetl send
x15%gravel--------0 Poorly graded sand with gravel
Anes=ML or MH SWSM '15%grew —le Wei
lyaded sand with silt
CuxB ad 1aCpa3 z15%growl� Will
Nlyraded sand with silt end gravel
Anes=CL,CH. �SWSC 15%gravel—�Wall-graded send wide clay(or silty clay)
SAND (or CL-M L) �215%gravel Well-graded send with clay and growl
sand z 5-12%Anes (or silty clay and gravel)
%prowl
Anes=ML or MH�$PSM�<15%gravel-------- Poody graded send wit silt
CIS nNor 1>Cc>3 z15%growl— Poorly graded santl wit sill end prowl
Anes=CL CH. �SPSC�<15%growl�G Poody graded send wit clay(or oily clay)
(or CLW L) z15%growl— Poorly graded sand wit clay and gruel
(or silty clay and growl)
Anes=NIL or MH SM <15%gravel—�Silty send
z15%growl� Silty:end with gravel
>12%Anes fines=CL or CH +SC 115%gravel�Claysy send
x15%growl�Clayey and with gravel
An-=CL-ML--le SC-SM 11%growl—le Silty,clyy send
z15%growl�Silty,clayey send wit gravel
Flow Chart for Classilying Coarse-Grained Soils(More Than 50%Retained on No.200 Sieve)
GROUPSYMBOL GROUP NAME
<30%plus No.200 <15%plus No.200 -Lora clay
15-29%plus No.20 %sad z%gravel Lean cly with send
PI>7 and p CL %send<ve gravel--0.Lan clay wit gravel
or above %sad z%gravel <15%gravel—G Sandy Isn clay"A"Loa x 30%gels No.200 z 15%gravel—G Sndy Ian clay with growl
X end<%growl <15%send Gravelly Isen cery
x 15%sad Gravelly Isn cly wit sane
<30%plus No.200 <15%plus No.200 -Silty clay
15-29%plus No.200 %sad z%growl___"Si
Silt'clay wit and
a s PI s 7 arM —le CL-ML %one<%gravel�Silty clay wit gravel
Inorganic plots on or above �%sad z%gravel <15%prowl—G Sndy silty cly
'A"Dina 2 30%pan No.200 z 15%gavel—D Sndy silty clay with grawl
%sand<%gravel <15%sand=Gravelly silt'cly
z 15%sad�Gravelly silty clay wit send
<30%plus No.200 <15%plus No.200 -Silt
LL<60 15-29%plus No.200�%send z%gravel Sil[wit sntl
PI<4 or plots —�ML %sand<%growl�Silt wit gravel
below"A"-line %sand x%gravel <15%growl—y Sandy silt
x 30%pus No.200 x 15%gravel—G Sndy sift with gravel
%tend<%growl <15%sand—G Gravelly silt
LL bwnddee 1 z 15%sad—G Gravelly Gilt with send
Organic� <0.75 J—�of
1`LL-nor dries
<30%plus No.200 <15%plus No.200 -Fat cly
15-29%plus No.200 %send x%grave-�FM clay wit send
PI glob on or —�CH �%end<%gravel—le Fe[clay wit gravel
above"A"-line %sand z%grave <15%gravel�y Sandy let clay
z 30%plus No.200 z 1.5%gravel—y Solidly fat clay wit gravel
�%sand<%growl <15%sand. Gravelly tat clay
Inorganic< 15%sad—to Gravelly M clay wit sand
�<30%paw No.200 <15%plus No.200 to Elastic silt
15-29%plus No 200..,:--�%sad z%gravel ►Elastic till vet send
LL 2 50 PI plat below —>MH %end<%growl►Elastic tilt wit gravel
"A"aina �%aaM z%gravel <15%growl Sndy eesaSc sitt
z 30%plus No.2W z 15%gravel ►Sandy Neetic sitt veth arevel
LL-ownddetl 1 %sand<%prowl<15%sand�Grnelly elastic silt
Organic <0.75 I��OH z 15%sand--------►G=y elastic silt with sand
LL-not dd d /
Flow Chart for Classifying Fine-Grained Soil(50%or More Passes No.200 Sieve)
APPENDIX D
PHOTO LOG
Geotechnical ■ Environmental ■ Special Inspections
Columbia West
E n g i n e e r i n g I n c
MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1
POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
PHOTO LOG
-of
0" .
x.
