Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFPA2009-00001 SEPA, HMP, Geo Reports, Stormwater Plan - FPA Permit / Conditions - 1/2/2009 FINDINGS OF FACT FPA Case # 2009-00001 APPLICANT: Northwest Rock APPLICATION DATE: January 2, 2009 Mason County has reviewed the above referenced application for Class IV General Forest Practices and finds it in conformance with all applicable County land use regulations in effect at the time of application. FINDINGS The proposed FPA is compliant with the following conditions: The proponent has paid the prescribed fees. The proponent has filed a complete, signed application. A map has been received that complies with the requirements of 11.05.120: (1) Harvest boundaries and tree retention areas. (II) 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. (VRI) 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. That this FPA is in conformance with the following Mason County ordinances: 11.05 That the proposed FPA involves 24 acres. That the notifications required by 11.05.060 have been made if applicable. Note: Not applicable in this case. 1 Mason County Resource Ordinance _X_That at the issuance of this permit will not result in a violation of the Mason County Resource Lands and Critical Areas Ordinance. The site was inspected by Michael MacSems of the Mason County Planning Department who determined that any critical area buffer and/or steep slope issues have been resolved. Geo-Technical Report/Assessment Review A Geo-Technical _ Assessment_X_Report (check one) was written by Materials Testing & Consulting and a submittal checklist was approved by Michael MacSems of Mason County DCD on 9/23/09. Washington State Department of Transportation _X_A DOT Access Permit is not required for this proposal. A DOT Access Permit is required for this proposal. Date Approved by DOT: N/A Shoreline Master Program That, if applicable, all activity under this application are in conformance with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and has a shore line designation of N/A. State Environmental Policy Act This application for FPA# 2009-00001: _X_Has been reviewed for SEPA compliance under case#: SEP 2009-00001. Is SEPA exempt. _DNS X MDNS Stormwater Management This application was reviewed for stormwater and erosion control by Michael MacSems of the Planning DepartmentCPW and he approved a submittal checklist on 7/14/09. CONCLUSION In conclusion, this application for Class IV General Forest Practices is consistent with the above criteria and that the public uses and Mason County has fulfilled its statutory obligations. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS I, being the Manager of the Mason County Planning Department,hereby attest to and certify that appropriate provisions have been made for this Class IV General Forest Practices Application and hereby recommend approval. In addition these facts evidenced by the contents of the file for this Forest Practice Application. Signed, arb�aAdkiins, lanning a ager Date N"4. /Z3 Michael MacSems, PA Reviewer Date 3 LESEE: V / I NORTHWEST ROCK\ .f, \' 1 ---- ---------- -------_--OWNER:----- OWNER:----- f-----�.-----------------'�-------;- ---,,�, , t� i/,—zoo-WE YERHAEU�ERco PHASE '2. o — ' 15.45 ACC . -2� /��/ .� �; r z 11`���1�T' ���fir•�������= I /'/ i�,/�'J.� I♦ tl�;'�) 4 f z-.._.,'—'\ r-?��/� "IC• \z 3,n� �`�t` � � ��r .��/}-J/=-` Win' \ 11(ATHLEEN HA �P A —E— 1� Cj I l �� 2 4,4 -% y,' WEL tc 11 - ,w fit, OWNER: KATHLEEN HAX mm rap or .. ISO I law. �---- ------- OWNER: _1-120 �� _ ;v -:\ — STATE OF OWNER: JEFFRY NELSON OWNER: OWNER: OWNER: EDDIE HEDLUND / STETSON & LINDA PALMER RQ MICHAEL & KAREN SINCLAIR I N01E: TOTAL PROPERTY/PERMIT AREA=39.88 A( 25' PERMANENT SETBACK AROUND PERIMETER OF PROPERTY 150' BUFFER FROM STREAM PROPERTY CORNERS AND PERMANENT SETBACKS MARKED WITH METAL FENCEPOSTS —;• "_qnn F17FT 1932746oT�MASON CO WA K FSSNGER 1 1 42 Rec Fee $42 00 Pages 7 f iIiIINf�►II►iIi�llllli►11111if111i►►►111►i�i!ilAilull�►I►iIiUll�ylli�llN Re t rn o- Z F TLE NOTIFICATION OF AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA DATE: 1 Z Z OWNER NAME: Q0rAk\We!&t MAILING ADDRESS: 642, A `352� PARCEL #: —mot LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1V1W C , Xk �n �-� t,U�2 (AJ (ABBR.FORM:QUARTERIQUARTER,SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE,PLAT, LOT&BLOCK) NOTICE: This property lies within a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area as defined by Chapter 8.62 Mason County Code. The property was the subject of a development proposal for aQC application number fVatt� flied on 2 (date). Restrictions on use or ai era lon of the property may exist due to natural conditions of the property and resulting regulation. Review of such application provides Information on the location of a critical aquifer recharge area and the restrictions on the site. A copy of the plan showing the aquifer recharge area is attached hereto. t� GRANTOR(S): �6f-\V"� C�T ac-' LAST FIRST MI GRANTEE: _PUBLIC CHANDLER PIT SECTION 30, T. 19N, R. 6W, W. M. 'Id OWNER: . �0i .OWNER: ` -- -1 WEYERHAEUSER HOLLATZ FAMILY TRUST 1 1 1 IS 87-1356- E 1315.6400 ,r----- ,�Z'-----ice----- , OWNER: I I WEYERHAEUSER LESEE: NORTHWEST ROCk-., 1 , � �--- -----------------------------�----OWNER:----- ----- ------------------------i- --+- ' ' 1 ; 200-IMEYERHAEUSER �PHAS�71: o?°° —;— N ��� �,� ti 115.45 AC 1 I — a ,a,a ;✓ 1 (( \.nos o :i9. io �/ 'OWNER KATHLEEN HAKES It AC 16 WELL NQ /exO ---------k -;ems--��----� ---- 4a, �, �` 1� 1 1 x r 1 Ala . . �0,6 60" CULT KATHLEEN HAKES OWNE ��. "- L- ���,,,.�-��----=- _------�.--�„-- `�—a.� `""_` �` '.< ,\'��``--1..`__i � -..�,._....--- OWNER: �� �, STATE OF WASHINGTON �/ - •C OWNER: t / JEFFRY NELSON � ctiq�FR p� OWNER: '9 OWNER: EDDIE HEDLUND OWNER: STETSON & LINOA PALMER RQ MICHAEL & KAREN SINCLAIR NOTE: TOTAL PROPERTY/PERMIT AREA=39.88 ACRES 25' PERMANENT SETBACK AROUND PERIMETER OF PROPERTY 150' BUFFER FROM STREAM PROPERTY CORNERS AND PERMANENT SETBACKS MARKED WITH METAL FENCEPOSTS -X SCALE: 1"=200 FEET — NORTHWEST ROCK INC —� EXISTING VIEW CHANDLER PIT `SHEET I of 3 P6oN CoG� MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT gelfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N. 5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 Kevin Noffsinger Northwest Rock Inc 642 Newskah Rd Aberdeen, WA 98520 January 13, 2009 Re: 61930-40-00010 Dear Mr.Noffsinger, This letter is to acknowledge that I am in receipt of your recent forest practice application on the above referenced tax parcel. It looks like your team worked hard on the application but there are two issues that need to be addresses as quickly as possible Stormwater Plan In looking through your submittal packet, I didn't find an engineered stormwater plan as required by Mason County. A plan consistent with the 1992 WSDOE Stormwater Manual needs to be prepared for the location of the logging under permit. Please have the plan delivered to my attention, in turn I will forward the plan to Mason County Public Works for review. There will be a charge for their review, which can be paid at the time of permit issuance. I recommend that you call Fred Perryman of MCPW at ext. 625 for technical details. Area and Duration of,Permit In reviewing your site plan I noticed that property to the north of the subject parcel, owned by Weyerhaeuser(61930-14-00010, 61930-14-00020 & 61930-14-00030)and also a piece owned by John Stadler(61930-13-00020) are included within the proposed 65-acre operation. As Planner Tammi Wright ppinted out in your pre-application meeting, your mine site is limited to the parcel that it is located on(61930-40-00010). Because mining in a non-conforming use in the Rural zoning districts, your operation can not expand into adjacent parcels. Another thing to consider, that didn't come up in the pre-application meeting, is the fact that the life of a Class IV General FPA is only two years and is non-renewable. Are you planing to log the entire mine site in the next two years, or do you want to phase the operation to be in sync with the gradual expansion of the mine over the next 40 to 50 years? Your FPA can cover as much ground as you wish,but the cutting needs to occur within two years of the date of issuance. Assuming that you did log the entire property during the life of the permit. It is my further understanding that the"conversion"status of land once considered"forest land"by the state, goes away three years after the expiration of the permit if no actual conversion activity(mining)has occurred. This morning I spoke with Matt Brookshire at WSDNR about this situation. He doesn't have a problem with approving the mining permit with the condition that each phase of the mining and reclamation cycle by accompanied by a Class IV G FPA covering the appropriate area. I recommend that you limit the scope of this FPA to the area that you actually need for your first phase and then count on submitting new applications as you advance through each phase of the pit development and reclamation. Please provide me with the stormwater plan and revised site plan at your earliest convenience. I can be reached at ext. 571 or by e-mail at mms(a)co.mason.wa.us if you have any follow up questions or concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael MacSems FPA Reviewer cc: Fred Perryman (MCPW) Matt Brookshire(WSDNR) Tammi Wright RECEIVED MAR - 2 2009 Mason Couny, Stormwater Checklist County Project# 619 3 0-4 0-0 0 010 _ Project Name Northwest Rock, Chandler Pit FPA Twasp,Sec,RaMge T 19 N,Sec. 3 0 , RtsWWM Minimum Requurements of 1992 Stormwater Manual The stormwater checklist identifies the minimum requirements of the 1992 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 1992 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 and should not be considered a review for technical accuracy of the 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. ®#1: Erosion and Sediment Control. All new development and redevelopment that includes land disturbing activities of one acre or greater shall comply with erosion and sediment control requirements 1 through 14, below. Compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements shall be demonstrated through implementation of a large parcel erosion and sediment control plan. All new development and redevelopment that includes land disturbing activities of less than one acre shall comply with the small parcel minimum requirements found in Section 14.48.130. Compliance with the small parcel requirements shall be demonstrated through implementation of a small parcel erosion and sediment control plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#1: Stabilization and Sediment Trapping. Seepage;paragraph Page 6, # 1 Stabilization and Sediment Trapping Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#2: Delineate Clearing and Easement Limits. Seepage-paragraph , 11age 6, #2 De in ats, Clparinn a13r3 Ra -cement Limits Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#3: Protection of Adjacent Properties. See page/paragraph Page 6, #3 _ Prot cti or► of Adjacent RzQfQ ties 1 , Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#4- Timing and Stabilization of Sediment Trapping Measures. Sec page/paragraph Page 6, #4 Timing and Stabilization of Sediment r p ping measures Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#5: Cut and Fill Slopes. See page/paragraph 1> ,2 6, if 5 Cut and Fill Slopes Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#6: Controlling Off-Site Erosion. Seepage/paragraph Page 6, #6 Controlling Off-Site Erosion Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#7: Stabilization of Temporary Conveyance Channels and Outlets. Seepage/paragraph Page 7, #7 Stabilization of Temporary Conveyance Channels and Outlets Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#8: Storm Drain Inlet Protection. Seepage/paragraph Page 7, #8 Storm Drain Inlet Protection Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#9: Underground Utility Construction. Seepage/paragraph Page 7 , #9 Underqround Utility construction Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#10: Construction Access Routes. Seepage/paragraph Page 7 , # 1 0 Construction Access Access Routes Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#11: Removal of Temporary BMPs. See page/paragraph Page 7 , # 1 1 Remova 1 o f Tomporary UMP I Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#12: Dewatenng Construction Sites. Seepage/paragraph Page 7 , 012 Dewatering_Construr-ti_nn Sit-es Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#13: Control of Pollutants Other than Sediment on Construction Sites. Seepage/paragraph Pace 7 # 1 1 cnri rn1 of Pa 1 ut-Ants pt;-har Than Sediment on Construction Sites Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#14: Maintenance. Seepage/paragraph Page 7, # 1.4 Maintenance Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#15: Financial Liability. Seepage/paragraph Page a. # 15 Finaneia 1 L i alp; 1 ; U#2: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems Natural drainage pattems shall be maintained, and discharges from the site shall occur at the natural location to the maximum extent practicable. Sc;c: page/paragraph Page 8 , Mirdmt�m_Reau?rem nt :%2 J#3: Source Control of Pollution. Source control BMPs shall be applied to all projects to the maximum extent practicable Source control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained according to an approved manual. See page/paragraph P ag __ a,-_-Mini.li m,i m R Aa„; rune n t k @*4: Runoff Treatment BMPs. All projects shall provide treatment of stormwater.Treatment BMPs shall be sized to capture and treat the water quality storm, defined as the six-month, twenty-four hour storm. The first priority for treatment of stormwater shall be to infiltrate as much as possible of the water quality design storm into the ground. Pretreatment of stormwater prior to infiltration into the ground may be required. See page/paragraph Page 8 . Minimum Recluirt-2ment #_4 2#5: Streambank Erosion Control. The requirement below applies only to situations where stormwater runoff is discharged directly or indirectly to a stream, and must be met in addition to meeting the requirements in minimum requirement#4, Runoff Treatment BMP's. See page/paragraph pace g , 11 i n i mum Requ i rement #5 --- #6: Wetlands. Stormwater discharges to wetlands shall maintain the wetlands natural hydroperiod and flows to the extent needed to preserve or enhance its existing functions and values. Prior to proposing discharge of higher volumes of stormwater to a wetland, alternative discharge, detention, and infiltration practices located in areas outside the wetland shall be evaluated and employed by the project engineer where feasible and practicable. Seepage/paragraph Page 8, Minimum Requirement # 6 0. #7: Water duality Sensitive Areas. Where the Mason County commissioners or their designee determine that the minimum requirements do not provide adequate protection of water quality sensitive areas, either on-site or within the basin, more stringent controls shall be required to protect water quality. An adopted and implemented basin plan (minimum requirement#9) may be used to develop requirements for water quality sensitive areas that are tailored to a specific basin See page/paragraph page 8_, Mi n i mum Reg1Li_, ,,m.-,n ._>]._ (�#8: Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation. Downstream Analysis May Trigger Additional Requirements. The project engineer shall provide a detailed qualitative analysis of the flow path of the discharge from the project site to the receiving water This requirement shall apply to all projects where a drainage and erosion control plan is prepared, including those proposing retention facilities. This analysis shall include flow routing, and provide existing pipe and channel sizes and estimated capacities. In addition, the project engineer shall discuss any known or expected downstream erosion, flooding, or water quality problems, including those that may be caused by interflow from the proposed retention facility The director or designee shall have the discretion to specify the distance and level of detail to be provided by the protect engineer. In making this determination, the director or designee shall consider such factors as the relative size of the new development, availability of other hydrologic work for the drainage area, and the extent to which stormwater generated on the project site is to be infiltrated. Seepage./paragraph Page 8 , Minimum Requirement ®09: Basin Planning. Basin plan supersedes Manual See page/paragraph Rage . Minimum ReQu.i remPnt ;�e.—._.__ _ ®#10: Operation and Maintenance. 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)covenant will be required to cover all privately ownea and maintained stormwater facilities approved by the director 0&M Covenant forms are available at the Mason County public works office A copy of the completed instrument shall be recorded with the county auditors'office by the proponent and a copy of the recorded instrument is required to be submitted to the public works department prior to final approval of the completed permanent stormwater facilities. 2 See page/paragraph_Page 9 , Minimum Requirement # 1 p ZIMI: Financial Liability. Performance bonding, or other appropriate instruments shall be required for all projects to ensure compliance with these standards. See page/paragraph -Page 9, Minimum Requirement # 1 1 1 certify that the stormwater plan submitted for this project fulfills the applicable provisions of the 1992 Stormwater Manual. Engineer Date Applicant Date s�ls�o� i 34285 NAL 4 ITEMS TO CONSIDER WHEN COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST O Is your project in either the Allyn and Belfair UGA? If so, needs to meet the 2005 Stormwater Manual. (R Does the drainage affect WSDOT Ditches. If Yes, contact must be made with WSDOT. ®Runoff that satisfies 1992 Manual requirements does not necessarily meet WSDOT standards for runoff into their ditchlines ®Is runoff affecting County or private ditches? Needs to be addressed. What are the impacts downstream? Are they addressed. ®Has water quality and quantity BMP's been provided as required? ®Has provision been made to resize culverts if required? Q Have you provided calculations for basin(s) conveying to point of compliance? ®Have you provided calculations for stormwater features: pond sizing, conveyance systems, etc. Does Geological Assessment/Report address stormwater features placed near slopes? [ Do we need to recommend more BMP's ®Does your proposal disrupt natural drainage systems and if so what is the mitigation? ®Is the designer's PE Stamp and signature provided on calculations and drawings? 5 BERGLUND , SCHMIDT & ASSOCIATES INC . STORM WATER EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN FOR: NORTHWEST ROCK CHANDLER PIT TAX PARCEL 619304000010 NE 1/4, SE 1/4, SECTION 30, T 19N9 R 6WWM MASON, WASHINGTON OF Prepared for: h A �7 NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. 0 3'�.`;+75T n 642 NEWSKAH ROAD �"jONALF ABERDEEN, WA 98520 (360) 533-3050 BY: Berglund, Schmidt & Associates, Inc. 216 East First Street Aberdeen, WA 98520 (360) 532-7630 April 21, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 EXISTING CONDITIONS...........................................................................................................3 TOPOGRAPHY.............................................................................................................................3 DRAINAGEPATTERN................................................................................................................3 SOILS..............................................................................................................................................3 GROUNDCOVER........................................................................................................................3 SENSITIVE AND CRITICAL AREAS.......................................................................................3 ADJACENTAREAS.....................................................................................................................4 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................................4 EXISTING STORMWATER FACILITIES...............................................................................4 EXISTING ON-AND-OFF SITE UTILITIES............................................................................4 DELINEATION OF CRITICAL AREAS (VICINITY).............................................................4 DEVELOPMENT APPROACH...................................................................................................4 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................4 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ..........................................................................................................5 LOCALIZED FLOODING...........................................................................................................5 SELECTED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................5 PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN................................................................5 PRE-DEVELOPMENT BASIN BOUNDARY............................................................................5 POST-DEVELOPMENT BASIN BOUNDARIES......................................................................5 MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS......................................................................................5 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN..........................5 1992 STORMWATER MANUAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.............................6-9 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................. APPENDIX A: PARCEL INFORMATION APPENDIX B: DRAWINGS APPENDIX C: NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP APPENDIX D: SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION 2 INTRODUCTION The project site is located in the southwest corner of Mason County within the Northeast '/4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 30, Township 19 North, Range 6 West, Willamette Meridian. This site is accessed from West Beerbower Road and consists of tax parcel number 619304000010. This project consists of developing a large storm pond in the Chandler Pit to minimize sediment runoff to adjacent waters. This work will be done in two phases with the first phase being the southerly two thirds of the property. The total size of this project is approximately 39.9 acres. This work is being done to satisfy the requirements of the Forest Practice Application filed with Mason County. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is currently used as a rock pit and is shown on sheet 1 of 2 of the attached plans. There are no permanent structures on the site. TOPOGRAPHY Existing topography on the site varies greatly. The northerly portion of the property is relatively flat. The southern portion of the property is steeper as it drains to a creek in the southeast corner and then rises to meet West Beerbower Road. Overall, the site varies in topography between 0%and 45%. DRAINAGE PATTERN The existing drainage for this site consists of flows into the surrounding creeks. A portion of this drainage flows westerly from the site, following the natural topography. However, the majority of the drainage flows southerly or south-easterly to the existing drainage basins downstream. SOILS Soils at this site vary and consist of Carstairs gravelly loam, Grove gravelly sandy loam and Solduc gravelly loam per the National Cooperative Soil Survey by the National Resources Conservation Service for Mason County. GROUND COVER The site is covered with a variety of vegetation, including Spruce,Hemlock,Douglas Fir, Red Cedar and Alder trees. Low lying vegetation consists of thick underbrush, including Sword Fern, Salal, scotch broom and Vine Maple. SENSITIVE AND CRITICAL AREAS Based on the visual survey of the site,we could not identify the following features on the site: aquatic areas, critical aquifer recharge area,erosion hazard areas, flood hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas,volcanic hazard 3 areas, wetlands,wildlife habitat conservation areas, and wildlife habitat networks. There are no indications of sensitive or critical areas on this site. ADJACENT AREAS Based on the visual survey of the site, we could not identify the following features on the adjacent areas: aquatic areas, critical aquifer recharge area, erosion hazard areas, flood hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, steep slope hazard areas, volcanic hazard areas,wetlands,wildlife habitat conservation areas, and wildlife habitat networks. There are no indications of sensitive or critical areas on adjacent properties. A review of the federal wetland database shows four wetlands in the site vicinity. These four areas (R3UBH, PFOIA, R3USC and PEMIC)are shown in detail on the National Wetland Inventory Map, contained in Appendix C. All of these wetlands are located more than one mile from the site. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT There is no existing development on this site. EXISTING STORM WATER FACILITIES The runoff that enters the existing gravel pit percolates through the gravel to the ground water. EXISTING ON-AND-OFF SITE UTILITIES Excepting an existing well at the east end of the property, there are no other existing utilities on site or adjoining properties. DELINEATION OF CRITICAL AREAS (VICINITY) No critical area maps were found for this site. DEVELOPMENT APPROACH The development of this site conforms to the local land use regulations. Overall, approximately 33.6 acres of the site will be utilized as a large storm water detention pond. This pond will be created in two phases with the first phase creating the southerly portion of the pond. The pond will be hydroseeded along the side slopes to minimize sediment entry. The sides of the pond will be stabilized at a slope of approximately 2:1 (H:V). Runoff from post-development Subarea 3 will not be directed to the new storm pond. This runoff will enter the same waters as it currently does. This flow comes from the site's southeast corner and drains southerly from there. OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4 The proposed project will not increase the rate of runoff from the site. Storm water detention in the proposed pond will decrease the overall surface runoff from the site. Storm runoff modeling in the third edition of the Western Washington Hydrology Model indicates that the post-development runoff is less than the pre-development runoff. CONVEYANCE SYSTEM Conveyance of the storm water from the site is via natural drainage. This drainage conveys storm runoff offsite to the adjoining basins and natural waterways. The majority of this conveyance system flows south to southeast of the site. LOCALIZED FLOODING Localized flooding is not a concern on this project because of the proposed storm drainage system that will retain storm water in the new pond. The potential for flooding will also be reduced because current storm runoff flows to adjacent drainage basins will be reduced. SELECTED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Minimum requirements to be met are those described in the 1992 Washington State, Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. PERMANENT STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN The proposed pond will serve as the project's permanent storm water management facility and is sized so that it will handle all runoff entering it,as modeled in the third edition of the Western Washington Hydrology Model. PRE-DEVELOPMENT BASIN BOUNDARY Attached as Appendix B,please find the overall pre-development site boundary and drainage areas. POST-DEVELOPMENT BASIN BOUNDARIES Attached as Appendix B, Please find the overall post-development boundary and drainage areas. MATHEMATICAL CALCULATIONS Attached as Appendix B,please find the pre-development and post-development drawings showing the area calculations. CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTIONT PREVENTION PLAN S� WPPP) A narrative containing concise information on the construction schedule and details on pollution prevention measures will be provided by the owner. The owner will be required to file for a Notice of Intent(NOI) prior to commencing any construction work on this project. The 5 minimum erosion and sediment control requirements to be used during construction include silt fences, straw bales, and grass seeding. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT#1: Erosion and Sediment Control A large parcel erosion and sediment control plan shall be implemented. Compliance with this plan will be accomplished by adhering to the following requirements: 1. Stabilization and Sediment Trapping Any areas not in surface mining use shall be stabilized with approved erosion and sediment control measures, including but not limited to seeding, mulching and plastic covering. Areas that have reached final grade and will not be further worked shall be permanently stabilized as soon as possible. 2. Delineate Clearing and Easement Limits Prior to any work being performed,the site shall be clearly delineated for clearing limits and overall project limits. Any easements upon the property must also be clearly delineated prior to any commencement of work. 3. Protection of Adjacent Properties This project will not divert any storm runoff onto adjacent properties. Through the use of approved erosion and sediment control methods(straw bales, silt fences, etc.), and temporary ditching to divert the runoff to the existing gravel pit,the adjacent properties shall be protected from runoff from this site. 4. Timing and Stabilization of Sediment Trapping Measures Sediment trapping measures are not anticipated for this project. 5. Cut and Fill Slopes There will be no cut and fill activities during the tree removal phase. However, Cut and fill slopes will change on a regular basis due to the nature of the surface mining activities. These slopes shall be stabilized between times they are actively mined and shall be permanently stabilized when no other mining use shall occur. Temporary stabilization of active slopes may be accomplished with coir netting or an approved alternate stabilization method. Permanent stabilization may be accomplished with hydroseeding. 6. Controlling Off-Site Erosion The potential for off-site erosion from this project is minimal. The projected total runoff flow from this site will be less than the current off-site flow. This flow will also utilize existing drainage patterns with permanently stabilized soils. 6 7. Stabilization of Temporary Conveyance Channels and Outlets The use of temporary conveyance channels and outlets will be minimal on this project. If utilized, temporary channels and outlets shall be constructed so that they minimize sediment transport to gravel pit. This includes use of approved sediment control devices, such as straw bales, check dams, channel terracing and placement of small riprap or quarry spalls. Temporary channels and outlets will not be utilized for conveying runoff to the downstream areas. Any runoff entering the natural drainage ways will follow the existing natural drainage pathways. 8. Storm Drain Inlet Protection There is no expected use of storm drain inlets (catch basins) on this project. 9. Underground Utility Construction There will be no underground utility construction on this project. 10. Construction Access Routes Construction access routes are already in place. Erosion and sediment from access roads is controlled by covering the surface with gravel. 11. Removal of Temporary BMP's Temporary BMP's shall be removed only after the likelihood of erosion or sediment delivery is gone. All slopes not in active mining use shall be permanently stabilized before temporary BMP's may be removed. 12. Dewatering Construction Sites The need for dewatering is not anticipated for this project. 13. Control of Pollutants Other than Sediment on Construction Sites Possible sources of pollutants other than sediment on the construction site include petroleum based oils, grease and gasoline or diesel fuel. Equipment used on this project shall be kept in reasonable maintenance and not leak any pollutants. Equipment must also be kept reasonably clean and free of external grease and oil. These pollutants shall be cleaned up immediately if a spill or leak is discovered. All contaminated soil shall be removed and disposed of off-site at a facility approved for receiving such contaminated soil. 14. Maintenance All erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained at all times during this project. All measures shall be inspected a minimum of once daily and replaced if not functioning properly. 7 15.Financial Liability It shall be the owner's responsibility and financial liability to ensure that the erosion and sediment control plans are implemented on this project. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT#2: Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems This project will utilize a portion of the existing natural drainage patterns after the on-site work is complete. The total flow to these drainage basins will be reduced from the existing flows. Runoff from the site will not be diverted from the natural flow off-site to the south and southeast. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 43: Source Control of Pollution Source control of pollutants shall be accomplished through the implementation of this plan. Source control of pollutants shall be the first step in curtailing erosion and sediment from entering waters adjacent to this site. Source control measures include (but are not limited to) the temporary channelization of runoff to the gravel pit,use of silt fences, straw bales, slope stabilization through seeding,mulching & netting and the removal of petroleum based products from equipment. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT#4: RUNOFF TREATMENT BMP's Treatment of storm water on this project shall be accomplished through the use of a large pond. This pond will infiltrate storm runoff directly into the soil and provide water quality treatment. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT#5: STREAMBANK EROSION CONTROL Storm water will not be directly or indirectly discharged to adjoining streams. The need for stream bank erosion control is not anticipated for this project. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT#6: WETLANDS This project will not discharge any runoff to adjoining wetlands. The National Wetland Inventory Map in Appendix C shows all wetlands in the vicinity of this project. All wetlands are located a minimum of one mile from this site. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #7: WATER QUALITY SENSITIVE AREAS A determination that this site does not provide adequate protection of water quality sensitive areas has not been made by Mason County. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT#8: OFF-SITE ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION Storm water runoff modeling done with the third release of the Western Washington Hydrology Model indicates that downstream runoff from this site will be reduced after this project is completed. There are no known or anticipated downstream erosion, flooding or water quality issues on this project. 8 MINIMUM REOUIRMENT #9: BASIN PLANNING As mentioned in minimum requirement#7, this site has not been determined as inadequate to provide sensitive area water quality protection. A basin plan is therefore not required for this project. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #10: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE All storm water erosion and sediment control facilities and BMP's must be operated and maintained in a responsible manner. It shall be the owner's responsibility to develop and adhere to an operation and maintenance schedule for the erosion and sediment control facilities and BMP's. It shall also be the owner's responsibility to apply for an operation and maintenance covenant for the storm water detention pond with Mason County. This covenant shall be recorded with the Mason County Auditors' Office and a copy furnished to the Mason County Public Works Department prior to final approval of the storm water detention pond. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #11: FINANCIAL LIABILITY It shall be the responsibility of the owner to bear all financial liability for providing and maintaining the erosion and sediment control measures for this project. 9 APPENDIX A PARCEL INFORMATION Temporary Outdoor Public Event Ordinance Informal Stakeholder Meeting - Tuesday, April 21, 2009 from 3:00 to 4:30 at the Port of Allyn. MASON COUNTY washington V Government • InformationMason County Home Employment Forms& j Brochures • Addre&srs campus Map RegulationsCodes& • Links visit Mason County Search our Site Departments Email Us .assessor parcel number: 619304000010 � view Map Treasurer Owner Information Records 2 TAX E E DEPT CH WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY►Neva Search TACOMA WA 98477-0001 ►Parcel Detail Taxpayer Information ►Parcel Value IWEYEHAEUSER COMPANY TAX DEPT. CH1C28 PO BOX 9777 ►Site Built Buildings _ FEDERAL WAY WA 98063-9777 /MFi and Personal Legal Description Property IN1/2 SE E OF RN-V(BENTHEIN RD) &W1/2 W1/2 N1/2 NE SE ►Sales Info Site Address ►Faxes Reval Area 3 Field Sheet FS 17325: ►1Wennits Land Size* 65.00 Land Use DESIGNATED ►Protii; (Summary FOREST LAND View of all items) Tax Code 161 Tax Code Description 1 311 P3 F12 L H1 Census Tract Click Here * if the value is .00(zero) then the property is most likely in a plat and acreage is not usually carried on platted lots t.a,st l pdatc-d:a:15!200 Information ma, lv inaccurate and outdated. Pleax•n I,�r to the AsNessor i Tro'Mrer Offices to verirj and information Assessor Home Treasurer Hcane Search our Site Disclaimer Directary APPENDIX B DRAWINGS TREES TREES O F SUB AREA 6 TREES TREES TREES SUB AREA 9 O SUB AREA 8 O PHASE 2 W ►—{ SUB AREA 7 15.45 AC 5 Q TREES (� © O �J QQ TES � U PHASE LWE-7 ,=�T 0 0 'JD RD b0 SUB AREA 1 S o TREES o a �30 TREES SUB AREA 3 o�Z PHASE 1 24.45 AC TREE' SUB AREA 5 0 � WELL ` SUB AREA 4 _ Q Tram TREES x ) — TREES c a as EXISTING,PRE-DEVELOPMENT SUBAREA - T MI OOSi1NG WT. TREES 13 '.. �,. Y _...,_ _ SUBARFAS3AIN9RIM OFFSRE TbiIiESOUOIFAST. _._ _-.- . SUSAREAS/ARD 6 AOR OFF5TTFTO THE WEST. .. .. -- - TREES "V SUBAREA 7AUr61RfOAN EIBSTING in. .;., �_... - .�.. _ "�"-- -._.�_ PREDBWPMENT SUB AREA TABLE SUBAREA SOIMREFEET AOMAGE 1 OSS Na 09094 3 S6 L © Q 12A6 "�4, SCALE ',r 5 38E 692 L83 O DRAFRI er 31M AL E� DRARRVC AR/AIBER TON D-1 SFEFT r OF 2 i I � ! I ��ir _ / - I� -1 = Fm WRTIM BERGLUND11 �► • • m� . . . •. = 0 642NEWSKAHROAD m� APPENDIX C NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP Chandler Pit 123-2840 W 123-28-20 W 123-28-0 W z A O V W i•a O PEM1C z `!t I z 41 Legend o N Interstate v z Major Roads Other Rood Interstate State highway ' ( US highway z ti A Roads O V o) o Cities —T o USOS Quad index 24K z Lower 48 Wetland Polygons R3 SC f' (/ Washingtori ft Eatuarirw and Marina Dsepwater EIS ��+$ Estuarine,and Martne Watiaad Digital Freshwater Emsrpara WoUmd Freshwater Forestedrahrvb Welland z A Y Freshwater Pond o v Lake (O . .._—_.---------..---- .: --_. . __..- ----- .•, Other r � — Z Rlwrina Lower 48 Available Wetland Data --�` Non—Digital Digital 1�~ f No Data + Scan zo i NHO Streams in in Counties 100K N O v 60or z p States 100K a South America North America z 7�i A o _.4kil 123-28-40 W 123-28-20 W 123-28-0 W C z N Scale:1:11,281 Map center:47°6'6"N, 123° 28'25"W This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general Notes:Wetland Vicinity Map reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. APPENDIX D SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION Soil Map—Mason County,Washington (Chandler Pit) M "'W"J" n,.v"m 464070 464160 464250 46434,1 464430 4:,4520 464niG 47°6'17' 4 Nip tit 'w Allh lip •r ► "� t] „ {w°� ` " • *° - °. !► l�r If • yt • "� M i • 1' ,�* Ate„•" , h► •0-0 • .}. rt Ib wx AI A � , r *� i► r1 ' ''� � ! • w *� t * • T'. �•�'ems /1, " � '�'` � • y' �L't� „, � � � ;r r \� - rtr�,�'. • � ,. a +� � f Op 47°5'59" 47'5'59" 463800 463890 463980 464070 464160 464250 464340 464430 464520 464610 m m ' Map Scale:1:4,110 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. m � N Meters N N 0 50 100 200 300 m Feet 0 200 400 800 1,200 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Mason County,Washington (Chandler Pit) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) M Very Stony Spot Map Scale: 1:4,110.if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. n Area of Interest(AOI) t Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were map ped at 1:31,680. Soils A Other Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map U Soil Map Units measurements. Special Line Features Special Point Features Lax Gully Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service ,.� Blowout Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Short Steep Slope Borrow Pit Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83 ® Other X Clay Spot This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of Political Features the version date(s)listed below. * Closed Depression Cities Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington X Gravel Pit Water Features Survey Area Data: Version 4,Dec 5,2006 Gravelly Spot r�l Oceans Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/21/2006 ® Landfill Streams and Canals The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were ,a Lava Flow Transportation compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Rails imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting ,J, Marsh or swamp of map unit boundaries may be evident. 3t Mine or Quarry N Interstate Highways po Miscellaneous Water US Routes �. Perennial Water Major Roads v Rock Outcrop ti Local Roads + Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot 0 Sinkhole y� Slide or Slip 0 Sodic Spot 9 Spoil Area d Stony Spot t uk1 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 '� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map-Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Map Unit Legend Mason County,Washington(WA645) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ca Carstairs gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent 2.3 4.1'/ slopes -----t - , Gh Grove gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent 44.4 78.7% slopes Gm Grove gravelly sandy loam,15 to 30 0.7 1.2% percent slopes LRb - Rough broken land r 8.1 14.4% Ss Sokluc gravelly loam,0 to 5 percent slopes 0.9 1.6% Totals for Area of Interest _ _ 56.3 - 100.0% t.SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Physical Soil Properties This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by sedimentation, sieving, or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand, silt, and clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller. Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter. In this table, the estimated sand content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight,of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.002 to 0.05 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification. The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture.They influence shrink- swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume. Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity, that is, the moisture content at 1/3-or 1/1 0-bar(33kPa or 10kPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink-swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture,a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure. Saturated hydraulic conductivity(Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 'dw Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water per inch of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter,soil texture, bulk density,and soil structure.Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time. Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3-or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. The shrink-swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent;high if 6 to 9 percent;and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed. Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In this table, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity, water infiltration, soil organism activity, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms. Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor(Kw and KO and the T factor. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation(USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat.Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size. Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. The groups are described in the "National Soil Survey Handbook." USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion,or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov) USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 aim— Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Report—Physical Soil Properties Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Map symbol Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosion Wind Wind and soil name bulk hydraulic water extensibility matter factors erodibility erodibility density conductivity capacity group index Kw Kf T In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro m/sec In/In Pct PCt Ca—Carstairs gravelly loam, i 0 to 5 percent I I slopes lCarstairs 0-15 — — 5-8-10 0.85-0.95 42.00-141.00 0.07-0.10 0.0-2.9 5.0-15.0 .10 .28 3 6 48 15-25 — — 5-8-10 1.25-1.55 42.00-141.00 0.04-0.07 0.0-2.9 3.0-5.0 .05 .24 25-60 — — 1-2-2 1.35-1.55 141.00-705.00 0.03-0.05 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .05 .15 Gh—Grove gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Grove 0-13 — — 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 14.O0.42.00 0.08-0.12 0.04.9 5.0-10.0 .15 .24 3 4 86 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 14.00-42.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 1.0-5.0 .10 .24 28-60 — 0-1-2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.02-0.04 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .05 .15 Gm—C'rove - -- I -- -- gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Grove 0-13 — 5-8-10 0.86-1.10 14.00-42.00 0.08-0.12 0.0-2.9 5.0-10.0 .15 .24 3 4 86 13-28 — — 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 14.00-42.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 1.0-5.0 .10 .24 28-60 — 0-1-2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.02-0.04 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .05 f.15 UsOA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 �� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Map symbol Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosion Wind Wind and soil name bulk hydraulic water extensibility matter factors erodibility erodibility density conductivity capacity group index Kw Kf T In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro m/sec In/In Pct Pct Rb—Rough gh broken land iRough broken 0-4 — — 7-11 -15 1.15-1.35 4.00-14.00 0.10-0.15 0.0-2.9 2.0-4.0 .20 .32 4 6 48 land 4-43 I— — 5-10-15 1.30-1.50 4.00-14.00 0.05-0.09 0.0-2.9 1.0-2.0 .15 .37 43-60 — 5-10-15 1.30-1.50 4.00-14.00 0.04-0.07 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.10 .10 .32 Ss—Solduc gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Solduc 10-4 — — 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.13-0.16 0.0-2.9 8.0-15.0 .24 .28 5 3 86 14-33 — — 5-10-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 3.0-8.0 .05 .28 0-1-2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.01-0.03 0.0-2.9 0.5-3.0 .02 .20 Su—Solduc gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Solduc 0-4 — — 0-5-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.08-0.11 0.0-2.9 8.0-15.0 .15 .24 5 3 86 t4-33 — — 5-10-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 3.0-8.0 .05 .28 33-60 — — 0-1-2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.01-0.03 0.0-2.9 0.5-3.0 .02 .20 — Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 4, Dec 5, 2006 1 SOA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 do" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Engineering Properties This table gives the engineering classifications and the range of engineering properties for the layers of each soil in the survey area. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These terms are defined according to percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the fraction of the soil that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. "Loam," for example, is soil that is 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. If the content of particles coarser than sand is 15 percent or more, an appropriate modifier is added, for example, "gravelly." Classification of the soils is determined according to the Unified soil classification system (ASTM, 2005)and the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2004). The Unified system classifies soils according to properties that affect their use as construction material. Soils are classified according to particle-size distribution of the fraction less than 3 inches in diameter and according to plasticity index, liquid limit, and organic matter content. Sandy and gravelly soils are identified as GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, and SC; silty and clayey soils as ML, CL, OL, MH, CH, and OH; and highly organic soils as PT. Soils exhibiting engineering properties of two groups can have a dual classification, for example, CL-ML. The AASHTO system classifies soils according to those properties that affect roadway construction and maintenance. In this system,the fraction of a mineral soil that is less than 3 inches in diameter is classified in one of seven groups from A-1 through A-7 on the basis of particle-size distribution,liquid limit, and plasticity index. Soils in group A-1 are coarse grained and low in content of fines(silt and clay). At the other extreme, soils in group A-7 are fine grained. Highly organic soils are classified in group A-8 on the basis of visual inspection. If laboratory data are available, the A-1, A-2, and A-7 groups are further classified as A-1-a, A-1-b, A-24, A-2-5, A-2-6, A-2-7, A-7-5, or A-7-6. As an additional refinement,the suitability of a soil as subgrade material can be indicated by a group index number. Group index numbers range from 0 for the best subgrade material to 20 or higher for the poorest. Rock fragments larger than 10 inches in diameter and 3 to 10 inches in diameter are indicated as a percentage of the total soil on a dry-weight basis. The percentages are estimates determined mainly by converting volume percentage in the field to weight percentage. Percentage (of soil particles)passing designated sieves is the percentage of the soil fraction less than 3 inches in diameter based on an ovendry weight.The sieves, numbers 4, 10, 40, and 200 (USA Standard Series), have openings of 4.76, 2.00, 0.420, and 0.074 millimeters, respectively. Estimates are based on laboratory tests of soils sampled in the survey area and in nearby areas and on estimates made in the field. Liquid limit and plasticity index (Atterberg limits) indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. The estimates are based on test data from the survey area or from nearby areas and on field examination. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 a= Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit References: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. USDA U Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Engineering Properties-Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Report—Engineering Properties Engineering Properties-Mason County,Washington Map unit symbol and soil Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticity name limit index Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches In Pct Pct _+ Pct Ca—Carstairs gravelly loam,0 to 5 percent i slopes Carstairs 0-15 Gravelly loam GM A-1,A-2 0 0-10 30-60 25-55 20-40 15-35 35-50 NP-10 15-25 Extremely gravelly loamy GP-GM A-1 0 0-10 2045 10-35 5-15 5-10 0-14 NP sand,extremely gravelly sandy loam,very j gravelly sandy loam 2"0 Extremely gravelly sand GP A-1 0 0-10 20-35 15-25 5-10 0-5 0-14 INP Gh—Grove gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Grove 0-13 Gravelly sandy loam GM,SM A-1,A-2, 0 0-5 60-80 50-75 35-60 20-40 2545 NP-10 -- -- A-4 — - - -----I - 13-28 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM A-1,A-2 0 0-20 30-55 25-50 15-40 10-25 2545 NP-10 extremely gravelly sandy loam 28-60 Very gravelly sand,very GP, SP A-1 0 10-35 30-55 20-45 10-20 10-5 0-14 NP gravelly loamy sand, extremely gravelly sand Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Engineering Properties-Mason County.Washington Chandler Pit Engineering Properties-Mason County,Washington Map unit symbol and soil Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticity name limit index Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 P 00 inches inches In Pct Pct Pct Gm—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes CGrove 0-13 Gravelly sandy loam GM,SM A-1,A-2, 0 0-5 60-80 50-75 35-60 20-40 25-45 NP-10 A-4 13-28 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM A-1,A-2 0 0-20 30-55 25-50 15-40 10-25 25-45 NP-10 extremely gravelly sandy loam 28-60 Very gravelly sand,very GP,SP A-1 0 10-35 30-55 20-45 10-20 0-5 0-14 NP gravelly loamy sand, extremely gravelly sand R Rough broken land Rough broken land 0-4 - Gravelly loam GM,ML, A-2,A-4 0 0-5 60-80 55-75 35-65 30-55 20-30 NP-5 SM 4-43 Very gravelly loam,very GM,SM A-1,A-2, 0 0-5 40-80 30-75 20-50 10-40 15-25 NP-5 gravelly sandy loam, A-4 gravelly loam 43-60 Very gravelly sandy loam GM A-1 0 0-5 40-60 25-50 20-35 10-20 15-25 NP-5 j Ss—Solduc gravelly loam,{ 0 to 5 percent slopes _ Solduc 0-4 Gravelly loam SM A 5,A-7 0 0-5 70-90 60-80 50-60 40-50 50-70 NP-16 4-33 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM,GP- A-1,A-2 0 10-30 30-50 25-45 15-35 5-25 50-65 NP-15 very gravelly loam, GM extremely gravelly sandy loam 33-60 Extremely gravelly loamy GP,GP- A-1 0 135-45 30-50 20-35 5-25 0-10 0-14 NP sand,extremely gravelly GM sand,extremely cobbly sand USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 01111AN Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Map unit symbol and soil Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticity name limit index Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches In Pct Pct Pct Su—Solduc gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Solduc 0-4 'Gravelly sandy loam SM A-2 0 !0-5 70-90 60-80 40-50 25-35 50-60 5-15 t 4-33 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM,GP- A-1,A-2 0 ;10-30 30-50 25-45 15-35 5-25 50-65 NP-15 very gravelly loam, GM extremely gravelly sandy loam 33-60 Extremely gravelly loamy GP,GP- A-1 0 35-45 30-50 20-35 5-25 0-10 0-14 NP sand,extremely gravelly GM sand,extremely cobbly sand Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 4, Dec 5, 2006 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX C NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP Chandler Pit 123-28-40 W 123-28-20 W 123-28-0 W Z A w z Z � Legend o ; m NO f/Interstate v -- z Major Roads _ - Olher Road A/ Iwarslate Slate highway US highway 1, Roads z ` � o Q, Cities At O&N o USGS Quad Index 24K v z Lower 48 Wetland Polygons 113USc Washington jj'..•'� Esluarine and MHnlla DeepWHter • �__ ! ` ` J Eima Esluarine and MHrina Wetland Digital -_ ;vr''" Freshwater Emergent Wetland 4 - Freshwater Forestedlbhrub WeUand i Freshwater Point oi ysn Lake I — -- - - b Other v / _ Z Riv°rino Lower 48 Available Wetland Data 1 ~ Non-Digital -, ., f r .. Digital No Data f (-.._..— Scau z 7 — j t v NHD Streams 0 1 n L, Counties 100K rn o v --- z 0 States 100K � ❑ South America . t North America N a z g1;fr. o f in 123-28-40 W 123-28-20 W 123-28-0 W o z N Map center: 47°6'6" N, 123° 28' 25"W 4) Scale: 1:11,281 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general Notes.Wetland Vicinity Map reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION. APPENDIX D SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION Soil Map—Mason County,Washington (Chandler Pit) 41 A I Hp(j 4h3 1 8')0 46,,1(It'M 464 1 070 464 1 160 464260 1 4 464 1 4;W 464 1 520 4646101 47*6'17" I -ft A r VO # w1k vp 'N 4k V vp IL R tit 40 IPA fA 91 t 44, A • -4,z "A 4"l A ,Alp, Of -Ci f A 0000 [tom fA"I 47'5'59" IF I;lb, IL 47'5'59" 463800 463890 463980 464070 464160 464250 4(­140 41,4430 4,,4520 464610 0) Map Scale:1:4,110 0 printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. Meters N o 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 200 400 800 1,200 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Mason County,Washington (Chandler Pit) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Very Stony Spot Map Scale: 1:4,110 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. l l Area of Interest(AOI) Wet Spot The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:31,680. Soils A Other Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map Soil Map Units measurements. Special Line Features Special Point Features Gully Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service ..j Blowout Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Borrow Pit Short Steep Slope Coordinate System: UTM Zone 1 ON NAD83 ® X Clay Spot Other This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of Political Features the version date(s)listed below. Closed Depression @ Cities Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington X. Gravel Pit Water Features Survey Area Data: Version 4,Dec 5,2006 Gravelly Spot Oceans Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 7/21/2006 Landfill Streams and Canals The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Lava Flow Transportation compiled and digitized probably differs from the background } Rails imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting 46 Marsh or swamp of map unit boundaries may be evident. yr Mine or Quarry Interstate Highways po Miscellaneous Water US Routes p Perennial Water Major Roads v Rock Outcrop N Local Roads + Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot p Sinkhole i) Slide or Slip jar Sodic Spot a Spoil Area Q Stony Spot tN)A Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 illog Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Mason County.Washington Chandler Pit Map Unit Legend Mason County,Washington (WA645) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ca Carstairs gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent 2.3 4.1 slopes Gh I Grove gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent 44.4 78.7% slopes Gm Grove gravely sandy loam,15 to 30 0.7 1.2% percent slopes L�Rb Rough broken land 8.1+ 14.4% ISs Soiduc gravelly loam,0 to 5 percent slopes 0.9 1.6% Totals for Area of Interest 56.3 100.0% "D'\ Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 411111111111111 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Physical Soil Properties This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by sedimentation, sieving, or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand, silt, and clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller. Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter. In this table,the estimated sand content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight,of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.002 to 0.05 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. In this table, the estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification. The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture.They influence shrink- swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations. Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume. Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity, that is, the moisture content at 1/3-or 1/1 0-bar(33kPa or 10kPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink-swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture,a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure. Saturated hydraulic conductivity(Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Surrey 2.2 4/20/2009 aim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water per inch of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies,depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter,soil texture, bulk density,and soil structure.Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time. Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3-or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. The shrink-swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent;high if 6 to 9 percent;and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed. Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In this table, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity, water infiltration, soil organism activity,and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms. Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor(Kw and Kf)and the T factor. Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation(LISLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat.Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water. Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size. Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year. Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. The groups are described in the"National Soil Survey Handbook." USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 r Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion,or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 43041. (http://soils.usda.gov) t SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 'iilm Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Report—Physical Soil Properties Physical Soil Properties—Mason County,Washington Map symbol Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosion Wind Wind and soil name bulk hydraulic water extensibility matter factors erodibility erodibility density conductivity capacity Kw Kf I T group index In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro m(sec In/In Pct Pct Ca—Carstairs gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes _ Carstairs 0-15 — — 5-8-10 0.85-0.95 42.00-141.00 0.07-0.10 0.0-2.9 5.0-16.0 .10 .28 3 6 _ 48 r 15-25 — — 5-8-10 1.25-1.55 42.00-141.00 0.04-0.07 0.0-2.9 3.0-5.0 .05 .24 25-60 — — 1-2-2 1.35-1.55 141.00-705.00 0.03-0.05 0.0-2.9 0_5-1_0 .05 .15 Gh—Grove j gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Grove 0-13 — —+ 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 14.00-42.00 0.08-0.12 0.0-2.9 5.0-10.0 .15 .24 3 4 86 13-28 — — 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 14.00-42.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 1.0-5.0 .10 .24 28-60 — — 0.1 -2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.02-0.04 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .05 .15 ---- gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes I _ Grove 0-13 — — 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 14.00-42.00 0.08-0.12 0.0-2.9 5.0-10.0 .15 .24 3 4 86 13-28 — — 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 14.00-42.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 1.0-5.0 .10 .24 28-60 — — 0-1-2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.02-0.04 0.0-2.9 0.6-1.0 .05 .15 t'Y.)A Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 '�+ Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 Physical Soil Properties-Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Physical Soil Properties-Mason County,Washington Map symbol Depth Sand Silt Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosion Wind Wind and soil name bulk hydraulic water extensibility matter factors erodibility erodibility density conductivity capacity group index Kw Kf T In Pct Pct Pct g/cc I micro m/sec In/!n Pct Pct Rb—Rough -- broken land Rough broken 0-4 �— 1— 7-11-15 1.15-1.35 4.00-14.00 0.10-0.15 0.0-2.9 2.0-4.0 .20 .32 4 6 48 land I ----- - - 4-43 — — 15-10-15 1.30-1.50 4.00-14.000.05-0.09 0.0-2.9 1.0-2.0 .15 .37 43-60 — 5-10-15 1.30-1.50 4.00-14.00 !0.04-0.07 0.0-2.9 0.5-1.0 .10 .32 Ss—Solduc gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent ! slopes Solduc 0-4 — _ — 5-8-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.13-0.16 0.0-2.9 8.0-15.0 .24 .28 5 3 �86 4-33 — — 5-10-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 3.0-8.0 .05 .28 — — --- 33-60 — 0-1-2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.01-0.03 0.0-2.9 0.5-3.0 .02 .20 Su—Solduc gravelly I I sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Solduc 0-4 — — 0-5-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.08-0.11 0.0-2.9 8.0-15.0 #.05 .28 4 5 3 86 4-33 — 5-10-10 0.85-1.10 4.00-14.00 0.04-0.08 0.0-2.9 3.0-8.0 33-60�— — 0-1 -2 0.85-1.10 42.00-141.00 0.01-0.03 0.0-2.9 0.5-3.0 0 Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 4, Dec 5, 2006 t Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 �� Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Engineering Properties This table gives the engineering classifications and the range of engineering properties for the layers of each soil in the survey area. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These terms are defined according to percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the fraction of the soil that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. "Loam,"for example, is soil that is 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. If the content of particles coarser than sand is 15 percent or more, an appropriate modifier is added, for example, "gravelly." Classification of the soils is determined according to the Unified soil classification system (ASTM, 2005) and the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO, 2004). The Unified system classifies soils according to properties that affect their use as construction material. Soils are classified according to particle-size distribution of the fraction less than 3 inches in diameter and according to plasticity index, liquid limit, and organic matter content. Sandy and gravelly soils are identified as GW, GP, GM, GC, SW, SP, SM, and SC; silty and clayey soils as ML, CL, OL, MH, CH, and OH; and highly organic soils as PT. Soils exhibiting engineering properties of two groups can have a dual classification, for example, CL-ML. The AASHTO system classifies soils according to those properties that affect roadway construction and maintenance. In this system,the fraction of a mineral soil that is less than 3 inches in diameter is classified in one of seven groups from A-1 through A-7 on the basis of particle-size distribution,liquid limit, and plasticity index. Soils in group A-1 are coarse grained and low in content of fines(silt and clay). At the other extreme, soils in group A-7 are fine grained. Highly organic soils are classified in group A-8 on the basis of visual inspection. If laboratory data are available, the A-1, A-2, and A-7 groups are further classified as A-1-a, A-1-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6, A-2-7, A-7-5, or A-7-6. As an additional refinement, the suitability of a soil as subgrade material can be indicated by a group index number. Group index numbers range from 0 for the best subgrade material to 20 or higher for the poorest. Rock fragments larger than 10 inches in diameter and 3 to 10 inches in diameter are indicated as a percentage of the total soil on a dry-weight basis. The percentages are estimates determined mainly by converting volume percentage in the field to weight percentage. Percentage (of soil particles)passing designated sieves is the percentage of the soil fraction less than 3 inches in diameter based on an ovendry weight.The sieves, numbers 4, 10, 40, and 200 (USA Standard Series), have openings of 4.76, 2.00, 0.420, and 0.074 millimeters, respectively. Estimates are based on laboratory tests of soils sampled in the survey area and in nearby areas and on estimates made in the field. Liquid limit and plasticity index (Atterberg limits) indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil.The estimates are based on test data from the survey area or from nearby areas and on field examination. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 '" Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit References: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 d Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Report—Engineering Properties Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Map unit symbol and soil Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticity name I limit index Unified AA ,HTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches In Pct Pct Pct Ca—Carstairs gravelly loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Carstairs 0-15 Gravelly loam GM A-1,A-2 0 0-10 30-60 25-55 20-40 15-35 35-50 NP-10 15-25 Extremely gravelly loamy GP-GM A-1 0 0-10 20-45 10-35 5-15 5-10 0-14 NP sand,extremely gravelly sandy loam,very gravelly sandy loam 25-60 Extremely gravelly sand GP A-1 0 0-10 20-35 15-25 t5-10 0-5 0-14 NP Gh—Grove gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Grove 0-13 Gravelly sandy loam GM,SM 1 A-1,A-2, 0 0-5 60-80 50-75 35-60 20-40 25-45 NP-10 A-4 - 1 13-28 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM A-1,A-2 0 1 0-20 30-55 t25-50 15-40 1 10-25 25-45 NP-10 extremely gravelly sandy loam y 20-45 10-20 0-5 0-14 NP 28-60 'Very gravel) sand,very GP,SP A-1 0 10-35 30-55 gravelly loamy sand, I extremely gravelly sand Us[ak Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County.Washington Chandler Pit Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington 1 Map unit symbol and soil Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticity name limit index Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches In Pct Pct Pct Gm—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Grove I0-13 Gravelly sandy loam GM,SM A-1,A-2, 0 0-5 60-80 60-75 35-60 20-40 25-45 1 NP-10 A-4 i 13-28 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM A-1,A-2 0 0-20 30-55 25-50 15-40 10-25 25-45 !NP-10 extremely gravelly sandy loam 28-60 Very gravelly sand,very GP,SP A-1 0 1 10-35 30-55 '20-45 �10-20 0-5 0-14 NP gravelly loamy sand, extremely gravelly sand Rb—Rough broken land Rough broken land 0-4 Gravelly loam GM,ML, A-2,A-4 0 0-5 60-80 55-75 35-65 30-55 20-30 NP-5 SM 4-43 Very gravelly loam,very GM,SM A-1,A-2, 0 0-5 40-80 30-75 20-50 10-40 16-25 NP-5 gravelly sandy loam, A-4 gravelly loam 43-60 Very gravelly sandy loam GM A-1 0 0-5 40-60 25-50 20-35 10-20 15-26 NP-5 Ss—Solduc gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Solduc - 0-4 Gravely loam SM A-5,A-7 0 0-5 70-90 60-80 50-60 40-50_ 50-70 NP-15 4-33 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM,GP- A-1,A-2 0 10-30 30-50 25-45 15-35 5-25 50-65 NP-15 very gravelly loam, GM extremely gravelly sandy loam _ 33.60 Extremely gravelly loamy GP,GP- A-1 0 35-45 30-50 20-35 5-25 0-10 0-14 NP sand,extremely gravelly GM sand,extremely cobbly sand USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 Um Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Chandler Pit Engineering Properties—Mason County,Washington Map unit symbol and soil Depth USDA texture Classification Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticity name limit index Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches In Pct Pct Pct Su—Solduc gravelly sandy loam,0 to 5 percent slopes Solduc 0-4 Gravelly sandy loam SM A-2 0 0-5 70-90 60-80 40-50 25-35 50-60 5-15 4-33 Very gravelly sandy loam, GM,GP- A-1,A-2 0 10-30 30-50 25 45 15-35 5-25 50-65 NP-15 very gravelly loam, GM extremely gravelly sandy loam 33-60 Extremely gravelly loamy GP,GP- A-1 0 35-45 30-50 20-35 5-25 0-10 0-14 NP sand,extremely gravelly GM sand,extremely cobbly sand Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Mason County, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 4, Dec 5, 2006 t-�% Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2.2 4/20/2009 am Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 ' Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT �(LZOIrvLZoPMc3� Project Name: 1 Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep .51 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 000010 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000 *0 ssed 0 0 0 0000 '0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000 *0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000 *0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 Tz23/ssied 95Equ9039d Aea napaad (S3O)MoT3 'Q3ssvd AgTTTo23 aqy Q3SSvd &,4TTToea aqs T# OOd r ,0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.0636 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0354 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0195 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0195 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT P (LaDtvcrWf,LNr Project Name: 2 S u SACL-CA- 2- Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep 1.08 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility FASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass •0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.1347 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0751 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0413 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0413 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. e Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT D Project Name: 3 S uS A41.cs 3 Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep 12.86 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated w N cn N N (� Ul tq N to to to In tq N 71 N 71 V] VI V1 fA U] U] N U] U] U1 U1 tq N N U] fA UI tq fq U] fA lq f!) 71 U1 tq fA U1 (!1 (A fn fA U] f0 fA fA UI ff1 U] fA U] fA fD fA f0 fn fA fn f0 u1 � tq V] f0 fn fn fq N N y tll (A U] tq N U1 u1 � U] � tq N tq N f!1 to N Vl V] V1 UI (� Vl V] Vl W fA fA U1 U] U1 tq (q V1 U1 N W f0 fA (p � t0 to fA fq U] N to (!1 (0 N fA Ul a � ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro a a a as a aJ a4 a s al a Q, a a a a4 al a a a a a a a a a a 01 al a s al a. a a, a s as a a a a a a4 a a a a a a a a a a a4 a a a a a as a a a v a� ro a v 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 v a v q qo000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 W m w > � v a v v >, >, N +1 4 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .riA -i r-i rl H U) U U 44 r+ ro ro 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 4t; [u [14 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 30000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ua) �O0o00o0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000o000000000 . . . aE-4 E-1 W0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass ' Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 1.6048 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.8945 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.4928 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.4928 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. r Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT P n'e oe-V in C- Project Name: 4 Sig iARC'�+ �j Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep 1.16 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.1447 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0806 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0444 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0444 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT QI�OeV LA—o(eKl?r� Project Name: 5 S�+$ �'-'� 5- Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1 .33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres_ C, Forest, Steep 8.83 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 4 POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass ' 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 1.1019 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.6138 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.3384 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.3384 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. in no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT �(1..2 Q �vLZoPM�?�f Project Name: 1 >J3�ti'� Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep .51 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssPd 0 0 0 0000'0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 O O 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000 '0 SsPd 0 O 0 0000 '0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssPd 0 0 0 0000'0 ssPd 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000'0 ssPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 O 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000'0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000'0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000'0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000'0 SsPd 0 0 O 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000'0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000'0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SsPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 ssPd 0 0 0 0000*0 ssed 0 0 0 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 OOOO 0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000'0 SSPd 0 0 O 0000'0 SSPd O O O 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SSPd 0 O O 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000*0 SSPd 0 0 0 0000*0 TTeg/SSed 95e4U6Da9g Aga napa3d (SAO)mOT3 aaSSYd A4TTT0e3 aqy Q3SSVd FC4iTTOeg aqs T# OOd � 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.0636 acre-feet. On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0354 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0195 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0195 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT Project Name: 2 Z Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep 1.08 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass -0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass • f 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.00bo 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flop and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.1347 acre-feet On-line facility target flop: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0751 cfs. Off-line facility target flop: 0.0413 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0413 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT D Project Name: 3 d 3 Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep 12.86 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated r POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass f 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass ' Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 1.6048 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.8945 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.4928 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.4928 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. v Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT �A,a DL-"V(—J'L- ► l'nT Project Name: 4 g AR c'A Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Steep 1.16 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.1447 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0806 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.0444 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.0444 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT p i i"a 0 ev eluO r M I?'