Southern Site View, Facing South
t,
� _ 4
* 7t"�
Nip
East-Facing Terrace Slope (West of Site) with Exposed Quarry Cut Slope
Geotechnicsl a Environmental•Specisl Inspections
Columbia West-�� Page 1
" , ".
Geotechnical ■ Environmental . Special Inspections
Columbia West
E n g i n e e r i n g I n �r
MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1
POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
PHOTO LOG
%
M R-4T
.1 (
-41
y
East-Facing Terrace Slope, Facing West
OR
ll,77
VI
011
i� r rn 11m. NExw:...r�il ' �.
Soils Explored with a Track-Mounted Excavator
Geotechnical,Environmental a special Inspections
Columbia West Page 2
E n till n e e r i n g , I n c
Geotechnical a Environmental ■ Special Inspections 1
Columbia Westw4o'
E n g i n e e r i n g I n c `-
MASON COUNTY PUD NO. 1
POTLATCH, WASHINGTON
PHOTO LOG
lip
y r '�'�� .•sue r
Coarse-Textured Soil Profile Typical of the Site
Geotechnical•Environmental•Special Inspections
Columbia, West Page 3
APPENDIX E
REPORT LIMITATIONS AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Geotechnical ■ Environmental ■ Special Inspections I
Columbia Westwvo'
E n g i n e e r i n g I n c \7
Date: December 10, 2015
Project: Mason County PUD No. 1
Potlatch, Washington
Geotechnical and Environmental Report Limitations and Important Information
Report Purpose, Use, and Standard of Care
This report has been prepared in accordance with standard fundamental principles and practices of
geotechnical engineering and/or environmental consulting, and in a manner consistent with the level of
care and skill typical of currently practicing local engineers and consultants. This report has been
prepared to meet the specific needs of specific individuals for the indicated site. It may not be adequate
for use by other consultants, contractors, or engineers, or if change in project ownership has occurred.
It should not be used for any other reason than its stated purpose without prior consultation with
Columbia West Engineering, Inc. (Columbia West). It is a unique report and not applicable for any
other site or project. If site conditions are altered, or if modifications to the project description or
proposed plans are made after the date of this report, it may not be valid. Columbia West cannot
accept responsibility for use of this report by other individuals for unauthorized purposes, or if problems
occur resulting from changes in site conditions for which Columbia West was not aware or informed.
Report Conclusions and Preliminary Nature
This geotechnical or environmental report should be considered preliminary and summary in nature.
The recommendations contained herein have been established by engineering interpretations of
subsurface soils based upon conditions observed during site exploration. The exploration and
associated laboratory analysis of collected representative samples identifies soil conditions at specific
discreet locations. It is assumed that these conditions are indicative of actual conditions throughout the
subject property. However, soil conditions may differ between tested locations at different seasonal
times of the year, either by natural causes or human activity. Distinction between soil types may be
more abrupt or gradual than indicated on the soil logs. This report is not intended to stand alone
without understanding of concomitant instructions, correspondence, communication, or potential
supplemental reports that may have been provided to the client.
Because this report is based upon observations obtained at the time of exploration, its adequacy may
be compromised with time. This is particularly relevant in the case of natural disasters, earthquakes,
floods, or other significant events. Report conclusions or interpretations may also be subject to revision
if significant development or other manmade impacts occur within or in proximity to the subject property.
Groundwater conditions, if presented in this report, reflect observed conditions at the time of
investigation. These conditions may change annually, seasonally or as a result of adjacent
development.
Additional Investigation and Construction QA/QC
Columbia West should be consulted prior to construction to assess whether additional investigation
above and beyond that presented in this report is necessary. Even slight variations in soil or site
conditions may produce impacts to the performance of structural facilities if not adequately addressed.
This underscores the importance of diligent QA/QC construction observation and testing to verify soil
conditions do not differ materially or significantly from the interpreted conditions utilized for preparation
of this report.
Therefore, this report contains several recommendations for field observation and testing by Columbia
West personnel during construction activities. Actual subsurface conditions are more readily observed
and discerned during the earthwork phase of construction when soils are exposed. Columbia West
cannot accept responsibility for deviations from recommendations described in this report or future
Geotechnical•Environmental•Special Inspections•Materials Testing
11917 NE 95,Street Vancouver,Washington 98682 • Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901
www..columbiawestangineef ing.com
Geotechnical andErnironmental Report Limitations and Important Information Page 2 of 2
Columbia West Engineering,Inc.
performance of structural facilities if another consultant is retained during the construction phase or
Columbia West is not engaged to provide construction observation to the full extent recommended.
Collected Samples
Uncontaminated samples of soil or rock collected in connection with this report will be retained for thirty
days. Retention of such samples beyond thirty days will occur only at client's request and in return for
payment of storage charges incurred. All contaminated or environmentally impacted materials or
samples are the sole property of the client. Client maintains responsibility for proper disposal.
Report Contents
This geotechnical or environmental report should not be copied or duplicated unless in full, and even
then only under prior written consent by Columbia West, as indicated in further detail in the following
text section entitled Report Ownership. The recommendations, interpretations, and suggestions
presented in this report are only understandable in context of reference to the whole report. Under no
circumstances should the soil boring or test pit excavation logs, monitor well logs, or laboratory
analytical reports be separated from the remainder of the report. The logs or reports should not be
redrawn or summarized by other entities for inclusion in architectural or civil drawings, or other relevant
applications.
Report Limitations for Contractors
Geotechnical or environmental reports, unless otherwise specifically noted, are not prepared for the
purpose of developing cost estimates or bids by contractors. The extent of exploration or investigation
conducted as part of this report is usually less than that necessary for contractor's needs. Contractors
should be advised of these report limitations, particularly as they relate to development of cost
estimates. Contractors may gain valuable information from this report, but should rely upon their own
interpretations as to how subsurface conditions may affect cost, feasibility, accessibility and other
components of the project work. If believed necessary or relevant, contractors should conduct
additional exploratory investigation to obtain satisfactory data for the purposes of developing adequate
cost estimates. Clients or developers cannot insulate themselves from attendant liability by disclaiming
accuracy for subsurface ground conditions without advising contractors appropriately and providing the
best information possible to limit potential for cost overruns, construction problems, or
misunderstandings.
Report Ownership
Columbia West retains the ownership and copyright property rights to this entire report and its contents,
which may include, but may not be limited to, figures, text, logs, electronic media, drawings, laboratory
reports, and appendices. This report was prepared solely for the client, and other relevant approved
users or parties, and its distribution must be contingent upon prior express written consent by Columbia
West. Furthermore, client or approved users may not use, lend, sell, copy, or distribute this document
without express written consent by Columbia West. Client does not own nor have rights to electronic
media files that constitute this report, and under no circumstances should said electronic files be
distributed or copied. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized manipulation or modification, and
may not be reliable.
Consultant Responsibility
Geotechnical and environmental engineering and consulting is much less exact than other scientific or
engineering disciplines, and relies heavily upon experience, judgment, interpretation, and opinion often
based upon media (soils) that are variable, anisotropic, and non-homogenous. This often results in
unrealistic expectations, unwarranted claims, and uninformed disputes against a geotechnical or
environmental consultant. To reduce potential for these problems and assist relevant parties in better
understanding of risk, liability, and responsibility, geotechnical and environmental reports often provide
definitive statements or clauses defining and outlining consultant responsibility. The client is
encouraged to read these statements carefully and request additional information from Columbia West
if necessary.