--` Project Name: 5 5 v 3/fin-Z-A S Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres_ C, Forest, Steep 8.83 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated ted Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated m w y (d V) U) U) VI u] to to V) V) U1 U) U1 V) V) V] U) U) U) U) U) V) U) w w 0 0 0 w V) w w m m w w w w 0 m w m m 0 w w w w m 0 w w w w m w m w w m w w w w m w ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro w w w a w w w a a w w w a a, a, w w a a, w w w w w a w w a a w a a a a a w w w a a a, a w w w a a w a w a, w a a a w a a a w w w w a a a m b� ro a m U 0 O 000000 O O O o o O o o o o o O o o o o O o o 0000000 O O 00000000000000000000000000 Oo N m a m q q go0000OoO00000000000000O0000000000O0000O00000000000000000000000Oo W W a a b (D >+ �+ N 4-) 4-) w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .H rl r-I r4 •ri r U U w r� ro to U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w �0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U m m O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 4 4 ri . . . GL H E-H W o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 1.1019 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.6138 cfa. Off-line facility target flow: 0.3384 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.3384 cfa. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT Project Name: 1 J u Site Address: City Report Date 4/21/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Steep 18.18 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Trapezoidal Pond 1, Trapezoidal Pond 1, Name Trapezoidal Pond 1 Bottom Length: 47.8176650724337ft. _ Bottom Width: 47. 8176650724337ft. R.Ct:S�UkAAO � .5 Depth : 7 f t. S h f Q n,o Volume at riser head 0. 6224ft. P2o?dS C0 Infiltration On J` X p�� -7 0 �Ep (S Infiltration rate 30 P.10 0 Infiltration saftey factor 2 5/ G A Side slope 1: 3 To 1 �l/��i Side slope 2: 3 To 1 Y� Side slope 3: 3 To 1 "e �� ' t f Side slope 3 To 1 V/'^':" ` ��'••D ""t Discharge Structure Riser Height: 6 ft. . Riser Diameter: 18 in. NotchType Rectangular � ein- Notch Width : 0.250 ft. Notch Height: 4 . 908 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 5. 108 in. Elevation: 0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Pond Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(acr) Volume(acr-ft) Dschrg(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0. 000 0. 052 0.000 0.000 0. 000 0.078 0.054 0.004 0. 191 3. 176 0. 156 0.055 0.008 0.270 3. 176 II Ln 0 Ci U n Ln U n Ln Ln U i J a J� p A P 4�. o.. I- 41 J- W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O Cl O O O O OCU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . J Ol O1 Cn .ta W NNF--� O �O IOm JOI Un J� W4 OIOmm JJ Ln WNrr OIOmm JJ C7� Ja � WNrr OIOm J JJ U1 .� �A W Nr O O �Om JJO� Cf� 1 W WN it JO O1 m1-+ WL" JON .t� 01mr W Ln JO N .P rnmr W Ln JON .p Olm rw LnJON .1 O1mr W Ln J ON .� O1mr W Ln JON .�- a) mr W UI JON .A O100r W TOD (D --IW WMW0N .L+ JtO1-1 WMWCDM 0. -_jw W O1m0N .p JIOr W O wC> " -iwO - W MmaN .�- JIOr WO1m (DNa. JIOr WMmON .ta --) kD W D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N N N 1--� N r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DDD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 U7 U1 Ut .1�l .� .N .a .nLb- W W W W W W N PI) NNNN F-+ 1-j F-j O O O O O O O IO IO IO w IO IO IO m m m m m m m m J J J J J JJ J M M O1 M m m M O1 M U1 Ln Ln Ln 31 " " 0N OJCn " " 0kDJU1 " N0w -j Mo. Nr1O00O1NW Now --jM " W r0w -,] M " W " 0wmO Ln .N W r- 0w -i M 0 " WrOIOmJ (7% - LA) NrOlO00Ja) D O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;D . . ;D . . ;:I ;D ;D ;D . . . ;D ;D . . . n(nU+ Cn (nUn W .p ., � .n ., ., .Q � � W W W W W W W W W W W NNNNNNNNNNNNrrrrrrrrrr r r rrr000000000000000000 J O1 .A WNr O IO OD Ln .b- W Nr OWm J O% Cn .nW NNr O IO m JMm Ut " W N Nr O IO IO OD J O) O1 U7 .P .A W N Nr r O W IO m m J J OI OI Ln Ln .h. J�- W W " " I-- IO JCn .A Wr OIO mmJ J m d1 O1 O1 O1 J J m m IO Or N W (nMOD Or W (n m O NCn J OWO1l0 N (nm NUn IOW JO Cn IOW J N O1 r Ut O UN O Ln O (n r O11- JW V N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W W W W-W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r r r r O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .JW .Ia (nU7OlJmmIpID000rrrrrrrrrrr00 .0 I OI O .m m *-I . -I .J . Ln .n .P .W W. . . 6 I OIV m Om .J O 1U 7 . . .W N. . .O .O I Om O . .J .J . . . . U. .0 .n .X. ., W. . W J N NF-+ lO JUTr JW mN O1W W Ln O1 J J a) Ut .b- N O J JA JNm W J N OI IOW ON ION N .P J IOr W .P O1 m IOr W N J %D r " Jr (.n r CO O1 W O J .t. 0 O1 IV mW 7 (nNJ� IOJOMJrOW0 ODIO .h, ulC3 MJ It' Ul WO) InCD MN) NMN3POW Jb- 01NW W --JCD OJInrmCnW rr W J .p (nNJInION " .� LA) r0) mJNr iJ W W W W W l•1 W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LO W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r r r r r r r r r r r 1--• r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 1-• r r r r r r r r r r r r 1� r 1--• N r J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J 51 M M O1 O1 01 O1 O1 01 M 61 01 O1 01 ON 01 M O1 M 01 M 0) 01 01 m M M 01 m m 01 m m m m m m 01 m 01 O1 m m 01 m m m m O1 01 O1 01 O1 01 m m m m m M O1 01 01 O1 01 m m m a) m m m 5.833 0.157 0.585 2. 109 3.176 5. 911 0.159 0.597 1. 992 3.176 5. 989 0.161 0.610 1.867 3.176 6.067 0.163 0.622 2. 110 3.176 6.144 0.165 0.635 2. 671 3.176 6.222 0.166 0.648 3.410 3.176 6.300 0. 168 0.661 4.291 3.176 6.378 0.170 0.674 5.293 3.176 6.456 0.172 0. 687 6. 403 3.176 6.533 0.174 0.701 7. 612 3.176 6.611 0.176 0.715 8. 911 3.176 6.689 0.178 0.728 10.30 3.176 6.767 0.179 0.742 11.76 3.176 6.844 0.181 0.756 13.30 3.176 6. 922 0.183 0.770 14 .91 3.176 7.000 0. 185 0.785 16.59 3.176 7.078 0. 187 0.799 18.34 3.176 Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Flat 18.18 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.398842 5 year 2.065338 10 year 2.520829 25 year 3.107525 50 year 3.550901 100 year 3.998728 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1957 1. 595 0.000 1958 3. 497 0.000 1959 0. 916 0.000 1960 1.337 0.000 1961 2. 068 0.000 1962 1.245 0.000 uuvv v (,-VOL L ua 000010 961Z'T 6Z 0000'0 666Z'T 8Z 0000'0 TSbZ'T LZ 0000'0 ZT6Z'T 9Z 0000'0 000£'T SZ 0000'0 OTT£'T bZ 0000'0 £L££'T £Z 0000'0 9ZS£'T ZZ 0000'0 008£'T TZ 0000'0 8£8£'T OZ 0000'0 T6Z6'T 6T 0000'0 T££S'T 8T 000010 98b9'1 LT 000010 6TLS'T 9T 0000'0 L669'T ST 0000'0 TTZ9'1 6T 0000'0 £198'T £T 0000'0 69T0'Z ZT 0000'0 ZO£0'Z TT 0000'0 T890'Z OT 0000'0 86£T'Z 6 0000'0 E£LT'Z 8 0000'0 £6LZ'Z L 0000'0 Z66Z'Z 9 0000'0 TZTS'Z S 0000'0 TZL8'Z 6 0000'0 S£9T'£ £ 0000'0 ££8Z'£ Z 0000'0 ZL66'£ T pa-4ebzgrR padOTanapasd xueg T# 00d pue padOTanapaad =O3 sxead TlTsea)� paxueg 000'0 66S 'T OOOZ 000'0 T98'T 6661 000'0 6TZ'T 866T 000'0 6LZ'Z L661 000'0 6Z6'T 966T 000'0 Z99'0 966T 000'0 8L9'0 666T 000'0 6L0'T £661 000'0 £8Z'£ Z66T 000'0 ZL8'Z T66T 000'0 b86'0 066T 000'0 6S6 '0 686T 000'0 0£0'Z 886T 000'0 66Z'Z L86T 000'0 SL9 '0 986T 000'0 00£'T 9861 000'0 ZTS'Z 586T 000'0 ££S'T £86T 000'0 06T'Z Z86T 000'0 16Z'T T86T 000'0 96T'T 086T 000'0 £S£'T 6L6T 000'0 ZLT'T 8L61 000'0 LTO'Z LL6T 000'0 SL6 '0 9L6T 000'0 08£'T SL6T 000'0 TT£'T bL6T 000'0 £LT'Z £L6T 000'0 TLS'T ZL6T 000'0 SST'T TL6T 000'0 £89'0 OL6T 000'0 6ZT 'T 696T 00010 68£'T 896T 000'0 £bL'O L96T 000'0 TZ9'T 996T 000'0 SbZ'T 996T 000'0 E9T'£ 696T 000'0 ZOS'0 £96T Cl O O O O O O O co O O ftf H H to .p It- W w W W w W W W w I-� �3, 7 0 aW (J1 O1000J01UI .PWK) OOOCOt'D OD C' aD00aDJ JJ J CoCoIoCDOD0000JJ JOl0 (D (D 0 � OD Un N lO m Lo O co U1 N CD M WO Jj�. N l00) WO J .la 1-' C001W 0 J .A FO OD 01 W 0 -jJ 1l BOO UnNO J A F--+ 00 U" N IOC NLo b.Ln m J (0OF-+ N W (Jn 0I J OO CO FA N W .p Un J OD ko C Fo W o. (p M J %D CD NW (PM JOO W N W .P UI JOD W.-. O N dL (Jn J l0 W U7J (0 h' W U1 J kD WUi J (0 PI WU, J (0 W (.nJCO W (P J (0 W .P 0) OD O N .ta O> 00 O N .1�- n n to r- r tJ N N N 0o0OooOOOo1-' 1-� W .P (P U7MMJ JWW V- I-- NNNNN W W W W Jam Ut Ul M -1 J 00 W 1-' h' 1- 1-1 N) NNN W KJ (t (t W N) Un 00 .p OlOJ W OD .b. .n ON W .PM J lO h- N W Ln J O N U7001--- M 1-, JWO J 01 .A OH W .A U7 JW F- 0- 01WW (n (, Un 6) O) J Co CO (O (D OI--' h' 1-� JOF- .AU (D 40 " 4m Ln -_j C) w 00 C% 00 N) Ln Ln OD 00 " N) Ln Ul w 0 L. wJJOIF-- Mwo 00IJJOD .D6F+ UIJ00JN0J M0 --j0WM WcDLn MM ro ro t- --j (nW W (nW nJ, ODWCn �- `i > O') 0') -0- W 1- MN .- � (IM C) l0 n (n (n O O O O O Co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d C7 C ro a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl o A p1 O O O 0 O O O O O O o O O O ID o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rororo �vrorororororo �v �vrorororororo 'v 'orororororororororororororotvrorotvrorororvroro flu rororororo oOOOOOOOOOOOOO w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y to to to (n to to (n (n to (A (n (n N (n to N y w w w w w w to w w w w w to to 0 to w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W w r• 2.1108 35 0 0 Pass 2.1396 34 0 0 Pass 2.1684 31 0 0 Pass 2.1972 27 0 0 Pass 2.2260 26 0 0 Pass 2.2548 24 0 0 Pass 2.2836 22 0 0 Pass 2.3124 20 0 0 Pass 2.3412 16 0 0 Pass 2.3700 18 0 0 Pass 2.3988 17 0 0 Pass 2.4276 17 0 0 Pass 2.4564 17 0 0 Pass 2.4852 15 0 0 Pass 2.5140 14 0 0 Pass 2.5428 12 0 0 Pass 2.5716 12 0 0 Pass 2.6004 11 0 0 Pass 2.6292 10 0 0 Pass 2.6580 9 0 0 Pass 2.6868 9 0 0 Pass 2.7156 6 0 0 Pass 2.7444 6 0 0 Pass 2.7732 6 0 0 Pass 2.8020 6 0 0 Pass 2.8308 6 0 0 Pass 2.8596 6 0 0 Pass 2.8884 5 0 0 Pass 2.9172 5 0 0 Pass 2.9460 4 0 0 Pass 2.9748 4 0 0 Pass 3.0036 4 0 0 Pass 3.0325 4 0 0 Pass 3.0613 4 0 0 Pass 3.0901 4 0 0 Pass 3.1189 4 0 0 Pass 3.1477 4 0 0 Pass 3.1765 3 0 0 Pass 3.2053 3 0 0 Pass 3.2341 3 0 0 Pass 3.2629 2 0 0 Pass 3.2917 1 0 0 Pass 3.3205 1 0 0 Pass 3.3493 1 0 0 Pass 3.3781 1 0 0 Pass 3.4069 1 0 0 Pass 3.4357 1 0 0 Pass 3.4645 1 0 0 Pass 3.4933 1 0 0 Pass 3.5221 0 0 0 Pass 3.5509 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.3109 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.453 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.1526 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.1526 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. f Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT pos D���o(►M �Nr Project Name: 2 k"e Z Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1 .33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Steep 6.27 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated ro w Ol la (n fn (!� (n fn U1 N fn fn � (n !n fn [n In (n (n U1 fn fl1 U1 U1 fn U1 � V1 U1 N (n UI U1 N fn fn (n !n Ul fn fn !n !n fn fn fn fn (n ff1 (n (n !n fn UI fn !n fn fn UJ (f� (n !n f!1 U] UI U1 a ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro m m ro ro m ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro a s a4 a a a a a a a a a a a a w a a a a a a a a a a a a a, a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a, a a a a, a, a a, a s a, a s a, a, a a a a a, a a a a a a a a w b+ ro V a, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al a ar A q g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W C/I ul� FC N a a b - ar > N - +) 4-) aoo0oo0000000000000000000000000000000000o00000000000000000000000 (D .r ri r-I H A r1 ri) U U w .fro b U0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 : w w -0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (D0 U a) a) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 O 4 H . . aH H 44CDC:) 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass " 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.8303 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.5166 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.2856 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.2856 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT p T J S, 0 l:1.1(1Zo P Project Name: 1 S u Site Address: City Report Date : 4/21/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Steep 18.18 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Trapezoidal Pond 1, Trapezoidal Pond 1, Name Trapezoidal Pond 1 Bottom Length: 47.8176650724337ft. s _ ��� p Bottom Width: 47.8176650724337ft. (LC�u ''ti o Depth : 7ft. �O (20—,9 1S A f Volume at riser head 0.6224ft. P2o PoS _ Infiltration On I Infiltration rate 30 O� �'0�0 0X Infiltration saftey factor 2 s/ A U[ t Side slope 1: 3 To 1 /�/'�% pO�1> 07,orix o' ) Side slope 2: 3 To 1 Y� Side slope 3: 3 To 1 m'PS Side slope 4: 3 To 1 `� � Discharge Structure AX Riser Height: 6 ft. . Riser Diameter: 18 in. NotchType Rectangular Notch Width : 0.250 ft. Notch Height: 4 . 908 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 5. 108 in. Elevation: 0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Pond Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(acr) Volume(acr-ft) Dschrg(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0. 000 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.054 0.004 0.191 3.176 0.156 0.055 0.008 0.270 3.176 n Cn Cn Ui Cn Ln Cn Cn (n Ui j�.. j A A r, r, � � ,�- J� XI ,a W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N F- FJ t- F- F- O O O O O O O O O CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �1 m d> Cn W N N F-' O lD lD 00 J Ol C7t W N N N O N co J Ol Cn Cn .A W N FJ F� O (D CO 00 J Ol (J7 .A �P W N F-� F-� O lD OD J J 61 Cn �P �P W N .F� O O lD 00 J J Ol Cn C, W W N n J O N M M F W Ul J O NJ� ON 00 N W Ul J O NJ� Ol co W Cn J O N A Ol OD t W Cn J O N 41 Ol m N W Cn J O N A Ol O F W Cn J O N Ol M F- W Cn J O N a�- Ol W F- W 3) M O N XA J lfl W Ol 00 O N � J Co I-+ W Ol OD O N aA J CD F- W Ol OD O N 11, J CD W Ol 00 O N J" J lD W Ol OD O N 4, J W F-' W Ol W O tV aA J w W Ol OD O N P J (D W D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;D . ;D . *0 . . F� F-� F� F� o00000000000000000000000000000000000 n Cn cn Cn jP jA a, .A .0 .� W W W W W W N N N N N N O O O O O O O l0 l0 W W CD W Co 00 N 00 OD m w N N J J J J J J J J Ol Ol Ol dl Ol Ol Ol Ol al C.n Cn Cn CP 71 " N O lfl J Cn N 0 lD J C;l J�- N O w J m .p N F-, to 00 M Ui W N O w J Ol lt�- W O w J a> a. w N O w OD al U7 X. W N O lfl J Ol Ln X� W O W 00 J Ol A W N F-' O lO OD J Ol D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn .n a a n n a ,p ,� a w W w W W w w w w W w N N N N N N N N N N N N F-• F-� F-� F-� N F✓ F� F--� F-� F--� F--� FJ F•--� F-+ F-i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �7 Ol � W N F� O l0 00 d> (li 'A W N F-� O l0 OD J Ol Cn � w N N F--+ O (O 00 J Ol Ol Cn W N N F- O W W N J Ol Ol Cn .A aA W N N I--� F-� O W to 00 OD J J M Ol Cn Ul .P XA W W N N CD J Cn 0A Cl) F� O (D CO O0 J J Ol Ol Ol Ol 61 J J 00 m w O F-' N w (n Ol 00 O w Cn CID O N Cn J O W Ol W N Cn O0 N Cn CD W J O CJ7 lD W J N al F-' Cn O Cn O Ln O Cn F-` M F-' J W J N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W w w W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J W .A Cn Cn mJ OD OD w w O (DO 1-� F� F✓ F� F� I--` F--� F-� N F-' V--� O O O lD CD 00 OO J J O lD lD N J J Ol Ol dl 61 (J7 (J7 Cn W W v N N N CD J Cn " J w OD N Ol CO F--� co (n m J J Ol (n a, N O J FJ J N OD W J N mw w m lD N N a J W F-' W � Ol Co W F-' W Cn J l0 F� 'rA J I--� Cn OD MW O J iA O Ol N 00 W D Cn N .P lD J O d> J F-' O W CD F-' OO w .C, (n O Ol J .P Cn W Ol (n O N OD N N OD N N (D , Ol Cn W W J O O J Cn F- 00 Cn w W J as Cn N J (n lD N a 41 W F- M OD J N F� a w w w w w (.•� w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w c., w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w c� w w w w -� N F� F� N F✓ F� F-� F� N �--� FJ F� I--' F--' F� FJ F� F--' I-' F-' F� F� FJ F� FJ F� 1--' I--' h-� F-' F� I--' F� f✓ F-' F-' F� I--' F� F-' F-' F� F' F-' F� F� I--' F-' FJ F-� I--' F--' I--' F-' F-' F� F-' F� 1--' F-' F-' F-' F� N ♦✓ 1--' FJ FJ FJ F� ♦✓ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J T Ol 61 61 61 61 61 61 Ol Ol Ol m Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol m Ol al Ol Ol al Ol m dl Ol Ol Ol Ol ON Ol Ol Ol m Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol m Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol m dl Ol Ol Ol m Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol dl dl Ol Ol Ol 5.833 0. 157 0. 585 2. 109 3. 176 5. 911 0. 159 0.597 1. 992 3. 176 5. 989 0. 161 0.610 1.867 3. 176 6.067 0. 163 0. 622 2. 110 3.176 6. 144 0. 165 0. 635 2. 671 3.176 6.222 0. 166 0. 648 3.410 3. 176 6.300 0. 168 0. 661 4.291 3.176 6.378 0. 170 0. 674 5.293 3. 176 6.456 0. 172 0. 687 6. 403 3.176 6.533 0. 174 0.701 7. 612 3.176 6. 611 0. 176 0.715 8. 911 3.176 6. 689 0. 178 0.728 10.30 3.176 6.767 0. 179 0.742 11.76 3.176 6.844 0. 181 0.756 13.30 3.176 6. 922 0. 183 0.770 14 . 91 3.176 7.000 0. 185 0.785 16.59 3.176 7.078 0. 187 0.799 18.34 3.176 Name Basin 1 Bypass: No Groundwater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Forest, Flat 18.18 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 1.398842 5 year 2.065338 10 year 2.520829 25 year 3.107525 50 year 3.550901 100 year 3.998728 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1957 1. 595 0.000 1958 3. 497 0.000 1959 0. 916 0.000 1960 1. 337 0.000 1961 2. 068 0.000 1962 1.245 0.000 0 N N N N N N N N N N F' F' F- F- F- F- F-+ F- lD OD J M (YI J�- W N FJ Jd N F-' F-' 1-- F-+ F-' F-' 1-- I-- I-- F- I--' F-' F- I-- N F-I F-- N F.-- F- F-' F-' F-' 1--+ F- F' F-A 1-- J lD 00 J M (n A�. W N 1--' O W OO J M Ln a W N F' O w a O l0 lD w w w w w w l0 %D w lD w lD l0 l0 lD lD w k.0 l0 lD %D l0 l0 w lD %D lD l0 lD to l0 lD %D lD w Ol0wlDwwwwwlDlD000OODOOOODODOD00JJ JJJJ JJJJmmmmmmm 7C 7C O1000 JM Ln -PA W NF✓ O WOD JM Ln X�' W N F- O lD O0 J DI CP .P W N) F- CD 00 JOI CnJ� W (D . a F� m F� F-' NNNNNNNN W W W ICJ w - + NNNN W W W W W 4 .c. CnCnCnCn0100000,4F-' NN) t, DF� N .P (D "H 0 1-1 x. C. OOF-' W Ln MODNW t� -1W NM F- W MW J �IW F-' JM WW a�C A w JD -- 00 F-' OI-' JNOW W OD F� 4�- F, F, mO W w W ww N) wW J (D J (n W F-' NOO W 010001--' F-' (n JI-' WW N 1-' 00 W W NF� F- Ln W N C R7 FI F' N) F' 0O F- W N O O NN O F-' N F-' N F- F-' 1- N) CO F-' N Fl1--' O F-' F.-' O F, I--' wo (D (D F' N C, N N �, C, L" O N 00 k*0100N d, W (.n (n F' NF WF O �OW W F' Cn F' O� F' W Jp) NF (T O x of d> F� JN DI J J OD J OD (n W w JO FI W 0. lO W Cn J F' J 001 ' JJ Ln OD N OD Fa N .1� O10 10 Vl ID WWJN- " MWWNJp- WCD D (noN WOF- MWNJLnC) ' LA) F-' (nW J�-- .P W F-' ODW N (D a M ' O H ro n m a m * 00000000000000000000000000000 C o0000000000000000000000000000000000000 m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � 00000000000000000000000000000rtF� o0000000000000000000000000000000000000 D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D00000000000000000000000000000w10 o00000o00000o0000000o000000000000000o0 D000000000000000000000000000000) (D rt a (D as a rt H. w a rt (D a ro 0 31 1.1719 0.0000 32 1.1550 0.0000 33 1. 1236 0.0000 34 1.0786 0.0000 35 0. 9844 0.0000 36 0. 9754 0.0000 37 0. 9592 0.0000 38 0. 9156 0.0000 39 0.7431 0.0000 40 0.6833 0.0000 41 0.6754 0.0000 42 0.5776 0.0000 43 0.5617 0.0000 44 0.5016 0.0000 POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0.6994 3356 0 0 Pass 0.7282 2996 0 0 Pass 0.7570 2685 0 0 Pass 0.7858 2410 0 0 Pass 0.8146 2169 0 0 Pass 0.8434 1971 0 0 Pass 0.8722 1778 0 0 Pass 0. 9010 1598 0 0 Pass 0. 9298 1445 0 0 Pass 0. 9586 1307 0 0 Pass 0. 9874 1180 0 0 Pass 1.0163 1056 0 0 Pass 1.0451 945 0 0 Pass 1.0739 862 0 0 Pass 1. 1027 774 0 0 Pass 1. 1315 708 0 0 Pass 1.1603 638 0 0 Pass 1. 1891 575 0 0 Pass 1.2179 515 0 0 Pass 1.2467 462 0 0 Pass 1.2755 418 0 0 Pass 1.3043 386 0 0 Pass 1.3331 358 0 0 Pass 1.3619 329 0 0 Pass 1.3907 300 0 0 Pass 1.4195 277 0 0 Pass 1.4483 255 0 0 Pass 1. 4771 236 0 0 Pass 1.5059 224 0 0 Pass 1.5347 210 0 0 Pass 1.5635 190 0 0 Pass 1.5923 175 0 0 Pass 1. 6211 164 0 0 Pass 1. 6499 144 0 0 Pass 1. 6787 131 0 0 Pass 1.7075 120 0 0 Pass 1.7363 107 0 0 Pass 1.7651 94 0 0 Pass 1.7939 84 0 0 Pass 1.8227 78 0 0 Pass 1.8515 73 0 0 Pass 1.8803 67 0 0 Pass 1. 9091 60 0 0 Pass 1. 9379 56 0 0 Pass 1. 9667 54 0 0 Pass 1. 9955 48 0 0 Pass 2. 0244 45 0 0 Pass 2.0532 42 0 0 Pass 2.0820 39 0 0 Pass 2. 1108 35 0 0 Pass 2. 1396 34 0 0 Pass 2.1684 31 0 0 Pass 2.1972 27 0 0 Pass 2.2260 26 0 0 Pass 2.2548 24 0 0 Pass 2.2836 22 0 0 Pass 2.3124 20 0 0 Pass 2.3412 18 0 0 Pass 2.3700 18 0 0 Pass 2.3988 17 0 0 Pass 2.4276 17 0 0 Pass 2.4564 17 0 0 Pass 2.4852 15 0 0 Pass 2.5140 14 0 0 Pass 2.5428 12 0 0 Pass 2.5716 12 0 0 Pass 2.6004 11 0 0 Pass 2.6292 10 0 0 Pass 2.6580 9 0 0 Pass 2.6868 9 0 0 Pass 2.7156 6 0 0 Pass 2.7444 6 0 0 Pass 2.7732 6 0 0 Pass 2.8020 6 0 0 Pass 2.8308 6 0 0 Pass 2.8596 6 0 0 Pass 2.8884 5 0 0 Pass 2.9172 5 0 0 Pass 2. 9460 4 0 0 Pass 2. 9748 4 0 0 Pass 3.0036 4 0 0 Pass 3.0325 4 0 0 Pass 3.0613 4 0 0 Pass 3.0901 4 0 0 Pass 3.1189 4 0 0 Pass 3. 1477 4 0 0 Pass 3.1765 3 0 0 Pass 3.2053 3 0 0 Pass 3.2341 3 0 0 Pass 3.2629 2 0 0 Pass 3.2917 1 0 0 Pass 3.3205 1 0 0 Pass 3.3493 1 0 0 Pass 3.3781 1 0 0 Pass 3.4069 1 0 0 Pass 3.4357 1 0 0 Pass 3.4645 1 0 0 Pass 3.4933 1 0 0 Pass 3.5221 0 0 0 Pass 3.5509 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.3109 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.453 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.1526 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.1526 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. t Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT Project Name: 2 Site Address: City Report Date 4/20/2009 Gage Olympia Data Start 1955/10/01 Data End 1999/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 WWHM3 Version: PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use Acres C, Lawn, Steep 6.27 Impervious Land Use Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass/Fail 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0. 0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass 0.0000 0 0 0 Pass Water Quality BHP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On-line facility volume: 0.8303 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0.01 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.5166 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0.2856 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0.2856 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SPILL PLAN Chandler Pit Pollution Prevention Plan General Requirements This Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was developed to meet the requirements of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Permit No. WAG#, Process Storm Water, Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (General Permit) for the Chandler Pit located of off Beerbower Road, outside of Brady, Washington. This document complies with special conditions of the General Permit. The permit requires development of a SWPPP and a SWPPP for erosion sediment control (SWPPP/ESC). This plan combines the requirements for storm water pollution prevention and erosion and sediment control into one document. Team Members Safety/Environmental Director - Jason Messmer Phone: 360-538-7532 Operator - Kevin Noffsinger Phone: 360-310-0612 Equipment Operator - Frank Warren Phone: 360-310-0637 These members are responsible for implementing the SWPPP plan, including monitoring and recording. This also includes a spill plan and spill response procedures. Purpose Development and implementation of storm water pollution prevention plans constitute the initial phase for control of storm water pollution from industrial activities. The objectives of this plan are to: Identify and minimize non-storm water discharges to the storm water drainage system. i Identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) to detect, reduce, and prevent pollution of storm water from industrial activities. Site Description The Weyerhaeuser Company's Chandler Pit has a long and prior history of being utilized for gravel mining. The parcel is privately owned, and there are no public access areas relative to the parcel in question. There are no structures on site. The pit is in an area that is not affected by flooding. There is no inflow of public waters. All waters, including storm water, are retained within the pit. Storm Water System All mining phases are designed to direct storm water to the pit floor. Typical BMP'5 Equipment Maintenance Identify equipment that can spill or leak contaminants such as petroleum products. Provide an inspection and maintenance schedule for each piece of equipment that is identified. Employee Training The first line of defense will often be the employee that is onsite working. With proper training, employees can make a big difference in properly managing storm water and protecting it from contamination. Infiltration Grading the site to provide even infiltration of rain and keeping the site clean will minimize contamination of storm water. Monitoring Plan The future Storm water permit will require that all storm water be tested for ph monthly or quarterly. The procedure will be done by taking representative grab samples throughout the facility. The general permit requires that an SWPPP/ESC plan be prepared for this facility, Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs The following erosion and sediment control BMP's are used to reduce debris and sediment in the storm water discharge. Erosion and sediment control BMPs from the Stormwater Management Manua/for the Puget Sound Basin(Ecology, 1992) are used. These control measures are listed as follows; 2 • Inlet and Outlet Protection Culvert and catch basin inlets should be inspected monthly during the wet season and periodically during the dry season for sediment build-up or obstructions. Culvert and catch basin outlets should be inspected for erosion around the outlet pipe. Rip rap installations, if any, should be inspected periodically to assess scour beneath the rip rap, The inlets and outlets should be cleaned as needed. Sediment and debris build-up in and around the riprop should be cleaned and the rock replaced. Repairs or replacements should be performed immediately after discovery. Ditches Ditches should be inspected monthly during the wet season and periodically during the dry season for signs of damming from sediment build-up or debris (i:e., excessive grass growth), settlement, or ponding, and other possible problems Repairs should be completed as soon as reasonably possible. Culverts Culverts will be inspected monthly during the wet season and periodically during the dry season for obstructions, sediment build-up, and displaced rocks at the inlet and outlet structures. The areas beside and underneath the pipe should be checked for erosion. The pipe should also be inspected to ensure that there is adequate cover over the pipe. Culverts should be cleaned of all obstructions. Displaced rocks should be replaced and damage or erosion around the pipe should be repaired. Existing ESC Practices Existing ESC practices already in place at the facility consist of the following: A) Ditches have been constructed to minimize erosion: Most are vegetated. B) The more heavily traveled roads around the site are graveled to prevent excessive erosion and turbidity. C) Areas inside and around the site with exposed soils will be seeded as soon as possible to prevent erosion. D) Areas of existing vegetation will be inspected and maintained as needed. 