Geotechnical•Environmental•Special Inspections•Materials Testing
11917 NE 95,,Street Vancouver,Washington 98682 •Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901
www.columbiapmsWngineerYng.com
REEVE
SHERWOOD
CONSULTING. LLC
Hab"' t Management Plan COPY
ParspA ? 5--
el: 4227.3-34-00000
Mas4n County,Washington
• 1.0 Introduction
• The details of a Habitat Management Plan for the proposed construction of a new
operations facility for Mason County Public Utility District#1 within a property supporting
pileat4ld woodpecker(Drycopus pileatus)habitat are discussed in this report(see Figure I
• &2). Pileated woodpecker is regulated as a species of importance in the Mason County
Reso*ce Ordinance due to their state listing status of Candidate.The proposed mitigation
focus s on the management of important habitat features and protection&enhancement of
ed area within the property.
2.0 Project Description
• Use of"the property by Mason County PUD#1 will be for the construction of a new
operations facility which will consist of administrative buildings,maintenance buildings
and a utility"lay-down"storage yard. Standing dead trees(snags)with observed signs of
Pileat*d woodpecker use are within the identified project area(see Photos 1-4).Some of
the standing dead trees are used by the woodpeckers for foraging and therefore important to
the use of the site by the regulated species.No indicators of nesting or roosting of pileated
• woodpeckers have been observed.
Removal of all trees from the majority of the property will be mitigated by protection of a
• 140'x 180' (—0.58 acres)in the northwest comer of the property(see Figure 2). A number
of snags from the portion of the property that is to be cleared,will be replanted within this
protected area.This action is possible because the PUD has the equipment capable of
• auguring out a hole and then placing a tree into it and or through the use of an excavator
• equipped with grapple buckets capable of digging a hole and then grabbing a tree and
positioning it into a hole. A number of snags unable to be replanted(due to deteriorated
condition)will also be placed within the protected area as nursing logs and to help maintain
• insect[populations(see Figure 3).The western approximately 30 feet of this area does not
have any trees currently. The project will also plant 30 Douglas fir tree rooted starts on 15-
foot enters. The wide spacing of these trees will allow the trees to grow lots of limbs and
• create'a good buffer to the cleared lands to the west. The old access road that is currently
being used in this area will be abandoned and several of the proposed log piles will be
placed on and along this road.
REEVE w .
SHERWOOD 0
CONSULTING. LLC r
•
•
3.0 Project Area Description 0
The property consists of a predominantly> 80%coniferous forest with the dominant tree •
species being Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) interspersed with western hemlock •
(Tsuga heterophylla),a mix of deciduous trees comprised of dogwood(Cornus florida)
and madrone (Arbutus menziesii)with an understory consisting of salal(Gautheria
shallon),Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosus), evergreen huckleberry(Vacciniium ovatum), •
trailing evergreen blackberry(Rubus laciniatus),rhododendron(Rhododendron
macrophyllum)and various mosses and ferns. This stand of timber has a fairly high
percentage of dead and dying trees present. A total of 10 trees were observed to show r
pileated woodpecker foraging activity but this may have been an overestimate because •
other birds were also utilizing the area(see Photos 14). Photo 4 shows a non-typical
pileated woodpecker hole. 0
The landscape topography consists of a gentle slope,consisting of a gravelly sandy loam .
soil(see Soil Maps), from the western edge sloping down toward Highway 101. At
Highway 101,the slope becomes steeper. The slope also becomes steeper as it approaches
Sheldon Road to the north.
4.0 Species information
Pileated woodpecker is listed as a candidate species by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW), and is a Species of Importance in Mason County. The pileated •
woodpecker lives in coniferous and deciduous forests,preferring large, dead trees for •
nesting. The pileated woodpecker digs characteristically rectangular holes in trees to find
ants. Pilieated woodpeckers seldom use clearcuts,but will forage in clearcuts or
shelterwood cuts if substantial foraging habitat is retained. The presence of standing dead •
trees with foraging excavations are indicative of woodpecker use within any given
property.
The WDFW recommendations for coniferous forests(stands with>70% conifer stems)of
about 60 years of age or older include maintain>70%canopy closure and an average of>5
nest snags/10 ha(2 snags/10ac)that are>76 cm dbh (30 in)and 12 snags/ac as foraging
trees. Due to the observed indicators of use of the site by pileated woodpecker for foraging, •
removal of standing dead trees will be mitigated by protection of the existing snags and the •
creation of additional foraging habitat within the protected portion of the property. Eight
snags from the portion of the property that is to be cleared, will be replanted within this
protected area to supplement existing snags. A minimum of ten logs will be placed on the •
ground within the protected area to act as nurse logs and to help maintain insect
populations.
r
•
REEVE
• WOO
CONSUL ING. LL
r 5.0 Mitigation
• 5.1 Preservation of—.58 acres of existing habitat
The northwestern corner of the property will be preserved and enhanced for pileated
woodpecker habitat. This location was chosen because it is adjacent to similar conifer
forest habitat to the north across Sheldon Road.All the trees currently in this 140' x 180'
• area will be left to mature. This will maintain the 70%canopy closure that WDFW states
is a preferred condition. The existing dead trees will also be left unless they are leaning out
into the proposed PUD facilities area or are in danger of falling out onto Sheldon Road.
• The only reason any of these would be removed is if they presented a danger to the staff
• using the facilities or the public traveling on the adjacent road. This area will also be
enhanced by moving 8 dead 30' trees which will be removed from the cleared area and
planted into this protection area. The placing of these dead trees along with the existing
dead trees will provide good foraging opportunities for the Pileated woodpecker and other
birds. This will be accomplished by the tree being cut down in the clearing area and then
moved over to the protection area. Holes will be drilled into the ground with the same
equipment that the PUD uses to plant poles along the roadways or with an excavator. The
i dead trees will then be placed into the holes and the ground compacted around them. An
additional 10_dead trees will be hauled to the site from the cleared area and set on the
ground and in piles to provide additional insect habitat and thus providing more food for
• the woodpeckers to harvest(see Figure 3). The western edge (-30')of this protection area
• will be planted with 30 Douglas fir tree starts that will be planted on 15 foot centers so they
can grow up and become very bushy and provide hiding cover. The protection area will be
clearly marked as no cutting and the trees to be moved from the cleared area will also be
flagged before clearing starts. Location for placement of these trees and log piles will also
. be flagged in the protection area.
6.0 Monitoring
Monitoring of the project will consist of being present during the logging operation to
• ensure that all live and dead trees within the protected area are not cut and to give
assistance in the placement of the dead trees. The mitigation map shows the approximate
location of the proposed dead trees and nurse log pile locations. Site specific modifications
. may occur during the construction due to ground conditions and habitat impact
minimization techniques. An as-built drawing will be provided to Mason County Planning
department within 30 days of conclusion of timber harvest and mitigation construction and
. will represent the conclusion of the monitoring.
•
REEVE
1W SHERWOOD
CONSULTING. LLC
7.0 Conclusion
The proposed preservation and enhancement of the—.58 acre area located in the
northwestern portion of the PUD#1 property will not only provide foraging habitat but will •
also have the potential to provide nesting habitat as the trees continue to mature and die.
The placement of additional dead trees on the ground will provide additional foraging
opportunities and make for insect colonization of current and future dying trees. The •
placement of this protected area adjacent to other forested habitats is another reason why it
is believed that this project will be a success.