3 Maintenance All ESC devices will be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed to ensure performance is consistent with the intended function. Inspections Structural and stabilization devices must be inspected, maintained, and repaired as needed. All on-site erosion and sediment control devices should be inspected monthly, and within 24 hours after any storm that produces more than 0.5 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. A log of these inspections must be kept. Forms attached to this plan will be used to monitor all storm water related activities and will be kept on site and updated to reflect the most recent conditions. i Spill Plan Materials of Concern Petroleum products used in equipment on site include; Hydraulic Oil, SAE Motor Oil, Diesel Oil, and Unleaded Gasoline. Spill Response Procedures: • Stop or shutdown all activity in the area. This includes getting help from contractor or whoever is available. • Contain the spill to prevent migration. • Use what is available to you in your spill kit; Pads, booms and absorbent. • Notify Jason Messmer as soon as possible. • Call Mechanic if one is needed. • Do not leave the site until the spill is completely cleaned up or some one has been assigned to do so. • Complete and submit a spill report form. Training Employees of Northwest Rock, Inc. working at this Chandler Pit will be trained on the contents of this Spill Plan including spill source and receptor recognition, spill prevention planning, spill prevention techniques, spell response measures, and spill reporting protocol. Any Northwest Rock, Inc. employee who notices a leak will respond. If a spill has occurred, they will assume a defensive posture by avoiding the area and immediately notifying the"person in charge". 4 (P /2009) Michael MacSems-Stormwater Review Checklist 5-09.doc Page 1 Mason County Review Checklist For a Stormwater Plan 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 1992 Department of Ecology 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: �(11.�N ��S� �1C/o� cK ( �,` Permit# T \� cL-, -CCCc�arc/el# (3 19 -30 - ZV - 0 GG10 Date(s)of the Document(s) reviewed: 'S/(' &C (1) Erosion and Sediment Control:All new development and redevelopment that includes land disturbing activities of one acre or greater shall comply with erosion and sediment control requirements 1-14, below.Compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements shall be demonstrated through implementation of a large parcel erosion and sediment control plan. All new development and redevelopment that includes land disturbing activities of less than one acre shall comply with the small parcel minimum requirements found in Section 14.48.130, Compliance with the small parcel requirements shall be demonstrated through implementation of a small parcel erosion and sediment control plan. (a) Eros iog and Sediment ConJfol Requirement 1.: Stabilization and Sediment Trapping. OK? Y Comment: dl _ �I�v, )\ -Q (b) ErosiV and Sediment Control Requirement#2: elineate Clearing and Easement Limits. OK? V Comment: (c) Erosi and Sediment Control Requirement#3: Protection of Adjacent Properties. OK? Comment: (d) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#4:Timing and Stabilization of Sediment Tryping Measures. OK? Comment: (e) Erosio and Sediment ControlRequirement#5: Cut and Fill Slopes. ��) 'v►ti, OK?=Comment: N tA( ' 1,V,I I t )2� CCL&J)Zr4 (f) Erosio nd Sediment Control Req irement#6: Controlling Off-Site Erosion. OK?Comment: (g) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#7: Stabilization of Temporary Conveyance Chann Is and Outlets. OK?=Comment: (h) Erosi and Sediment Control Requirement#8: Storm Drain Inlet Protection. OK? Comment: (i) Eros!96 and Sediment Control Requirement#9: Underground Utility Construction. OK? YY Comment: 0) Erosr and Sediment Control Requirement#10: Construction Access Routes. OK? Comment: (k) Erosigh and Sediment Control Requirement#11: Removal of Temporary BMPs. OK? t Comment: (1) Erosi9n and Sediment Control Requirement#12: Dewatering Construction Sites. OK? ✓ Comment: OJ O A % -, I P 1- 1-Page 1 of 1 Form Effective May 2009 (5/5/009) Michael MacSems- Stormwater Review Checklist 5-09.doc Page 2 (m) Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement#13: Control of Pollutants Other than Sediment on Crstruction Sites. OK? Comment: (n) Eros' n and Sediment Control Requirement#14: Maintenance. OK. Comment: (o) Erosi and Sediment Control Requirement#15: Financial Liability. OK? V Comment: (2) Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems. Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and dischargesJforn the site shall occur at the natural location to the maximum extent practicable. OK? V Comment: (3) Source Control of Pollution. Source control BMPs shall be applied to all projects to the maximum extent practicable. Source control BMPs shall be selected, designed, and maintained according than approved manual. OK? V Comment: (4) Runoff Treatment BMPs. All projects shall provide treatment of stormwater.Treatment BMPs shall be sized to capture and treat the water quality storm, defined as the six-month,twenty-four hour storm.The first priority for treatment of stormwater shall be to infiltrate as much as possible of the water quality design storm into the ground. Pretreatment of stormwater prior to infiltration into the ground may be required. OK? V Comment: (5) Streambank Erosion Control:The requirement below applies only to situations where stormwater runoff is discharged directly or indirectly to a stream, and must be met in addition to meeting t e requirements in minimum requirement#4, Runoff Treatment BMPs. OK?V Comment: (6) Wetlands:Stormwater discharges to wetlands shall maintain the wetland's natural hydroperiod and flows to the extent needed to preserve or enhance its existing functions and values. Prior to proposing discharge of higher volumes of stormwater to a wetland, alternative discharge, detention,and infiltration practices located in areas outside the wetland shall be evaluated and employ9d by the project engineer where feasible and practicable. OK? Comment: (7) Water Quality Sensitive Areas.Where the Mason County commissioners or their designee determine that the minimum requirements do not provide adequate protection of water quality sensitive areas, either on-site or within the basin, more stringent controls shall be required to protect wate quality.An adopted and implemented basin plan(minimum requirement#9) may be used to d elop requirements for water quality sensitive areas that are tailored to a specific basin. OK? Comment: (8) Off-Site Analysis and Mitigation. Downstream analysis may trigger additional requirements.The project engineer shall provide a detailed qualitative analysis of the flow path of the discharge from the project site to the receiving water.This requirement shall apply to all projects where a drainage and erosion control plan is prepared, including those proposing retention facilities.This analysis shall include flow routing,and provide existing pipe and channel sizes and estimated capacities. In addition,the project engineer shall discuss any known or expected downstream erosion,flooding, or water quality problems, including those that may be caused by interflow from the proposed retention facility.The director or designee shall have the discretion to specify the distance and level of detail to be provided by the project engineer. In making this determination, the director or designee shall consider such factors as the relative size of the new development, availability o ther hydrologic work for the drainage area, and the extent of which stormwater generated n the project site is to be infiltrated. OK? V Comment: (9) Basin Planning. Basin plan supersedes Manual. Page 2 of 1 Form Effective May 2009 5 5/2009) Michael MacSems -Stormwater Review Checklist 5-09.doc Page 3 1 r— OK? Comment: (10) Operation and Maintenance.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) covenant will be required to cover all privately owned and maintained stormwater facilities approved by the director. O&M Covenant forms are available at the Mason County Public Works Office.A copy of the completed instrument shall be recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office by the proponent and a copy of the recorded instrument is required to be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to final appy6val of the completed permanent stormwater facilities. OK? P Comment: (11) Financial Liability. Performance bonding or other appropriate instruments shall be required for all ro ec to ensure compliance w th the standard , V' ps. 1 7(� OK? Comment: ���t� &,J��Are the Documents signed and stamped? C}l )(l Ct V'.}S��c K,pe Oc Type and#of License: I� YC1'�SSI Q Y]�� FV S 39 z gS If not approved,what is the next action/recommendation for further action? s�Z6/G� c'�tv�tJl Skwt �( Qorb Reviewed by V l S on Time spent in review: 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 3 of 1 Form Effective May 2009 WC Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering&Consulting•Materials Testing Special Inspection•Environmental Consulting +4 TatiAg k Co '� May 28,2009 Mr.Kevin Noffsinger Northwest Rock,Inc. 642 Newskah Road RECEIVED Aberdeen, WA 98520 Subj.: Critical Areas Ordinance JUL 14 ZW9 Geotechnical Site Assessment Chandler Pit Expansion MCC D - PLANNING Mason County,WA Project No.: 08SO54-02 Dear Mr.Noffsinger: This report presents additional engineering conclusions regarding a geologic assessment of the planned Chandler Gravel Pit expansion in accordance with the plan review comments issued by Mason County Department of Community Development, dated May 11, 2009. This report is an addendum to our rgiiarL dated December 11, 2008. That report should be consulted for project and site descriptions, geology an subsurface conditions, and conclusions and recommendations. On May 26, 2009, our geologist visited to the site and conducted additional site reconnaissance of the two areas in question noted in the Mason County letter: (1) the east slope above the small unnamed creek that runs north to south and crosses under the southeast access road, and(2)the steep slopes on the interior of the existing pit that will be removed during pit expansion. 1. Slopes on Eastside of Parcel above Unnamed Creek This stream is highlighted on the attached pre-development site plan. The stream is at or about elevation 165 feet, dropping into a basin down to about elevation 140 feet before passing through the culvert under the pit access road off of West Beerbower Rd. Exposed soil at the stream elevation is sandy gravel that is consistent with the soils exposed in the pit. No perched water seeps were observed along the slope. No pistol-butt trees or obvious slumps or sloughs were observed. The slope was heavily vegetated at the time of our visit making it difficult to see details. Bedding exposed in the pit access road cut through the east bluff shows horizontal bedding that's typically massive and discontinuous; some gravel layers taper out to the east, typical of channel deposits. East slope vegetation is mainly deciduous consisting of mature maples and alders, with some firs to two to three feet in diameter. Upslope ground is flat (glacial outwash terrace) and has been previously cleared to the bluff line. Upslope vegetation is mainly field grass, scotch broom, brush and brambles, with a few widely scattered fir trees. Additional clearing and tree cutting in this area should not adversely impact the subject slope. Corporate — 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 NW Region — 2126 East Bakerview Rd., Suite 4101 • Bellingham, WA 98226 • Phone (360) 647-6061 • Fax (360) 647-9111 SW Region — 2118 Black Lake Blvd. SW • Olympia, WA 98512 • Phone (360) 534-9777 • Fax (360) 534-9779 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08SO92 May 28,2009 An existing well was installed near the top of this slope on July 10, 1990, based on Department of Ecology Water Well Report. This well log recorded the static water elevation at about elevation 115 feet, with some minor water at noted at elevation 164 feet. Final pit base elevation is designed to about elevation 118 feet. Groundwater is not expected to pose signifant risks to the subject slopes. 2. Steep Slopes within Pit The slopes are identified on the attached site plan. These slopes appear stable, having maintained a vertical surface with minimal surface sloughing, but surface raveling is common and on-going. Currently about 30 foot wide benches step about 15 feet vertically to form the interior slopes which calculate out to about a two horizontal to one vertical (2:1) slope. The cut face is taller where overburden has been stockpiled at the rim of the pit. As noted in Mason County's plan review letter and the proposed plans, these slopes will be excavated as the pit is expanded. The project design calls for slopes of approximately 2:1. Additional tree clearing around the existing gravel pit should not adversely impact these slopes. Mr.Noffsinger,we trust this report provides the information you require. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. 9OLPH R. 'Q Ot ash WASOJ�p �� a �0 H � 340" �4 o��sSIQNA GISTSL � 5128109 n� 2720 used Geo Ex�u[s 7/14/10 i 5128109 r b Randolph R. Ross, P.E. Jason Dearborn, L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Southwest Region Manager 2 Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08SO92 May 28,2009 Site Plan SUB AREA 6 SUB AREA 9 SUB AREA 8 PHASE 2 SUB AREA 7 15.45 AC Steen Sloaes within Existing Pit(Tva.) PHASE.LINE, SUB AREA 1 S 4\ SUB AREA 3 PHASE 1 . 24.45 AC SUB AREA 5 i SUB AREA 4 9UL5 Un-Named Stream Boa • West Beerbower Road r Ref:Pre-Development Conditions By:Berglund Schmidt&Associates,Inc. Dated:4/21/09 Not to Scale 3 Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08SO92 May 28,2009 Limitations and Use of This Report The following is adapted from "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report" provided by ASFE The Best People On Earth; www.asfe.org; and "The Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Services Standards of Care with Respect to Mold Potentials 1998 —2003" by ASFE The Best People On Earth. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes,Persons,and Projects Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) services are structured to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, prepared solely for the client, no one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. This report may not be applied to any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors The scope of study for which this geotechnical report was prepared considered several unique, project- specific factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless MTC specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: not prepared for you; not prepared for your project; not prepared for the specific site explored; or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can reduce the reliability and application of this report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure; elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; compositions of the design team; or project ownership. Changes made to the project following completion of this report should be made known to MTC so that MTC can assess the potential impact of such changes and make any necessary modifications to our interpretations and recommendations in writing. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report may be affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. MTC should always be contacted to determine if the report is still reliable. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration utilizes test borings and/or test pits that are widely spaced over ground area relevant to a unique scope of work; additionally, soil samples are taken at variable spacing over the depth of exploration. The variability of subsurface conditions may exceed that of the site investigation program. MTC reviews field and laboratory data and then apply professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual site subsurface conditions may significantly deviate from those indicated in this report. Retaining MTC to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. 4 Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08SO92 May 28,2009 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over-rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. The recommendations in this report are not final; they are developed principally from the judgment and opinion of MTC staff. MTC's recommendations are contingent upon observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. MTC cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if MTC does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Report May be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the project design team not employed by MTC can result in costly problems. This risk may be reduced by having MTC confer with appropriate members of the design team after submittal of this report. MTC should be retained to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. To avoid misinterpretation of this report by contractors, MTC may be retained to participate in pre-bid and pre-construction conferences, and by providing construction monitoring. Do Not Redraw The Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproductions are acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors A Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposed of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with MTC and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific type of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Limitations Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering and engineering geology are far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, MTC includes limitations in this report. Read the limitations closely and contact MTC if you have any questions regarding these provisions. Environmental Concerns Are Not Addressed In This Report The equipment,techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental site assessment study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations. 5 MTC Geological Assessment Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. 2118 Black Lake Blvd. SW Olympia, WA 98512 Geological Assessment for the Chandler Pit Expansion Mason County Parcel No. 619304000010 Washington AlfTC Project Number: 08SO54-02 Prepared For: Northwest Rock, Inc. Date: December 11, 2008 Prepared By: Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering&Consulting•Materials Testing•Special Inspection•Environmental Consulting NITC ON Geotechnical Engineering&Consulting 0 Materials Testing 9 Special Inspection•Environmental Consulting December 11, 2008 Mr. Kevin Noffsinger Northwest Rock, Inc. 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen, WA 98520 Subj.: Mason County Resource Ordinance—Landslide Hazard Areas Geological Assessment for Chandler Pit Expansion Tax Parcel No.619304000010,Mason County,WA Project No.: 08SO54-02 Dear Mr. Noffsinger: In accordance with your request, Materials Testing& Consulting, Inc. (MTC) has provided a geological assessment and geotechnical engineering consultation of the subject property in accordance with the current Mason County Resource Ordinance — Landslide Hazard Areas. The property includes the Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Gravel Pit, located on parcel no. 619304000010 and leased from Weyerhaeuser Company (Figure 1). The results of this work, together with our recommendations, are presented below. Proiect Description The Chandler Pit consists of an open mined gravel pit approximately 6-1/2 acres in area and about 29 feet deep. We understand the project consists of expanding the existing pit both laterally to the south and deepening the pit about 45 more feet to approximate elevation 120 feet. The pit will be expanded to the south towards the south property line (about 100 to 180 feet). However, slope setback and buffer requirements may reduce that distance. Field Investigation To investigate the site, our geologist conducted an initial site visit on November 13, 2008 and a site reconnaissance on December 2, 2008 by traversing the property and surrounding areas. During the site reconnaissance salient features including terrain, vegetation, surface water, and erosion, and soil movement indicators such as scarps, cracks, groundwater seeps, and leaning trees were mapped. No previous site studies or reports were available for review. Site Description The subject site is located on a parcel of land leased from Weyerhaeuser Company. This land has historically been used for timber production, and was previously serviced by a railroad that ran along the current grade of Benthein Road, immediately west of the site. According to a survey supplied by Northwest Rock, Inc., the existing pit depth extends from approximate elevation 194 feet along the rim to about elevation 165 on the pit floor, for a total depth of about 29 feet (Figure 2). Overburden stockpiles along the rim extend as high as elevation 210 feet. The deepest portion of the pit extends down to elevation 158.6 in the bottom of the siltation pond. The rim bordering the south side of the pit Corporate — 777 Chrysler Drive * Burlington, WA 98F33 - Phone (360) 755-1990 - Fax (360) 755-1980 NW Region — 2126 East Bakerview Rd., Suite #101 - Bellingham, WA 98226 - Phone (360) 647-6061 - Fax (360) 647-8111 SW Region — 2118 Black Lake Blvd, . Olympia, WA 98512 - Phone (360) 330-7926 - Fax (360) 330-7946 Visit our website: wwvi.n,.:.c-inc Geological Assessment for C-bandle;r Pet Expansion :Materials Testing and Consulting Deconber 11,2008 `T ject No.:0oS054-02 slopes gently south, dropping about 10 feet in 150 to 300 feet until it intersects a steep slope that drops to elevation 122 to 134 at a slope of about 2-1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2.5:1)or 40% (Figure 2 and 4). Field topography observations were consistent with the contours shown on the site survey provided by the client. The slope was uniform, with no slumps noted; trees were standing straight with no "pistol- butting", and no areas of clearing or other man-made disturbance were observed. Local GeolOQy According to the Geologic Map of Washington - Southwest Quadrant, the geology of the site consists of undifferentiated outwash deposits overlying Lincoln Creek Formation sedimentary rocks; recessional and pro-glacial stratified sand, gravel and cobbles with minor silt and clay interbeds deposited in delta, ice-contact, beach and meltwater stream environments; may include advance outwash (Figure 3). Undifferentiated recessional and proglacial outwash sand and gravel was deposited during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation between 13,500 and 15,000 years ago. These deposits may overly the Lincoln Creek Formation marine sedimentary rocks (primarily silt- and sandstone). The Satsop River has incised through these deposits, creating the outwash terraces and steepened slopes observed along the upper reaches of the Satsop River. The soils observed in existing cuts and exposures are consistent with glacial outwash as described in the published reports. The pit appears to be excavated into an outwash terrace. A flat pasture lies at the base of the slope and the surface soils in the pasture are similar silty sandy gravel. Outwash deposits are massive and were deposited horizontally. No dipping bedding planes were observed. Ground Water Perched water was observed in the existing siltation pond in the bottom of the pit at about elevation 158.6 feet. This water is not representative of the local ground water table and disappears through evaporation and infiltration during dry periods. The local ground water is estimated to lie at the approximate elevation of the nearby streams. The water level in these streams is on the order of 5 to 10 feet below the planned bottom of the pit excavation or elevation 110 to 115 feet. According to the Washington State Well Log Viewer, a well was drilled near the northeast rim of the pit in 1990 and encountered water at 81 feet deep. This is evidently the well shown on the topographic map which lies at about elevation 196 feet which would place the water table elevation at 115 feet(81 feet below top of well). No surface seepage was observed during our field reconnaissance. No evidence of seeps in the form of slumps or erosion was observed on the subject slope during our reconnaissance. The geomorphology of the area can be characterized as nearly level alluvial valley floor south of the 40% slope and gently rolling hills of the outwash terrace upslope of the 40% slope. The walls of some local valleys are steepened by stream incision as evidenced by the slopes along Decker Creek to the west and south and several smaller tributary streams. With the exception of the siltation pond in the bottom of the pit, no upland water bodies or wetlands were observed within the vicinity of the subject slope. Page 2 Geologie:atl Assessment for f_.'lliandla r Pit Expansion :Materials Testing and Consulting December 11, 008 PiojectNo.:0SS054-02 Drainage Drainage is by infiltration. An unnamed stream lies approximately 100 feet east of the slope and Decker Creek lies approximately 900 feet to the west. Both streams flow south and perpendicular to the slope and don't currently pose an erosion hazard to the slope. The Satsop River lies to the south of the site. The water levels in these drainages are indicative of the local water table. Soil Conditions The surface of the dense, outwash soils lies at a depth of just a few inches below the surface layer of forest duff and topsoil. This outwash deposit is very deep and no soft or loose soils are expected at depth. The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County by the Washington State Department of Ecology indicates that the risk of soil liquefaction at this site is very low. We interpret that to mean that no loose and saturated soils underlie the site Slope Stability A review of available geologic maps and the Washington State Coastal Zone Atlas showed no history of significant landslide activity in the vicinity. Landslide deposits (Qls) or signs of slope failure were not observed within the study area. No hummocky ground, cracks, terraced topography indicative of slide activity or bowed or arched ("pistol-butted") trees indicative of soil movement were evident. Furthermore, the soils are granular, dense, and located well above the water table and are inherently stable against sliding. Vegetation The subject slope is vegetated with evergreen trees to 40 inches in diameter and fast-growing deciduous trees to 10 inches in diameter with occasional large, multi-trunk maple trees near the base of the slope . All trees were standing vertical with no signs of soil movement such as "pistol-butted" growth. Under- story growth consisted of dense brush and ferns. Because the top of the slope lies outside the property limits, the slope vegetation will not be disturbed by the proposed pit expansion. No evidence of prior clearing or slope disturbance was observed. Some blow-down trees were observed along the top of the slope; these were limited to approximately 12 inches in diameter conifers. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of our investigation, we conclude that the site slopes are not susceptible to shallow soil creep and erosion, and are not likely to produce large-scale landslide events. In our opinion, the proposed development lies within the required 300 footwl4wk•from the top of the 40% slope, but well outside the 50 foot undisturbed natural vegetation buffer(Figures 4 and 5). 1. We recommend that the required setback be reduced Omet from the top of the 40% slope. The gravel pit excavation effectively reduces the driving forces on the slope and reduces the risk of slope instability, which is low in its current condition. Additionally, the upslope surface runoff no longer reaches the slope and the hazard from water erosion is also reduced. For these reasons, we don't foresee a need for a detailed geotechnical investigation at this site. 2. We also recommend that the overburden soils not be stockpiled at the top of the slope. These soils should be stockpiled further back on the property away from the slope, behind the recommended 100 foot setback. 3. Additionally, we recommend that the siltation pond be located toward the north end of the pit away from the slope. Geological Assessment for Chandler Pet Expansion Materials Testing and Consulting December 11,2008 Projeu No.:OSS054-02 4. The permanent pit walls should be graded no steeper that two horizontal to one vertical (2:1) or benched(current condition). Mr. Noffsinger, we trust this report provides the information you require. If you have any questions, or if MTC can be of any further assistance please call us at(360) 534-9777. Respectfully Submitted, MATERIALS TESTING&CONSULTING,INC AS Vt t� ,jam ray . o�«7F�..ii 12111108 Randolph R. Ross,P.E. j Jason Dearborn,L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Licensed Geologist Page 4 Geological Assessment for C:bmidler Pit Expansion Materials Testing and Consulting December 11,2008 Project No.:088054-02 ne-terences Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Mason County(ftp://l98.187.3.44/geology/pubs/ofrO4-201); Washington State Department of Ecology; Stephen P. Palmer, et al.; September, 2004 Geologic Map of Washington—Southwest Quadrant) (http://wigm.dnr.wa.gov/);Washington Department of Natural Resources, Timothy I Walsh et al, 1987 Washington DNR Geologic maps accessed by :%%}...z ero�r{�......... ._); Washington State Department of Natural Resources Washington State Well Log Viewer(accessed December 10, 2008) (htt ? _' E.Pt ;.};i .g<+v_'; r ill<..+g); Washington State Department of Ecology Washington Coastal Atlas(http:/fwww.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/SMA/atlas_home.hind); Washington State Department of Ecology Pages Geolopeal Assmwent for Cbanffier Pet Expansion :Materials Testing and Consulting Deminber 11,2008 Project No.:08S054-02 Illustrations ..X > ::.. t: \.£ S.. ::.«...1> 3. :. .... n ' o' t 3 r ; .� . t 3 Site VICIIIItv �r ............ M t f � t� ::,k•:4 ti: .. ........../ . t ttt ........... ... ti } fill " Site Location •t s : ; . t 1-igure 1. SiteVicmit} andLoeati()n Page 6 Geological Assessment for Chandler Pit Expansion Materials Testing and Considting December 1 i,2008 Project No.:08S054-(it Site Plan I i W Benthein Road�i�i Property Line— 1 �V )r Scale:Feet r Existing.Gravel Pit Well / 1f� o 1 ATE: I mogimmisr Rom urc W.Schafer Park Road \ nM r: CHANDLERrS- PIT Figure 2. Site Plan provided by Northwest Rock,Inc. Aerial survey conducted by Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. Page'T Geological Assessment for Chandler Ilt Expansion MaterialsTesting and Consulting December 11,2009 Project No.:08S054-02 -4o"*c Ma" ............. .......... ............................. .......... ................. ............ ... M W. .......... . .................. ...... N .............i':* Site location ........... .................. .......... .................. ............ .... X, ........... S.......... ............. X1 W. I Qgo:Fraser Glaciation:Vashon Outwash,undivided Qgp:Older,pre-Fraser glacial deposits OEm(Ic):Lincoln Creek Formation—primarily marine sedimentary silt-and sandstones Washington DAR Geologic maps accessed by(Lap. Figure 3. Geologic map with site location Page.8 Geological Assecstnerlt for Chandler Pit Expansion Materizds'I'esting and C'onsidting December 11,2009 Project No.:08S054-02 Partial Site Flee NmN\�,, ��ti\ '� • . , W.Beerbower Road > \ �........� ri( ,Ei;�iL„�''i,,v�.•rr �...a'''� IZ��� }1 1 _ ,. " ; '' � W. Schafer Park Road firlf { t rr:E�--' �-....r•� 1 r' ``� '�' � i s 1 srls rJ�#��`f/!`t;!!�;•f. 1:...:...—wr. �.t'r':ar .j.., # , � . � t t.;t{•,{dj{!{3t t�;•# i .,,,•w _..��.:g;-:/'"` /;/.� ! i { tllJ{�tlltl'{{i�fi;ti'{lFsf}�f ! + f {{ {{{{st 1rtr;t = � 20' Property Line Setback �IJ {{{j •�Jiy�^, F ElE , 'r # { {t„ Existing Siltation �.,:: •� ,� ��' r � ••rj� .Jt� � . .,.Y. Pond 100'Slope Setback f x ! f ''!'!{ #�{i l r it Ji {!tf si t { A If r i10 sISM Al ��n,�� •�i^it �% � � i i iti,i!i!i.1 1'Jt it a �....., jj ..... t,f Existing Overburden Existing Limits of ; ,f. E., If ii Stockpile Excavation ..� f4 , }! 40%Slope Planned Limits of Excavation ,1,9 '1 ' � �? r 3 tit° j Property Boundary • L `,l 4 XT 0 100 200 r E r r r Scale :Feet Figure 4. Slope plan with planned excavation limits and recommended setback from top of slope Page 9 7 le. W ri 0 R n C N 20'Minimum Property o 7 8 Line Setback Existing Ground Surface Recommended 100' p- `O Slope Setback M Existing Siltation Pond Overburden Stockpile j � c I � 200 j 200 C17 180 ` ��ir; 180 . . •.' _ 160 - �T 160 M --------------------- --� 140 140 . . . . . . 120 120 -— :::.:.:�:. 40%Slove . 100 100 lanned Final Grade r Section A-A' A GD ►•i 0 50 100 i. w m I 1 I Scale:Feet a Horizontal&Vertical a t^ Cn g N OG Geological Assessment for Chandler Pit Expansion Materials'Testing and Consulting December 11,2008 Project NoAKS054-1.112 Limitations and Use of This Report The following is adapted from "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report" provided by ASFE The Best People On Earth; yrAE _0, ri g,; and "The Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Services Standards of Care with Respect to Mold Potentials 1998 — 2003" by ASFE The Best People On Earth. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes,Persons,and Projects Materials Testing& Consulting, Inc. (MTC) services are structured to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, prepared solely for the client, no one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. This report may not be applied to any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors The scope of study for which this geotechnical report was prepared considered several unique, project-specific factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless MTC specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: not prepared for you; not prepared for your project; not prepared for the specific site explored; or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can reduce the reliability and application of this report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure; elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; compositions of the design team; or project ownership. Changes made to the project following completion of this report should be made known to MTC so that MTC can assess the potential impact of such changes and make any necessary modifications to our interpretations and recommendations in writing. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report may be affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. MTC should always be contacted to determine if the report is still reliable. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration utilizes test borings and/or test pits that are widely spaced over ground area relevant to a unique scope of work; additionally, soil samples are taken at variable spacing over the depth of exploration. The variability of subsurface conditions may exceed that of the site investigation program. MTC reviews field and laboratory data and then apply professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual site subsurface conditions may significantly deviate from those indicated in this report. Retaining MTC to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Page i i Geological Assessment for Chandler Pit Expansion Materials Testing and Connsttiting December 11.2008 Project No.08St,54-62 A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over-rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. The recommendations in this report are not final; they are developed principally from the judgment and opinion of MTC staff. MTC's recommendations are contingent upon observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. MTC cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if MTC does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Report May be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the project design team not employed by MTC can result in costly problems. This risk may be reduced by having MTC confer with appropriate members of the design team after submittal of this report. MTC should be retained to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. To avoid misinterpretation of this report by contractors, MTC may be retained to participate in pre-bid and pre-construction conferences, and by providing construction monitoring. Do Not Redraw The Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproductions are acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors A Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for the purpose of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with MTC and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific type of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Limitations Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering and engineering geology are far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, MTC includes limitations in this report. Read the limitations closely and contact MTC if you have any questions regarding these provisions. Environmental Concerns Are Not Addressed In This Report The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental site assessment study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations. page 12. • $ '� >:.. MASON COUNTY `. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FPA _- Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street :f PO Box 186, Shelton, WA 98584 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 LANDOWNERLegal Name of ER OWNER L,eeal Name of OPERATOR W 2 �Cc CO. e L,e L -V1VQs-e'V' Co. /V/or-T-H VvvST -R� Mailing ddress: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: To r�X (ocx� PO �3 ok 1 C)OCD (may-Z Ne wst:�Jt.4 City, State,Zip City, State,Zip City, State, Zip .a o�L t s WA �8 S -7 CoSr-�o Po t.,t s INPt �c�SS37 orb r-- 6--s ti -Z v Phone(366)537 831c7 Phone(3w," s37 93to Phone(-AA 3oSp Email: Email: Email: 2. Contact person information. Contact Person Phone 3 3c)z-CD Ko- VIPj -F+=S Email: KNoFFSttJGrC>A oA 3 If you are harvesting timber, enter the Forest Tax Reporting Account Number of the Timber Owner: $o p -07a -F3q For tax reporting information or to receive a tax number, call the Department of Revenue at(800) 5485829. 4. Legal description where the forest practices will occur. Parcel Number Sub Division 'h'/. Section Township Range EW 6lR Soy oc�c�o 1 v N E t I S E (� 3 0 1 at N (o 1VQ W. M . 5 Answer each question as it applies to your proposed forest practice. a. rA No. [J Yes. Is the activity within an urban growth area? b ( No. [J Yes. Is the activity within a public park? C. No. [ ] Yes. Is the activity within 500 feet of a public park? Park name: d. No. [J Yes. Is the activity located on lands platted after January 1, 1960? e. f J No. JJ 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? i S utc+p.2s Proposed start date: S- zC>=>9 Proposed end date: 5 Zr�Z y Page I of 4 6. Are you cuttin 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 _00I L. A a N 2 e 7. Are you constructing or abandoning roads? 9Q No. [] Yes. Complete the table below. Show locations and identify all road activities on the activity map. Total Length Steepest Side Slope Abandonment Date Type of Activity feet % Mo/Yr Road Construction Does Not Apply Temporary Road Construction Road Abandonment 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.eov/habitat.htm. 8. Are you installing or replacing water-crossings? 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 Type 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 11 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? PQ 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 identifie on(he tound. • Harvest boundaries/unit corners: • Right-of-way limits and centerlines for road work,culverts and b idges: • Critical areas and critical area buffer boundaries: F_r�CE¢ " Page 2 of 4 t 12. Have you reviewed this forest practices activity area to determine whether it may involve historic sites and/or Native American cultural resources? [ I No. D4 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. Signature of LANDOWNER Signature of TEVIBER OWNER Signature of OPERATOR GJeye�.QeuSu` G�,..�.pitNJc (if different than landowner) (If dffotnt that land r) 0 PrYntname:[�-t ,�� (�e4Aeo Printname: Gr4i-jer- Print name: Date: Date: /U" Date: 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. II 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. Vill 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 VOTE. Copies of all FPA Applications will be forwarded to Nlason 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. $240.00 with SEPA SEPA FEE: 0-9.99 Acres$590 $350.00 without SEPA 10 to 20 Acres$705 Over 20 Acres$885 EIS(DS)$2,360 +65/hr Departmental Review (For Office Use Only) Site visit: Date approved: / 3 o C Mason County Community Development C PLAMV INGTAC`FP.A.DOC 1 162008 Page 4 of 4 9/30/2009 Conditions Associated With 2:47:42PM li Case#: FPA2009-00001 p,$ Permit Condition Status 'p to item# Code Title Status Changed By Tag Date By 1) 1 LANDSLIDE HAZARD SETBACKS NOT MET 9/17/2009 MMS Landslide Hazard Setbacks Consistent with the recommendations of Materials Testing&Consulting Inc and the requirements of chapter 17.01.100 of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance,all logging shall be setback 100'from slopes of 40% or greater on the southern and eastern perimeter of the site.This setback is flagged on site. XJ,�—' 2) 1 STREAM SETBACK NOT MET 9/17/2009 MMS Stream Setback Consistent with the requirements of chapter 17.01.110 of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance,all logging shall be setback 150'from a Type F stream that parallels the eastern boundary of the site. This setback falls within the landslide hazard setback which is flagged on site. X / y� 3) 1 STORMWATER OPERATIONS& MAINTE NOT MET 9/17/2009 MMS Stormwater Operations&Maintenance The logging phase of this operation shall operate consistent with the requirements of the Declaration of Covenants Associated with Privately Maintained Stormwater Drainage Facilities recorded under Auditor's File Number 1943099. X - 4=, , 4) 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES NOT MET 9/17/2009 MMS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Archaeological or historical resources,such as ruins,sites,buildings,artifacts,fossils,or other objects of antiquity that may have significance from an historical or scientific standpoint,which may be encountered by the developer/contractor,shall not be further disturbed. If the developer/contractor encounters any such artifacts,he/she shall immediately stop work and notify Mason County and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Failure to do so may result in civil penalties. X . - �( 5) 1 SLASH ABATEMENT NOT MET 9/17/2009 MMS Slash Abatement Informational: This Forest Practice Application indicates that forest debris resulting from the proposed logging operation may create an extreme fire hazard under RCW 76.04.600 and WAC 332-24-650.An extreme fire hazard could be created if one or more of the conditions found in WAC 332-24-650 is located within 100 feet of the running surface of a public road;or is within 500 of an existing structure and/or designated public use area,which is not owned by the owner of the fire hazard area. Page 1 of 1 CaseConditions-rpt P6°N °°� MASON COUNTY � Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT gelfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg.1 411 N. 5th .f P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Kevin Noffsinger North West Rock, INC 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen, WA 98520 May 11, 2009 Re: 61930-40-00010 Dear Mr.Noffsinger, This letter is in follow up to your application for a Class IV General FPA on a portion of the above referenced parcel. Today I inspected the site and have the following comments: Slopes: I have reviewed the MTC Geological Assessment against my review checklist and with the exception of question 3,found it acceptable within the scope of the area covered (the south line of the property). Unfortunately the document does not address the slopes on the eastside of the parcel(above the creek)as well as the near vertical slopes within the existing pit. (Even though you are planning a mine expansion,the tree cutting within 300' of such slopes stills falls under our landslide hazard ordinance when the tree cutting is being reviewed as a Class IV G. I've looked and I can't find any exemption). I am going to need a geotechnical report for all cutting within 300' of slopes greater than 40%. I believe that all of the slopes mentioned above fall into this category. As a point of clarification,there is not a required 300' setback from slopes above 15%, although there is a 50' buffer. Tree cutting within 300' of such slopes triggers the need for a review under 17.01.100,but is not a required setback. Flagging: The unit boundaries needs to be flagged in pink or orange ribbon,this should included all recommended setbacks by your geologist and/or required by the Fish and Wildlife Habitat chapter of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance. The only flagging that I saw was some blue ribbons that I believe are associated with proposed work on the Weyerhaeuser controlled portion of this property. My understanding is that this FPA application is limited to the area described as Phase 1 on you site plan. Please let me know if I am wrong about that. Stormwater: As I mentioned to you on the phone last week, Mason County is going through another transition in how were review required stormwater plans. Going forward,planners will be reviewing the stormwater checklists, instead of a Public Works engineer. As it happens, your case is my first review of a stormwater plan&checklist. At this point I have partially reviewed the checklist, but I have had to request further guidance from my management about questions 7, 9, 10 & 11. Specifically questions 1 through 6 and question 8 appear to be okay, but I need to understand the other questions in context. I am asking questions about"Water Quality Sensitive Areas", "Basin Plans," Stormwater O&M agreements and Performance Bonding. You may well need some of these items, but it is too soon to say for sure. Additionally, your engineer will need to resubmit the checklist with his stamp on it. I will let you know when I have found out the answer to my questions. Once all of the special reports have been cleared up, I can issue a SEPA threshold determination. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at ext. 571 or by e-mail at mms@co.mason.wa.us. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael MacSems FPA Reviewer cc: Randolph Ross (MTC)(ref# 085054-02) Hari Sharma(Berglund, Schmidt Assoc.)(ref#09084) Barbara Adkins (MCDCD—Manager) �60N °pO� MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT gelfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 BSf Kevin Noffsinger North West Rock, INC 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen, WA 98520 May 20, 2009 Re: 61930-40-00010 Dear Mr.Noffsinger, This letter is follow up to my letter of 5/11 and our telephone conversation of 5/19. Since we talked I have gained the clarifications needed to move forward with your storm water review. Enclosed is a document called a Declaration of Covenants Associated with Privately Maintained Storm Drainage Facilities. According to the checklist(enclosed)this form applies to both built facilities and BMPs. Someone from your team will need to record this document, along with the actual O&M document with the Mason County Auditor. Onge.this is done,please let me know the Auditor File number(s) for these documents andf will be able to sign off of the storm water checklist review. If you have any questions I can be reached ext. 571 or by e-mail at mmsaa,co.mason.waxs. Thank you. Sincerely, Michael MacSems FPA Reviewer P.S. I still need a new copy of the last page of the submittal checklist with Hari Sharma's stamp on it. 619301300000 6193052000 t ,U 74 �. W �y OW a 40 61930520000�s � a "`� E� ►-. � „�. �";�► ,��" � ,r+ t «61930520UU09 ° t _ PIP 619305200010 . r 4;� 619301404020 *" yy� "" "n930 It ,«,;�yt .yw° ' .�,' v �rTi g fi r,T,:' nt •.., � "! Ac 61930006(,., TM 619305100057 .,�' � - �'' =� •;�," - ..� � « 61n At' lv 16193jO510073 619: 19293100006193051000r 60 `a 619305100076 ", 005100081619305100080 g345100077 « a `• 619305100085 61. 61929 619305100089ILL j� 619305140088 $i' fi `, 619293202000 619345100U9G ,_ �* 019305100011 v , . , " * t 6193C403nR�� 619305100091 r ' *' r '" r ill � t � °Yt 619'107800070 f 619305100093 " N 619305100097 ' " Z^ e of 61929306000C 619305100Q96 619305100098 619307600080 619305100095 61930400004E , �Q PRK � 619305100005 619300060000 619305100099 ,Z,P µM 619294060000 w .619307600090 619305100100 r= 619305100101 619305100001 ���' ,„, 61930440002Q Ile 619305100105 619305100104 ` 619300060000 u J_uU44uuvau 619293060000 619304000000 619304400O 619304390461 619304390(. 1943099 MASON CO WA 07/14/2009 10 37 AM DECL NORWESTIIIIIIIIINfIIIIIIIIIII�NIIIIIII�N�IIIIIIIIII�NIIIIIII��NIIIIIIIIIg� b RETURN ADDRESS GRANTOR(S)(Last,First and Middle Initial) �((AL < .ail W _1_i�A ci�0b3 GRANTEE; MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRIVATELY MAINTAINED STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES Declaration of Covenant c� In consideration of approval of the development known asi��✓ r tT t,N*%b' Cov W A relating to real property legally described as follows: o T tej c t�2- lv t J wM County Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Number t1' 3 O l) ' D O O 1 b The undersigned,as owner(s),covenant and agree that: I. If at any time Mason County reasonably determines that maintenance or repair work is required to be done to the existing,approved storm drainage facilities installed on the property described above and located outside of any public right-of-way(which will mean repair and or clean out of the existing system only to the same standards as originally installed and approved), the Director of the Department of Public Works shall give the current owners seven days notice that the County intends to perform such maintenance or repairs,or to have them performed by.others._'The approved Stormwater orainageFacilities and operation and Maintenance agreement are attached as'Exhibit A' If the current owners have not completed or are not diligently pursuing the repair or maintenance of the system and it becomes necessary for Mason County to perform the work,the current owners will assume responsibility for the cost of such maintenance or repair and will reimburse the County within thirty days of receipt of the invoice.Overdue payments will require payment of interest at the current legal rate for liquidated judgments,and any costs or fees incurred by the County,should any legal action be required to collect such payments,will be borne by the parties responsible for said reimbursements. 2. If at any time Mason County reasonably determines that the existing and approved storm drainage system on the property poses a hazard to life and limb, or endangers property, or adversely affects the saf&yi4ir�'operations of a public way, due to failure, damage or non-maintenance of the existing on-site stolrm'system,and that the situation is so adverse as to preclude written notice to said owners,the Director of the Department of Public Works may take the measures necessary to eliminate the hazardous situation (which will mean repair or clean out of the existing system only to the same standards as originally installed and approved)provided the Director has first made a reasonable effort to locate said owner before acting. I The current owners will assume responsibility for the cost of such maintenance or repair-,and will reimburse the County within thirty days of receipt of the invoice.Overdue payments will require payment of interest at the current legal rate for liquidated judgments,and any costs or fees incurred by the County, should any be borne by the parties responsible for said reimbursements. 