References
Lewis, J. and J.M. Azerrad 2003, WDFW PHS Management Recommendations,Volume
IV Birds, Pileated Woodpecker(Dryocopus pileatus)
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey(1/6/2016)
Pojar,J. and A. MacKinnon, 2004. Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast(2nd Edition). •
Lone Pine Publishing,Vancouver, B.C.
Figures
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Map
Figure 3. Mitigation Map
Figure 4. Soil Survey Map •
Photos 1-4
r
•
0
a �
ro
134 I o
E
L Q)
�
7
•V
aj
Q
N C
O
L
L
1A
CI
C
L
y
E
V
N
a
0
um
ai
IA
C
O
i
V
7
Ai
tth¢ Ai
C c
' O
22
u
U°
c F
(U
z E
aj
rn
ro
c
ro
2
ro
ro
�o
a
d
'o
a` (�
m Q u
10 J
C O J
O LU
a ]��
a W W��
W=z
V)u
•
�o
0
ti
a �
ro
� o
� N
L
L
L) .�
LL
.O 0
a �
a �
i
� N
O �
s L
.6.
a�
a
O
LL
ai
VI
C
O
y
v
ear �
C Cc
�o u
a
°J , �..
c E z
� rn
ro
m d ro
U
to L
HO i0 m
i
C �
O =
r �
O
aQo
m co
fa
�a
2
C�
Qu
J
O U
LLl��
Ww�
W=z
0=V}u
•
W)
cz
J pp F' sue. ro O
a as ?i
o �
•. 0 u
_ rn iLm
L 0
� a
0
c
0
�o
d
s
c
�o
a
c _
a�
E
a�
rn
ro
c
ro
ro
L
� c
0
0 -0
1.6 C:
co
V O
LLJ
0
Ou
J
OJ
>3//Z
LLJ
WWI
4J=z
LLB V}u
•
i
•
ZT, •
� R •a v
OOSLbZS OO£LbZS OOTLbZS 0069bZS OOL9bZS 0059bZS 00£9bZ5 M
M.bZ 9 o£ZT N •
M.bZ2 oM
cO y
cc
•
•
•
•
8 � •
•
•
m •
a o
•
E0 •
J
a •
o a T
� Z •
L �
N •N�
C (n > •
O p N
O.
C �5 O •
�� •
N O •cca Z
TA
V A •
co
•
EL •
� •
;; S 'o 0 •
N C •CL
m Z
0 0 ` as •
^S z� Z V •
M„8 AT o£ZT M.8 AT oEZT ^ •
OOSLbZS OO£LbZS OOSLbZS 0069KS OOL9b25 0059bZ5 OOE9bZ5
z �
v
R
a
�M
• o 0
C O a) N O N CV
• _ w > m N N N
Ch N N cc
N U U) U @ IS a) N m
a U a Z m U O N a) N o c
L° g� E in 3^ �� N r 16 .—`G m
c C - d
• Z c `� my ° o °� ° m �° N� o
• Q N m•° m-Op a) >,M C °- N 7 (� O CO w .L-. ....
p E m f� m a) a)(7 O2.2
t m •p Q' ci
O 0 L 7
°- c 7 d a)-O jj'O•� Z y Uj O d
.T. ° NE m oNW Nco � S Q ° 3 a,
• Q �o ma.2m E yo � 14at � u�i � o. a cE' w '
• t m Cp U O.0 ° N C° N 'm6
Q o ° Eoc ami ° cmi co"� Lcm °) c� cmi o m� N >
LL a �`0 3 c 0 a) > mo ° c '7 m oc E�mami
z U) p °c maw Z=owm Eo Uc N a mmEa
• ? a °j,-O C C m L a) U) a) aa) - m Q.0 C L @ N fN6 0 y m
• d E m m o d o 2 = Z'o aO o -o (n a) v m am E
Q a a)v a) N y o a) o_ a) a) m 3 N
8 N N L m Co J Cn N a C C @ N > N L m c a�
f0 m° a > Z � `a 8 � m 0 N o `m
• EL Y a>'L ami m N °'v m@ m m o and c
N > N'O 11,2 m E >0 m,
• Z c cam ' ° c m �U) �:E co O •° a m m L c as
N E d c d o� m E o m Qo '03 ZQ Q m L mo °
• .(n �C ^L' N N U�•CO Q.a) a N 5 a a) (n a) E 2 v O Q m m
• d my °r3 mm map a._:9m N = Z =� NEmE
L E.— C�'p a) a) p a)a) p m O N L m L d O 7 O m L O
f- W E a N FL rn>U r> d'O Q O �- .L... U)U) U) O U E O
• c
0
01 >
. C N
N O
m �
• > O
C
. o n a)
• O C _
(n
m 2 N N L a)U
`°
S LL 0 r
• m U) y -O 0 rn ti O
n r J m y m m o m
S N
a Z
O Q � In Cl. � E � O
• in > O cn c K 7 Q
Q @ m
m o. o
• Z q m o
W
W 3 m
IL y
C c o a a
G ¢ 0 c c m v)
y [L J CL y E N N
c c c $ n 3 'o 30:•• _Q O ... m m ci m OO
o s O
� d
°(D Co a
o. C. m ( >, N
m mma o L ° m
LL N d OaD ,
m > > v
a) - p t m p C6 N C > C_ N_ "p
• Q U) U) U) 'p m m U U (7 (.9 J J d 2 U) Cn (n (0 U) U)
m a m
10 �� 4 H•Z
. i L00
y m p c
• 0
La
N
O C
Z U
•
•
•
•
•
Soil Map—Mason County,Washington •
•
•
Map Unit Legend •
t: r it _ ii ilw, yE
,�e,�{ . tsifsiti - ;;� � •
Map Unit Sy�ic�i _ Il ntth,a �k
Gk Grove gravelly sandy loam,5 to 170.1 33.9%
•
15 percent slopes •
Hd Hoodsport gravelly sandy loam, 14.3 2.9% •
5 to 15 percent slopes
He Hoodsport gravelly sandy loam, 11.8 2.4% •
15 to 30 percent slopes •
Hf Hoodsport gravelly sandy loam, 119.5 23.8%
30 to 45 percent slopes •
Ma Made land 3.8 0.8% •
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 319.4 63.7% •
Totals for Area of Interest 501.3 100.0%
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1/6/2016 •
Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Reference Photos
•
a
A
•
fih}
i y
• W
0
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Photo 1 Typical Pileated Woodpecker foraging holes
v�
•
•
•
•
• r
E
i Photo 2 Typical Pileated Woodpecker foraging holes
•
•
•
•
�
�
�
�
. r
�
-
���
\ \ ° �
\ �
�
�
�
Photo 3 Typical /lQke Woodpecker fo m/n his
�
�
�
Photo 4 Potentially not a/lQae Woodpecker ho Q
�
. �
�
�
�
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
clllreniID1�M sVwsamnst. -W vrn�p.rNo orrrnWv�4 manna ,&NIrO�rwly,4Mme 13 rM
epl
� I
.JO. CIO
/
sp.
EXISTING VEHICLE
SHOP
� \ y ga a
If
Itis
A>
W13 to "I
t4 �
.4 \�
ti
I
y '� 2 � cn-tvav� cn o v
1a oo >aao Ana O � a c� $ oo c O czo �o zzz 2
in D m g z a .�a z 6 O zs* avpoo a�o� v z �3'z o�F R1
g -ix_ �+ a ,^� ' z` D ou; rmc-sC raa vo �v
Cn i i a v, �' y you zop'�"z �s aon5$ �a°ia >
n o� .zo n ate~ Sga age avz zio� 0g" Z
co :0 a� � x5. cio F ° O
a y
.. Z n a aro � zyy$ ?raga a�gum, °v4am
-06 :0
v$NrnN oz \av'10 o�'� A"'�v �ma o� rz ma
�` wya as o o z oa$o� na=
gV y'a�oy 5rig a� az Cry m �mya z
a
m a nr fail
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BRowN
PROPOSED SITE' LAYOUT &KYSAR
W INC.