3.The owner shall keep the Mason County Public Works Department informed at all times as to the name, address and telephone number of the contact person responsible for the performance of maintenance or repair work to the storm drainage facilities. These covenants are intended to protect the value and desirability of the real property describcd above,and to benefit all the citizens of Mason County.They shall run with the land and be binding on all parties having or acquiring from the current owners or their successors, any right, title or interest therein,and to the benefit of all the citizens of Mason County. Z' -- Signature Signature r� Owner O. Pig Address Address City,State,Zip City,State,Zip Phone: 300 53�—$3a a Phone: --A 30,50 STATE OF WASHINGTON § COUNTY OF Grays Harbor § On this/—Q&day of'�J._w_ 2009,before me personally appeared Karen I.Temen,to me known to be the Land Use Madager,Coastal WA of WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,a Washington corporation,the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument,and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation,for the uses and purposes therein mentioned,and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. In witness whereof,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. r � No blic in and for the tate of W mgto �'� My commission expires: �� SON cop A MASON COUNTY ( ) Shelton 360 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 Kevin Noffsinger North West Rock, INC 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen, WA 98520 July 24, 2009 Re: 61930-40-00010 Dear Mr.Noffsinger, This letter is in follow up to your application for a Class IV General FPA on a portion of the above referenced parcel. Thanks for meeting with me on July 14t"to discuss the case. At that meeting you provided me with an addendum to the December 2008 MTC geological assessment(which was for the south slope of your site). The addendum covers the east slope and the existing internal pit walls. The addendum that you gave me on July 14th is called a"geotechnical site assessment" and was accompanied by a Submittal Checklist for a Geological Assessment. There seems to be some confusion between a geological assessment and a geotechnical report, as these terms (and similar terms)tend to be used interchangeably within the document themselves. The standards for each can be found in section 17.01.100.E of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance (available online). On the July 14th I expressed my doubts about applicability of the 5/09 addendum, but I told you that if you provided me with a Submittal Checklist for a Geotechnical Report,that I would review the 5/28/09 addendum against the checklist and see what happens. You have since provided me with appropriate checklist and I have done the review. Unfortunately the existing documents do meet the requirements of MCC 17.01.100.13.5 (contents of a geotechnical report). Specifically the following checklist items need to be addressed in greater detail: 3: Location of exploratory holes or probes. This is not optional. However existing cut banks and pits can be used in lieu if purposely dug holes (if appropriate). 6: Regarding slope stability analysis. Again,this is a required element of a geotechnical report. 7c: Regarding septic drainfields. I understand that no septic drainfield is proposed and a statement to that effect in the report would cover it. 7d: Regarding compact fills and footings. The same as 7c. 7e: Regarding slope setbacks. The 12/08 document is clear that a 100' setback from slopes of 40%is recommended. However there is no such guidance in the 5/09 addendum,which covers different portions of the site than the original document. Should I assume that 100' is the right number for all slopes over 40%?If so,that should be stated in the addendum. Also please keep in mind that this report is being written for the logging,not the mining, and setbacks on your permit will be conditioned per the geo- report. 8.Recommendations regarding clearing and grading. This needs to be addressed in some form. Saying"not applicable"is not sufficient. 9.Regarding an erosion control plan. I think a reference to the stormwater and erosion control plan and associated covenants (AFN 1943099) would take care of this. 10.An analysis of on-site and off-site impacts from this project. I didn't find this clearly addressed in the sections indicated on the submittal checklist. 12. Regarding recommendations for mitigation. If mitigation is not necessary,just include a statement to that effect in the report. Finally, I would note that nowhere in the addendum is the percentage of the slopes being studied mentioned. This needs to be corrected. As I stated in my letter of 5/11/09,the reason why a full report is required, rather than the simpler assessment, is because the slopes involved are 40%or greater. I am copying this letter to Randolph Ross, and it is fine with me if he wants to respond to me directly with any questions. Once the questions of the geo-report are resolved, I can issue a SEPA threshold determination. When I post the site, I will check on the flagging, which I understand has recently been hung. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at ext. 571 or by e-mail at mms@co.mason.wa.us. Thank you. Sincerely, t li_um� Michael MacSems FPA Reviewer cc: Randolph Ross(MTC)(ref# 085054-02) Barbara Adkins(MCDCD—Manager) MTC Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. �} Geotechnical Engineering&Consulting•Materials Testing a Special Inspection•Environmental Consulting August 11,2009 +b Tatin &Consultin¢ AUD CETVED Mr. Kevin Noffsinger AUG 1 gag Northwest Rock,Inc. 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen,WA 98520 hlI�SON CO. PLANNING DEPT. Subj.: Mason County Resource Ordinance—Landslide Hazard Areas Addendum to Geological Assessment for Chandler Pit Expansion Tax Parcel No. 619304000010,Mason County,WA MTC Project No.: 08SO54-02 Dear Mr.Noffsinger: This letter presents clarification and additional engineering conclusions regarding a geohazards assessment of the planned Chandler Gravel Pit expansion in accordance with the plan review comments issued by Mason County Department of Community Development, dated July 24, 2009. This report is an addendum to our report dated December 11, 2008 and previous addendum dated May 28, 2009. That report should be consulted for project and site descriptions, geology and subsurface conditions, and conclusions and recommendations. Per the above-referenced Mason County review letter, the following "Geotechnical Report Checklist" items required further detail: 3. Location of exploratory holes or probes: See the attached site plan with locations of existing cut banks and pit walls which were used to evaluate the subsurface conditions. 6. Regarding slop stability analysis: Slopes on East Side of Parcel above Un-named Creek The slope on the east side of the pit is inclined at about 90 percent over a vertical extent of about 26 feet at its steepest location. We conducted a slope stability analysis of this slope utilizing Galena version 4.0 computer software published by Clover Technology. We analyzed both the static and seismic conditions. We assumed an internal angle of friction for the dense outwash sand and gravel of 38' and a unit weight of 135 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We also assumed the water level to be below the projected failure circle. The resulting factors of safety for the static and seismic cases were 1.5 and 1.1, respectively. These meet or exceed the factors of safety commonly accepted within the geotechnical engineering profession for slope stability. Slopes on South Side of Parcel The slope on the south side is inclined at about 40 percent over a vertical extent of about 65 feet at its steepest location. We analyzed the stability of this slope as described above for the east side slope. The results of that analysis indicate factors of safety of 2.2 for the static case and 1.5 for the seismic case. Corporate—777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone (360) 755-1990 • Fax (360) 755-1980 NW Region —2126 East Bakerview Rd., Suite #101 • Bellingham, WA 98226 • Phone (360) 647-6061 • Fax (360) 647-8111 SW Region — 2118 Black Lake Blvd. SW • Olympia, WA 98512 • Phone (360) 534-9777 • Fax(360) 534-9779 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 085054-02 August 11,2009 The graphic results of the slope stability analyses are attached. Locations of the slope profiles analyzed are shown on the attached site plan. 7c. Regarding septic drain fields: No septic or drain field systems are proposed for the project site. Id. Regarding compacted fills and footings: No compacted fills or footings are proposed for the project site. 7e. Regarding slope setbacks: We recommend a 100 foot setback from the top of the existing slopes bordering the planned pit development (south and east of the existing pit). Please see our previous assessment dated December 11, 2008 and addendum dated May 28, 2009 for additional information regarding setbacks. 8e. Recommendations regarding clearing and grading: Please see our assessment dated December 11, 2008, page 3, for recommendations regarding clearing and grading. 9. Regarding an erosion control plan: Please see our assessment dated December 11, 2008, page 3, for recommendations regarding siltation pond placement. Stormwater should be directed away from the slope. See the project erosion control plan by others for additional information. 10. An analysis of on-site and off-site impacts from this project: The site is currently utilized as a gravel mine. We do not anticipate adverse geologic impacts from the planned project. 12. Regarding recommendations for mitigation: Based on our understanding of the planned project,mitigation is not necessary. Please see the attached, revised Mason County Geotechnical Report Checklist. Mr. Noffsinger,we trust this report provides the information you require. If you have questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. °{ Wash's WAS 9O 3sGS, o �, no 2220 ` �s FcTSTE�� `� 81109 d G e ESQ p,�pQ SIGNNv AL A5ON Ml N �x s 7114110 Randolph R. Ross, P.E. Jason Dearborn,L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Southwest Regional Manager 2 Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08S054-02 August 11,2009 Site Plan SUB AREA 6 — SUB AREA 9 SUB AREA 8 P1]ASE? SUB AREA 7 �� 1�4�AC iaas PHASE LINE/ _ SUB AREA 1 SU"R€1i� SUB AREA 3 PHASE 1 24.45 AC SUB AREA 5 East Slope Profile SUBAREA 4 . J:_' South Slope Profile a � Un-Named Stream was • West Beerbower Road Ref:Pre-Development Conditions By:Berglund Schmidt&Associates,Inc. Location of exposed Dated:4/21/09 cut slope Not to Scale 3 Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. msmt& August H,mO \ Ft k ¥ (� u ® m3 # : g � � cu $ 75 2 t aI ■ m � o D � ) CD co - � � � � k � £ � \ . k \ \ � \ o ƒ ' a % 3 m \ ) 0 R � E � \ $ � S � k E 2 t { \j \ .§ 2 a 4 Chandler Pit C&o—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Comui&Inc. 08 0 40 wupm H,2009 , � \ \ $ d § |� \ � o {a» » \ � \ �/ ) - I � R $ � ~ t : ■ � \� � ) CD � $ \ a R � � < � ( ] § § \ ) � k k : \ k E f \\ \ a 5 o n 00 � o � `^ a o � N � b GALENA version�o2 ^' _ n a a a a 300 eo 0 a C O 250 A O 200 150 100 Analysis: 1 Multiple Stability Analysis Method: Bishop Simplified Surface. Circular so 3 Results Critical(minimum) y Factor of Safety: 2.17 v 0 ego 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 MrwYrlMw TwHW»/ QQ .A w.A CPnwMwno �. Project: Chandler Pit Slope Stability South Slope Y c Run 1 — ow y File NAGeotechnical DivisionGoil Reports Geotechnical ShSoii Reports 2008tChandler Pit...%South slope 1.gmf licensed to: Materials Testing&Consulting.Inc. Oq 25 � on 00 � � m 00 A O A N � b GALENA ter,02 0 T _ - a a a A 300 e W 3 0 �d 250 200' 150 100 - .� Analysis: 1 Multiple Stability Analysis Method. Bishop SimpliW Surface. Circular 50 m Results Critical(minimum) °D Factor of Safety: 1.51 r 0 y _K 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 j Protect: Chandler Pit Slope Stability South Slope c c Run 1 Uo NAGeotechnical DivisionlSoil Reports Geotechnical S11Soil Reports 20081Chandler Pit...�South slope t.gmr Licensed to. Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. ,��'. r QQ 7 C> A Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08SO54-02 August 11,2009 • Limitations and Use of This Report The following is adapted from "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report" provided by ASFE The Best People On Earth; www.asfe.org; and "The Geotechnical Engineering and Environmental Services Standards of Care with Respect to Mold Potentials 1998—2003"by ASFE The Best People On Earth. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes,Persons,and Projects Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. (MTC) services are structured to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, prepared solely for the client, no one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. This report may not be applied to any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors The scope of study for which this geotechnical report was prepared considered several unique, project- specific factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless MTC specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: not prepared for you; not prepared for your project; not prepared for the specific site explored; or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can reduce the reliability and application of this report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure; elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure; compositions of the design team; or project ownership. Changes made to the project following completion of this report should be made known to MTC so that MTC can assess the potential impact of such changes and make any necessary modifications to our interpretations and recommendations in writing. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations in this report may be affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. MTC should always be contacted to determine if the report is still reliable. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration utilizes test borings and/or test pits that are widely spaced over ground area relevant to a unique scope of work; additionally, soil samples are taken at variable spacing over the depth of exploration. The variability of subsurface conditions may exceed that of the site investigation program. MTC reviews field and laboratory data and then apply professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual site subsurface conditions may significantly deviate from those indicated in this report. Retaining MTC to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. 8 Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08SO54-02 August 11,2009 • A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over-rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. The recommendations in this report are not final; they are developed principally from the judgment and opinion of MTC staff. MTC's recommendations are contingent upon observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. MTC cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if MTC does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Report May be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the project design team not employed by MTC can result in costly problems. This risk may be reduced by having MTC confer with appropriate members of the design team after submittal of this report. MTC should be retained to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. To avoid misinterpretation of this report by contractors, MTC may be retained to participate in pre-bid and pre-construction conferences, and by providing construction monitoring. Do Not Redraw The Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproductions are acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors A Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposed of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with MTC and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific type of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Limitations Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering and engineering geology are far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, MTC includes limitations in this report. Read the limitations closely and contact MTC if you have any questions regarding these provisions. Environmental Concerns Are Not Addressed In This Report The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform an environmental site assessment study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings,conclusions, or recommendations. 9 Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Applicant/Owner Northwest Rock, Inc. Parcel# 619304000010 Site Address Between Benthein Road & Beerbower Road (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 1-2 of 12-11-08 assessment (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) 3 of 12-11-08 assessment. 1 of 5-28-09 addendum; (c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) 2 of 12-11-08 assessment, 1-2 of 5-28-09 addendum; (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) 2 of 12-11-08 assessment (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s) 2 of 12-11-08 assessment (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) 3 of 12-11-08 assessment (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Figures 1,2,3 on 12-11-08 assessment; page 3 of 5-28-09 addendum; (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) 3 of 8-11-09 addendum (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe)on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Figures 2.3,4,5 of 12-11-08 assessment, Page 3 of 5-28-09 addendum; (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Figure 5, of 12-11-08 assessment (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1. and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) pages 1-7 of 8-11-09 addendum (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s) 3 of 12-11-08 assessment; (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Located on page(s)page 2 of 8-11-09 addendum (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) page 2 of addendum Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) page 3 of 12-11-08 assessment; (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) page 3 of 12-11-08 assessment and page 2 of 8-11-09 addendum: (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) page 3 of 12-11-08 assessment (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) page 2 of 8-11-09 addendum (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 3-4 of 12-11-08 assessment; 1-2 of 5-28-09 addendum; (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 3-4 of 12-11-08 assessment: 1-2 of 5-28-09 addendum; (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) page 2 of 8-11-09 addendum (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s)_Figure 2 or 12-11-08 assessment; page 3 of 5-28-09 assessment I, Randolph R. Ross hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated_12-11-08, 5-28-09 (addendum 1), and 8-11-09 (addendum 2)_, and entitled_ Geological Assessment for the Chandler Pit Expansion and addendums meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) 4GLPH R. R WAS 0J�, r H w 34699 I FClS 7ER�� t'� �SI0NA E 8/11/09 L 7/14/10 Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. r Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist must be submitted with a Geotechnical Report and completed, signed, and stamped by the licensed professional(s)who prepared the Geotechnical Report for review by Mason County pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance. If an item found to be not applicable, the report should explain the basis for the conclusion. Applicant/Owner Northwest Rock, Inc. Parcel# 619304000010 Site Address Between Benthein Road & Beerbower Road (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 1-2 of 12-11-08 assessment (b) A discussion of specific soil types Located on page(s) 3 of 12-11-08 assessment 1 of 5-28-09 addendum; (c) A discussion of ground water conditions Located on page(s) 2 of 12-11-08 assessment, 1-2 of 5-28-09 addendum; (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology Located on page(s) 2 of 12-11-08 assessment (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands Located on page(s) 2 of 12-11-08 assessment (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records Located on page(s) 3 of 12-11-08 assessment (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) Figures 1,2.3 on 12-11-08 assessment; page 3 of 5-28-09 addendum; (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) Not applicable (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Figures 2 3 4 5 of 12-11-08 assessment, Page 3 of 5-28-09 addendum; (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. Located on Map(s) Figure 5, of 12-11-08 assessment (6) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions. Analysis should examine worst case failures. The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles. The minimum static safety factor is 1.5, the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1. and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. Located on page(s) Not applicable (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features Located on page(s)_3 of 12-11-08 assessment; (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields Located on page(s) Not applicable (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings Located on page(s) Not applicable Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) page 3 of 12-11-08 assessment; (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Located on page(s) page 3 of 12-11-08 assessment; (8) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed, a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting, and the method of vegetation removal. Located on page(s) Not applicable (9) Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, landslides and harmful construction methods. Located on page(s) Not applicable (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 3-4 of 12-11-08 assessment; 1-2 of 5-28-09 addendum; (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) 3-4 of 12-11-08 assessment; 1-2 of 5-28-09 addendum; (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) Not applicable (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries, scale, north arrow, and the location and nature of existing and proposed development on the site. Located on Map(s)Figure 2 or 12-11-08 assessment; page 3 of 5-28-09 assessment I, Randolph R. Ross hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological engineering or a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the State of Washington with special knowledge of the local conditions. I also certify that the Geotechnical Report, dated_12-11-08 & 5-28-09 (addendum)_, and entitled Geological Assessment for the Chandler Pit Expansion and addendum meets all the requirements of the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Landslide Hazard Section, is complete and true, that the assessment demonstrates conclusively that the risks posed by the landslide hazard can be mitigated through the included geotechnical design recommendations, and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and safety. (Signature and Stamp) QOLPH R wAsy��OJT a, % 34099 �V Cure0. ��'� ' ?0 09 sf�NAL ENG ax�a 7/14/l 0 Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. OWNER: �_ �.J j �. OWNER: WEYERHAEUSER ���_ /�-✓�� HOLLATZ FAMILY 1 IS 874i�6-, 13154640Q LESEE: / NORTHWEST Ri(C� , %f � In •p-•�- -I--------- - --------- - '- - -;----OWNER:------------- --------------- -----\i, -� � zoo-WEYERHAEU ER �� I HAS EAR o / I IllvoliI ,tn n ,/ t j >'�. ( 15.45 AC now® .w,w - U �/JC�I,FELEEN HAKE ti / J PON '.' Err Cab OPINE? •�� -i----�� *' _-_ y'�,�^ i KATHLEEN HAKE! . to �• NIIi�,-._--.-�'�"_'�..'_._.: � �.. • '��'�-��\ � OWNER: —_-.� '� S TA TE OF OWNER: / JEFFRY NELSON �� s ctigFF� � A� OWNER:QE HEDLUNO OWNER: OWNER: STETSON & LINDA PALMER 11pQ MICHAEL & KAREN SINCLAIR \\ I TnrAI DanPFPTY/PERMIT AREA=39 88 A( Chandler Pit CAO—Addendum to Report Materials Testing and Consulting,Inc. 08SO54-02 August 11,2009 Site Plan SUB AREA 6 �s SUB AREA 9 SUB AREA 8 PHASE 2 SUB AREA 7 y 15.45 AC .QA IL� Mrs PHASE LIME SUBAREA 1 S SUB AREA 3 PHASE I 24,45 AC SUB AREA 5 / °KE t ` East Slope Profile SUB i AREA 4r - South Slope Profile `� ` � Un-Named Stream �� — = + • West Beerbower Road Ref:Pre-Development Conditions By:Berglund Schmidt&Associates,Inc. Location of exposed Dated:4/21/09 cut slope Not to Scale 3 t SUBAREA 9 3 Y, 1 i �,5 2 SAS AC A s'r �• es within it T VWE LIME 7 f SUB AREA 3 i ^ 3 3 L i �r } S Un-Named Stream r � s .. • West Beerbower Road to Scale oN-STATE MASON COUNTY BPS C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A O U v > S N Planning Division °Y ti P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 00 (360)427-9670 1864 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2009-00001 Description of Proposal: This SEPA is associated with a Class IV General logging permit on a 24.45-acre portion of a 65-acre parcel owned by Weyerhaueser. There is currently a gravel pit (known as Chandler Pit) on this site, which Weyerhaueser has operated in conjunction with ongoing forestry operations. NW Rock has leased the mine site and will operate it commercially. However this SEPA is only associated with the logging required to expand the pit. All mining activities on this site will be reviewed and permitted by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The site is covered by an approved geotechnical report and a stormwater management plan. Appropriate setbacks will be flagged and maintained from steep slopes and a Type F stream. Proponent: NORTHWEST ROCK INC Site Address (If Assigned): Directions to Site: W 41 Beerbower Rd (between Beerbower & Benthein Rds). Parcel Number: 619304000010 Legal Description: N1/2 SE E OF R/W (BENTHEIN RD) & W1/2 W1/2 N1/2 NE SE Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED. Please contact Michael MacSems at ext. 571 or mms@co.mason.wa.us with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 9/16/2009. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. Authorized Lo�GoO�ent Official Pate MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2009-00001 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION 1) Landslide Hazard Setbacks Consistent with the recommendations of Materials Testing & Consulting Inc and the requirements of chapter 17.01.100 of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance, all logging shall be setback 100' from slopes of 40% or greater on the southern and eastern perimeter of the site. This setback shall be flagged on site. 2) Stream Setback Consistent with the requirements of chapter 17.01.110 of the Mason County Critical Areas Ordinance, all logging shall be setback 150' from a Type F stream that parallels the eastern boundary of the site. This setback shell be flagged on site. 3) Stormwater Operations & Maintenance The logging phase of this operation shall operate consistent with the requirements of the Declaration of Covenants Associated with Privately Maintained Stormwater Drainage Facilities recorded under Auditor's File Number 1943099. 4) ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Archaeological or historical resources, such as ruins, sites, buildings, artifacts, fossils, or other objects of antiquity that may have significance from an historical or scientific standpoint, which may be encountered by the developer/contractor, shall not be further disturbed. If the developer/contractor encounters any such artifacts, he/she shall immediately stop work and notify Mason County and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Failure to do so may result in civil penalties. 5) SEPA Slash Abatement Condition This Forest Practice Application indicates that forest debris resulting from the proposed logging operation may create an extreme fire hazard under RCW 76.04.600 and WAC 332-24-650. An extreme fire hazard could be created if one or more of the conditions found in WAC 332-24-650 is located within 100 feet of the running surface of a public road; or is within 500 of an existing structure and/or designated public use area, which is not owned by the owner of the fire hazard area. OWNER: 0r WEYERHAEUSER ,1S 871-VA6`-E 1-33 1-155, 00 r -K-- all- X-------* OWNER: WEYERHAEUSER LESEE: NORTHWEST R6c�\ \ r--* ----------------------------- -----------------i----- ----j OWNER: -- - ------- r :,--200--WEYERHAEl 19tER 00 PHASE `2, 'o 15. 45 AC oi 200-7 qp If 2 EXISTING .�X If !d Wpgr MM MP Or BLOW k oowni Is.7IJ29 --ZZ. vo OWNER: JEFFR Y NELSON tigF OWNER OWNER: OWNER: EDDIE HEDLUND STETSON & LINDA PALMER A41CHAEL & KAREN SINCLAIR \ I WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. SIC(' ZCW0Cl c�GoG1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA),chapter 43.21C 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,if it can be done)and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. 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. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION,complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECC ACTIONS(part D). For nonproject actions,the references in the checklist to the words"project," "applicant," and"property or site" should be read as"proposal,""proposer,"and"affected geographic area,"respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project,if applicable: Chandler Pit 2. Name of applicant:Northwest Rock,Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 642 Newskah Road,Aberdeen WA 98520 Kevin Noffsinger 360-533-3050 4. Date checklist prepared:November 7,2008 5. Agency requesting checklist:Mason County 6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing,if applicable):Approximately 30 to 40 years depending on demand 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.Not at this time 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Hazardous slope assessment 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.Do not know. IDA 1 R S(.ny k ZQI 6)e Y Yln1 d 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known. Reclamation Plan DNR Stormwater—DOE ORRCA—Clean air agency 11. Give brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Convert Forest Practice Pit to a Commercial Surface Mine. L-c>5gi V5 cvvnce vm s D . 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address,if any,and section,township,and range,if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan,vicinity map,and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 1 4 n )2 n,S-t. Co LU W rn, b��-Gvee TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT `r w e✓ )3 e� B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a.General description of the site(circle one): Flat,rolling,hilly,steep slopes,mountainous, 1E'yC } other. . . . . .Flat except for a slope on the Southeast portion of the property. b.What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? 25%on the Southeast corner. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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. Clay,Sand,Gravel and Peat d.Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e.Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None. f.Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe. No. g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example,asphalt or buildings)? None. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: Typical BMP's including site maintenance,site grading,employee training,equipment maintenance, Temporary and permanent seeding,trap sediment and control runoff velocity. 5 i1c l 1 )U— rnVh C.$eCA K64 ltCtowwv� f eCOVOhd a. Air L"41- N: 1 C 4-3 G C9 9 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. Loader emissions and minimal dust from trucks. b.Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c.Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any: None 3 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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. Type F.Flows to Satsop River. 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. jS0 s�3h�K No. sloes- � 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. No. 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. 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. 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. None. 4 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR c.Water runoff(including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection and disposal,if any(include quantities,if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. Water does not collect on site. 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: 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 x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush,skunk cabbage,other water plants: water lily,eelgrass,milfoil,other other types of vegetation b.What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation,less the buffer areas,to be removed where mining will take place c.List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d.Proposed landscaping,use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,if any: None. 5. 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: hawk,heron,eagle,songbirds,other: 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. 5 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c.Is the site part of a migration route? If so,explain. No. d.Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any: None. 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. b.Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,generally describe. Does not apply. 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: Does not apply. 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. Does not apply. 1)Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2)Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any: b.Noise 1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic,equipment,operation,other)? None. 6 2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic,construction,operation,other)?Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. A loader and dump trucks would operate on a demand basis. Unknown hours. 3)Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any: None. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Forest Practice Mine. b.Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe. No. c.Describe any structures on the site. None. d.Will any structures be demolished? If so,what? No. e.What is the current zoning classification of the site? RR-5 f.What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 1 Forest Practice Mine. g If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply. h.Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive"area? If so,specify. r No. J 3 rcc4 tM i.Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Unknown. j.Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k.Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any: Does not apply. 7 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans,if any: Does not apply. 9. Housing a.Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,mid- dle,or low-income housing. Does not apply. b.Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated?Indicate whether high, middle,or low-income housing. Does not apply. c.Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any: Does not apply. 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? Does not apply. b.What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c.Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any: Does not apply. 11. Light and glare a.What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Does not apply. b.Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Does not apply. 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: Does not apply. 8 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 12. Recreation a.What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None. 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 op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant,if any: Does not apply. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a.Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for,national,state,or local preser- vation 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: Does not apply. 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. Beerbower Road See Site Plan. b.Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Unknown to nearest transit stop. c.How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Does not apply. 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). No. 9 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY e.Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail,or air transporta- tion? If so,generally describe. No. f.How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?If known,indicate when peak volumes would occur. Unknown due to material demand g.Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any: Does not apply. 15. Public services a.Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example:fire pro- tection,police protection,health care,schools,other)? If so,generally describe. No. b.Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any. Does not apply. 16. Utilities a.Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water,refuse serv- ice,telephone,sanitary sewer,septic system,other. None. b.Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. None. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ....................... ... .. .. .. ... .. DateSubmitted: .................�. ..2.. ................................................................................................................................. 10 ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST Applicant Information Project Information Name wc- Name LY�r�P� P1 T Phone Location Zczo_�,RLxA.-er F vA,p Description Cr�►�.►.-��+2G A� t.n tt. This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon, trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or being considered for listing. If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the water shed where your project will be located, your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help determine if the ESA listings will impact your project. The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can provide information for the following two questions. 1. Are ESA listed sal onids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located? YES NO Please describe. 2. Has there ever been ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YES NO T Uncertain Please describe. If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the remainder of this checklist. April 2003 Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 15 PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity. 1. Name of watershed: 2. Name of nearest waterbody: 3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: Often a buffer between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish. 4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland,etc.)? 5. Is the project above a: * natural permanent barrier(waterfall) YES NO * natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES NO * man-made barrier(culvert,dam) YES NO * other(explain): 6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? YES NO Don't know 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface(including pavement& roof area)? Mason County Envirotunental Checklist Page 16 FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration. 1. Does the project require the withdrawal of: a. Surface water? YES NO Amount Name of surface water body b. Ground water? YES NO Amount From where Depth of well 2. Will any water be rerouted: YES NO If yes, will this require a channel change? 3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES NO If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface water body? If to a surface water discharge, please give the name of the waterbody. 4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES NO Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat. 5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES NO 6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES NO If yes, describe the changes. 7. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows? YES NO If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project? Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 17 WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could Adversely impact water quality. Such impacts can cause problems for listed species. Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces,altering water temperature,discharging contaminants,etc. 1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed? YES NO If yes, describe. 2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody? YES NO Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in shade. 3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants (fertilizers, other waste discharges, or runoff) to the waterbody? YES NO 4. Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the project or during operation of the project? YES NO In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity. 5. Will your project require long term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for vegetation management,clearing of parking lots? YES NO If yes,please describe. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 13 VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian Vegetation, thereby, adversely impacting salmon. 1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks: YES NO If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed. 2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant? YES NO If yes, what types of plants will you use? Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 19 I —1--w-I Ivnaa iaci rviaL—vcI i w - v"I r vviv I rw 1 MASON COUNTY DCD Sent SEPA 7-CC - 000C k to(check all that apply)on Skokomish Tribal Nation WA Department of Ecology Natural Resources Dept. Environmental Review Section ATTN: Randy Lumper PO BOX 47703 N 541 Tribal Center Rd. Olympia,WA 98504-7703 Skokomish Nation,WA 98584 sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov rlumper@skokomish.org U.S.Army Corps of Engineers a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer SEPA Reviewer-John Pell Attn:Kris Miller PO Box C-3755 80 N Tribal Center Rd Seattle,WA 98124 N Skokomish Nation,WA 98584 1r� shlanay1@skokomish.org WA Dept.of Fish and Wildlife ,,, ATTN: Margie Schirato(saltwater) c Quinault Indian Nation 2391 W Deegan Rd. ATTN: Mark Mobbs Shelton,WA 98584 PO Box 189 chirmms@dfw.wa.gov Tahola,WA 98587 mmobbs@quinault.org WA Dept.of Fish&Wildlife ATTN:Gloria Rogers,Area Habitat Biologist <. Squaxin Tribal Nation 48 Devonshire Rd Natural Resources Dept. Montesano,WA 98563-9618 2952 SE Old Olympic Highway rogergsr@dfw.wa.gov L Shelton,WA 98584 jdickison@squaxin.nsn.us ED WA Dept.of Transportation Alana Hess, Development Review Engineer The Confederated Tribe of the Chehalis P.O. Box 47440 ATTN: SEPA Reviewer-Glen Connelly Olympia,WA 98504-7440 420 Howanut Rd. HESSA@wedot.wa.gov Oakville,WA 98568 Connelly@ehehalistribe.org City of Shelton 525 West Cota St. Shannon Soto Shelton,WA 98584 WA DNR,South Puget Sound Region jasond@ci.shelton.wa.us 950 Farman Avenue North Enumclaw,WA 98022-9282 Port of Shelton shannon.soto@dnr.wa.gov Attn: Patti Miller-Crowley 21 West Sanderson Way Elizabeth Ellis Shelton,WA 98584 WA DNR,Aquatic Resources pattimc@portofshelton.com PO BOX 47027 Olympia,WA 98504-7027 ZOffice of Archaeology&Historic Preservation elizabeth.ellis@dnr.wa.gov ATTN: Lance Wollwage P.O. Box 48343 Boyd Powers Olympia,WA 98504-8343 WA DNR, SEPA Center Lance.Wollwage@dahp.wa.gov PO BOX 47015 Olympia,WA 98504-7015 F-1 Tacoma Public Utilities oyd.powers@dnr.wa.gov Real Property Services on/b Attn: Dave Letterman Olympic Region Clean Air Agency,John Kelly 3628 S 35th St 2940-B Limited Ln. NW Tacoma,WA 98409-3192 Olympia,WA 98502 dletterm@cityoftacoma.org John@orcaa.org Applicant:��`A/��(7G 0 Mason County Transit School District: PO Box 1880 Mason Cty P.W. ATTN: Shelton,WA 98584 Mason Cty E.H.ATTN: doconnell@masontransit.org Mason County Bldg Attn: A'sCv\t e Page 1 of 1 Michael MacSems - New Flagging From: Michael MacSems To: Noffsinger, Kevin Date: 9/17/2009 10:58 AM Subject: New Flagging CC: mms Attachments: IM000818.JPG; IM000816.JPG Kevin, Yesterday I went out and inspected the new flagging, it was much improved, but I noticed that in at least two locations your flagging was more like 60' instead of 100'. These are on the east boundary above the creek. Attached are a couple of photos showing one location -- you can see your ribbon at about 22 yards from the top of the slope and then my striped ribbon at about 99 yards. The other point where I noticed that your flag was too close was in the vicinity of what looks like a well casing sticking up out of the ground (just north of the location of these photos). In my opinion, it in not necessary to blade a new cat line, simply moving the existing ribbons back the 40' or so is all that I need. In other news, the SEPA comment period closed yesterday with only the WSDOE comment letter arriving. Once I am satisfied with the slope setback flagging, I can sign off. Thanks, Michael Michael MacSems Subdivision & FPA Reviewer Mason County DCD P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext.571 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Mms\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4AB21642Mason... 9/17/2009 I Q IT AT_ I vA V RV? Ci o 50 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 •Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 •(360)407-6300 711 for Washington Relay Service •Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 September 16, 2009 Mr. Michael MacSems Your address Mason County is in the Department of Community Development Planning Division Kennedy- PO Box 279 - Goldsborough Shelton, WA 98584 Watershed Dear Mr. MacSems: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the Chandler Pit project (SEP2009-00001) located between Beerbower and Benthein Roads as proposed by Kevin Noffsinger, Northwest Rock, Inc. The Department of Ecology(Ecology) reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s): SAND&GRAVEL PERMITS: Jason Shira (360)407-7194 The proponent (Northwest Rock, Inc) must apply for coverage under the Sand and Gravel General Permit(a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge permit) one- hundred and eighty(180)days prior to any activity that may result in discharge of any pollutant. Once coverage under the Sand and Gravel General Permit,a complete Application for Coverage Under the Sand and Gravel General Permit requires certification that SEPA has been completed for the proposed activity. WATER QUALITY: Roberta Woods(360)407-6269 Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW, Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A,Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington,and is subject to enforcement action. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,grading, or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants. Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter the waters of the state;e.g.,Type F stream that discharges to Satsop River or cause water quality degradation of state waters. During construction, all releases of oils, hydraulic fluids,fuels,other petroleum products, paints, solvents, and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of spills should take precedence over other work on the site. 1 September 16, 2009 Page 2 Clearing limits and/or any easements or required buffers should be identified and marked in the field, prior to the start of any clearing,grading, or construction. Some suggested methods are staking and flagging or high visibility fencing. A permanent vegetative cover should be established on denuded areas at final grade if they are not otherwise permanently stabilized. Properties adjacent to the site of a land disturbance should be protected from sediment deposition through the use of buffers or other perimeter controls,such as filter fence or sediment basins. All types of sediment control,such as sediment ponds or traps, should be constructed as a first step in grading and be made functional before any upslope disturbance takes place. Cut and/or fill slopes should be designed to minimize erosion. Methods such as slope roughening, terraces, or pipe slope drains may be used. All temporary erosion control systems should be designed to contain the runoff from the developed two year, 24-hour design storm without eroding. Provision should be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved public roads. If sediment is deposited, it should be cleaned every day by shoveling or sweeping. Water cleaning should only be done after the area has been shoveled out or swept. This project may require a construction stormwater permit (also known as National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction). This permit is required for projects which meet both of the following conditions: a. one or more acres of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities; and b. the site already has offsite discharge to waters of the state or storm drains or will have offsite discharge during construction. An application with instructions can be downloaded from Ecology's website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/#Application. Construction site operators must apply for a permit at least 60 days prior to discharging stormwater. Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such,they may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above. Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office (SM:09-5161) cc: Stephanie Jackson, WQ Joyce Smith, HQ/WQ Jason Shira,S&G Kevin Noffsinger, Northwest Rock, Inc. (Applicant/Contact) koi i LiLuuo) ivncnaei iviacbems - Ueotecnnicai Keport Keview unecKllst b-ua.aoc Page 1 Mason County Review Checklist For a Geotechnical Report Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Report is reviewed for completeness with respect to the Resource Ordinance. If an item is found to be not applicable,the Report should explain the basis for the conclusion.The Report 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: W OCivll_ Permit# FOG ZGCFi - d I Parcel# 6 11330 "IL(i - (j, cci)U Date(s)of the Document(s)reviewed: VZ-4/GC1 (1) (a)A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? Comment: n V, (b) A is lion of specific soil types OK? ✓ Comment: (c) A dis, ssion of ground water conditions OK? Comment: (d) A discyS`sion of the upslope geomorphology OK? YY Comment: (e) A discussion of the location.gf uvIand waterbodies and wetlands OK? Comment: "3'4e 12 C, A (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in fhe activity in the vicinity, as available in the refer ced maps and records OK? Comment: (2) A site pkahioch identifies the important development and geologic features. OK? omment: Locatio logs of explorato h Ils or probes. OK? mment: (4) The area of the proposed development,the boundaries of the hazard, and associated buffers and setbacks shall be delineated(top, both sides,and toe)on a geologic map of the site. OK? Comment: (5) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the subsurface profile,and which incorporates the details of proposed grade changes. OK?_Y Comment: ej A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static and seismic loading conditions.Analysis should examine worst case failures.The analysis should include the Simplified Bishop's Method of Circles.The minimum static safety factor is 1.5,the minimum seismic safety factor is 1.1.and the quasi-static analysis coeffients should be a value of 0.15. OK? ✓ Comment: /l t (7) (a)Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features OK? ✓ Comment: (b) Appropriate restrictions on p►acerRent of septic drain fields OK? Comment: W,A ' - O'Ke:, Appro Hate restrictions on placement of o pacted fills dd footings ?=Comment: IN Recommended buffers from the Ian slide hazard areas shor line bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 (bf -/11/zuutf)_micnaei macbems - ueotecnnicai Keport Keview LnecKust 0-U0.00c rag OK? Comment: 100A&Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes on the property. / S�,Il Ufdc)' NQ.►- G 0��1ks OK?�_Comment: )GO S�C„w h CV"ex-�� Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed clearing and grading plan which specifically identifies vegetation to be removed,a schedule for vegetation removal and replanting,and the method ofyegetation removal. Uln cZw 2c k� OK? 1/ Comment: 9 Recommendations for the preparation of a detailed temporary erosion control plan which identifies the specific mitigating measures to be implemented during construction to protect the slope from erosion, IgAdslides and harmful construction methods. OK? '✓ Comment: I An analys}'s of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. 7 OK? ✓ Comment: i/ J ( (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as,vegetative management,drainage, erosion trot,and buffer widths. OK?V Comment: Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. OK? Comment: / (13) A site map drawn to scale showing the property boundaries,scale, north arrow,and the location and natix'of existing and proposed development on the site. OK? Comment: Are the Documents signed and stamped? / Type and#of License: &0 YES S iG H 4 j ►ti ESL=✓ :9 3`7 o9 9 If not approved,what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by M �.S ,on Aul c /4 Z-3/05 Time spent in review: 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 Geological Assessment Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008