w LJ MASON COUNTY PUD N0.1 �p BKI PROJECT NO:
N 21971 HWY. 101 CONTRACT NO:
REVISION SHELTON,WA 98584 2 02/09/16 SITE LAYOUT PPG BAW
THIS LINE IS 1"LONG 1 01/12/16 HABITAT MITIGATION ADDITION PPG BAW
AT THE CORRECT SCALE REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DESIGNER REVIEWER
cw.mewrozerm ►wsampEvsN,Yflrnwdlror� o ► "opsirah�Pr�oar�sarW&UtomW.%Winemcwl
N PoaN oNN
2 o A
N
JQ
o al
—r_ 9m
to rn
�
a �a8 z IRA
# -vC D
o ar��
o
o�m cCi
o
A
D
C
C.,
.z"..
w-
I I I I m
v ® Z
In
• N � to y Fr, O
o vv a yaaa y y �]
zz A�cAi� o O
�
� .,,rk o � rw�►�.r► SQ D �
m
� aro D
NNNN A D
y ww a a wwwc�+ a _--
vg
8 A 8_00p00 �^^
u u u N u n u u u o o y C
cai cai `" cai a PUP� �F}H-FF i i 01
fs
Ni �: I v� � ) 4�4 m
w m � ® m
t
%T Rf;A in ex m CS3 7
c�
ry m o s m ai >caQ i
-C ASm RlaAD Z ` 4",. p m
i m ac ��ari, m TVs'
��"�s (A
_ � A
2 oOSA �yZ �
¢ c �
to Y■
-CN j,ZDA N0 �C ' ' t ,,t i
woo �_� � -5,
o ?y y apoy� io s � �t 4T4IV
R
mdc '�om
Capmr�C�C � � ♦ 1 � .t � y� �� � �tl �$ x7x7.
y Vl�(zra IT
�Vpf
n,xmzmac, SOS
zn�zna `� , ` `U
�y'i�0 Paw"C�
g '\
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BROWN
&KYSAR
COVER SHEET 1751N�. �►
BKIPR03ECT NO: �
1� MASON COUNTY PUD NO. TM CONTRACT NO: 2 02/09/16 SITE LAYOUT PPG BAW
1- N 21971 HWY. 101 THIS LINE IS 1"LONG �► 1 01/12/16 HABifAT MTfIGATION ADDITION PPG BAW
REVISION SHELTON,WA 98584 AT THE CORRECT SCALE REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DESIGNER REVIEWER
a
h
F I y
ffi
(4 '
rTlrri
�/ ♦ a / "ao t
T51,
co o �. I 5$��{l� �1♦ I '
sop [ORO
,� g $ \♦ t I�� to
\
C � ,
Lo A
"'o
t G) ,
V,
t \
•t
r' 4..
i
tij
/
/
1 �
I
m
a R, m r +
+
z
O r
N N II N II N N O N II II N II II N II C �I = /
c
Wtw1vN0 O
NWO� W
(uu(��
� / O
t.
71
v,v m L
Fri tA
Ln
rn
z>sAzy�� ca /
� v86
0
�i
A
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN BROWN
&KYSAR
N "v EXISTING SITE INC• �►
BKI PROJECT NO: �
u, A , MASON COUNTY PUD N0.1 CONTRACT NO: 2 02/09/16 SITE LAYOUT P� �`W
' ` 1 01/12/16 H 0- MITIGATION ADDITION P� �W
N 21971 HWY. 101 THIS LINE IS 1"LONG
REVISION SHELTON,WA 98584 AT THE CORRECT SCALE REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DESIGNER REVIEWER