The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFPA2016-00006 SEP2016-00055 NW Rock, Stormwater Pollution Plan, Geo Reports - FPA Permit / Conditions - 6/20/2016 FINDINGS OF FACT FPA Case#2016-00006 APPLICANT: NW Rock APPLICATION DATE: June 20,2016 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: (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 n_a: �eni:etiive. (VII) Drainage ways and culverts. (VIII) Site area targeted for further harvest including proposed timing. (IX) North arrow and scale shall be shown on all site plans. The scale shall be no smaller than one inch to 200 feet. That this FPA is in conformance with the following Mason County ordinances: 11.05 That the proposed FPA involves 15 acres on a single parcel. That the notifications required by 11.05.060 have been made if applicable. Note: Harvest unit is greater than 500 ft from State Park Mason County Resource Ordinance 1 seeps COO4. r-� MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FPA Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Xss www,co.mason.wa.us (360)427-9670 Belfair(360)275-4467 Elma(360)482-5269 ed �1VED FOREST PR4CTICES APPLICATION/NOTMCATION Type IV General JUN 2 0 .2016 Street 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. L`e-g(al Name of LANDOWNER regal Name of TIMBER OWNER wLe`gal Naame of OPERATOR \m-05e-( SavvnL aS u�Lr ot,jr.c1C (Vof * +�W Mailing Address: Mailing Address: Mailing Address: 50S /J �VAt,)S STP-EET 02- NQ�tr�S PA. City,State,Zip City,State,Zip City,State,Zip Phone: C'3(--0) S3?' 82.LZ Phone( ) Phone Qioq Email C�*;s•0. �t tit T�°"'="'°t'�° sail: Email: keww 1 Lo fl W f N-A 2. Contact person information. Contact Person Phone('360) Email: �I [ 3 If you are harvesting timber,enter the Forest Tax Reporting Account Number of the Timber Owner: :'Did — o lb For tax reporting information or to receive a tax number,call the Department of Revenue at(900)543-8829. 4. Legal description where the forest practices will occur. Parcel Number Sub Division"A ba Section Township Ranze E 5, Answer each question as it applies to your proposed forest practice. 1 a. No. [] Yes. Is the activity within an urban growth area? b. [XJ 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. [ ] Yes. Is the activity located on lands platted after January 1, 1960? e. [] No. [C 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? 5 Proposed start date: Proposed end date: i Page 1 of 4 6. Are you cutting or removing timber? [J 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 Tyne Yarding Method (net) Harvested(mb Harvest Unit M) 4,5 o 7. Are you constructing or abandoning roads? [$No. (] Yes. Complete the table below. Show locations and identify all road activities on the activity map. Total Length Steepest Side Slope Abandonment Date T e of Activity (feet) %) (Mo/Yr) Road Construction Does Not ADoly 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.aov/habitat.htm. 8. Are you installing or replacing water-crossings? (74 No. [J Yes. Complete the table below. Show locations and identify all proposed wafer-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 II Stream Tvpe III Stream Type IV Stream Type V Stream Removing culverts of bridges Equipment crossing Ground skidding Suspending cables Cable yarding Falling and bucking 10. Is any activity in a wetland or wetland buffer? (�Q No. [] Yes. Complete the table below. Show locations and identify all wetlands and buffers.on the activity map:, r- .j i Wetland Wetland Type Activity Type in Activity Type in Total Wetland Total Area Total Area Identifier (I, II, III,IV, Wetland Buffer Area(acres) Drained(acres) Filled(acres) other) 11. Describe how the following are identified on the ground • Harvest boundaries/unit corners (t • Right-of-way limits and centerlines for road Xork,culverts and bridges: • Critical areas and critical area buffer boundaries: 7,`}"k5 Page 2 of 4 12. Have you reviewed this forest practices activity area to determine whether it may involve historic sites and/or Native American cultural resources? []No. Y`t Yes. • 13. We of nn 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 LA'-TDOWNER Signature of TIMBER OWNER Signature of OPERATOR l (if different than landowner) (If different that landowner) Print name: CO AU A►aTllrLl t Print name: Print name: Kw,,� Iv045,rg;' Date: L tb If& Date: I Date: r - tW Additional information: (Optional) Per Mason County Ordinance 11.05, Section 11.05.120,a site map shall accompany this application which includes the following informations I Harvest boundaries and tree retention areas. I1 The approximate location of any structures. III The location of all existing and proposed streets, right-of-ways, easements, skid roads, haul roads, and landings within the proposal. IV The location of future land development including stormwater management facilities and vegetation to be retained for site landscaping, open space,wildlife habitat, screening,and/or buffers. V Site topography at contour intervals of 40 feet. VI Critical areas and critical area buffers regulated pursuant to the Critical Areas Ordinance. VII Drainage ways and culverts. VIII Site area targeted for further harvest including proposed timing. IX North arrow and scale shall be shown on all site plans. The scale shall be no smaller than one inch to 200 feet. j Staff asks that, at a minimum,the corners of the harvest unit(s)be flagged for clear identification. I Page 3 of 4 NOTE: Copies of all FPA Applications will be forwarded to Mason County Public Works for stormwater and erosion control review. Projects which disturb more than one acre(regardless of total lot size)will require an engineered stormwater plan consistent with the Mason County Stormwater Ordinance(Chapter 14.48.)and the 1992 WSDOE Stormwater Manual(2005 in Belfair&Allyn UGA's).Applicants will be charged for Public Works staff time to review these plans and applications. Property owners should also be aware that the Washington State Department of Ecology(WSDOE)might ask for a NPDES(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System)Permit. The threshold for such a permit is equivalent to Mason County's threshold. WSDOE will notify applicants through SEPA review if a NPDES is required. An NPDES is not a perquisite for FPA approval. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain this permit when required. SEPA FEE: 0-9.99 Acres$630 $375.00 without SEPA 10 to 20 Acres$755 Over 20 Acres$945 EIS(DS)$2,525+70/hr Departmental Review (For Office Use Only) ite visit: Date appr Mason County Community Development i 1:PLANN[NGTACTPADOC 12/152008 Page 4 of 4 r6oa cot, MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext. 352 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. 8,615 W.Alder Street (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Shelton,WA 98584 www.co.masonma.us 1854 Kevin Noffsinger North West Rock, INC 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen, WA 98520 July 1, 2016 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. Yesterday I inspected the site and have the following comments: Slopes: Due to presence of steep slopes on the west, south and east(pit wall)within 300' feet of the areas to be logged, a geotechnical report is required for this project. I do recall that a geo-report was prepared for the east half of the site back in 2009 and a submittal checklist approved, but is didn't address the slopes above W Benthein Rd. If the author of the 2009 document is still around, perhaps he can revised the original report to include the west slope. In either case (revision, or new)the document will need to be supported by a geotechnical report submittal checklist(enclosed) and the $255 review fee is applicable. Flagging: When I walked the unit, I saw that the north line was flagged,but I could not find any flagging for the west line. From our conversation a few months ago, I think that you are only planning to cut to the break of the slope, but that is not what your site plan shows. I also was not able to inspect the south line for flagging due to heavy brush. If you are not cutting south of the existing access road, flagging would not be necessary(but again,that is not what you site plan shows, so please confirm). The unit boundaries needs to be flagged in pink or orange ribbon, this should included all recommended setbacks by your geologist. Stormwater: The logging of this site will disturb over one acre of ground an therefore requires a engineered stormwater and erosion control plan consistent with the WSDOE 2005 Stormwater Manual. You did go through a similar review for the 2009 project, and this new plan needs to address the work under the current FPA. I will include a Stormwater and Erosion Control submittal checklist. There will be a$70 an hour review fee for the stormwater review. Site Plan: The site plan comes pretty close to what is required, and I can waive the 1:200 minimum scale in this case. However, I'm not sure what the boundaries are. I see the shaded area around the parcel boundaries which scales out to about 40'. Is that the harvest boundary? Please clarify and modify the map if necessary. 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 s j r -� ..R,a. .t� � M-+y ': �a ~fir-'a.� •-k' """""•"" '::'i...�--�� s, w -_ ...�'' ti��i�.��'. " .i- fiti . s` r }-- •k t �" �" T �7 ♦ '+,+-xy 7 ...�'_f YxP .!°! `*1• 4 y_ -14 �A"W• yp � spy. yob M Google eartow h:> i �r. � 11 CHA NDL ER PIT RE CEIVED SECTION 30, T. 19N, R. 6W, W.M. JUN 2 0 2016 19 20 u v. �uut:r Street 30 29 OWNER: OWNER: �``' HOLLATZ FAMILY TRUST JOHN J. STADLER ER: O W W� US N .. y _- S 8773'S6•E 677.87 1 ! 12 E�Ey �j �o� OWNER: s 8773'SB•E 13116400 RECLAMATION BOUNDARY 29 ............................. KELLY E. STEIGMAN 71'�RMIT 30" 2sz2i EWEYERHAEUSER 5 c1 � Y::t`` O WNER:R=ti.47675 WEYERHAEUSEi '' LESEE: ��L-100.1964 �+ ""CH-97.4699 < NORTHWEST ROCK; IN CB- 02.00'54• E "i \ J-.'.'. > OWNEr. �°_.., JAMES & LILLIAN HETT }� \ �1I i 0 OWNER: [) STEVEN G. TILLMAN w w OWNER: _ Q �p� WILLIAM LEE SMITH G OWNER: � � - �QP P� //� .... U G Q��I 3 /OWNER: I% KA THLEEN HAKES ce :::F. Q II W G i / / GEORGI A A. WATSON pF II OWNER: JERRIE & SALLY EATOT_ OWNER: : DONALD J. KINZLE 4 :. °so OWNER: 3 :: Z OWNER: RIVER HA VEN RECREA TION �6,;%L T = KA THLEEN HAKES OWNER: . E / " RIVER HAVEN RECREATIOi 13.3 - 4d39 S 877931•E "D RECLAMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY OWNER: 13116292 — -- RIVER HAVEN RECREA TIO' OWNER: ,. ' >., (, ------- STATE OF WASHINGTON OWNER: ELAINE ZEIGLER + I OWNER: `\ JEFFR Y NELSON A\ OWNER: I R� SCALE: 1"=300 FEET OWNER: OWNER: STETSON & L1A PALMER MICHAEL & KAREN SINCLAIR EDDIE HEDLUND 0 150 300 600 DATE: 6-20-16 NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. DWN: APR: CHANDLER PIT SCALE: 1"=300' !SHEET 1 OF 1 MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 0101 (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 Description of Proposal: This is a revised version of the original determination of mitigated non-significance for SEPA 2016-00055. Mason County is lead agency because the applicant has applied for a Class IV General FPA on a 15-acre portion of a 65-acre parcel owned by Weyerhaueser. This SEPA has been revised to include the 25-acre expansion of the existing 39.88 acre gravel pit (known as Chandler Pit) on this site, which was created by Weyerhaueser to operate in conjunction with ongoing forestry operations. Several years ago NW Rock leased the mine site and began to operate it commercially. Now NW Rock wishes to utilize the balance of the parcel for commercial mining purposes. Mason County is reviewing an application to remove the trees growing on the western potion of this parcel, which requires a Class IV General (conversion) logging permit. Expansion of the mine itself, as well as reclamation, is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The zoning at this location is Rural Residential 5 and the mine is considered legal non-conforming. The pit may expand within the boundaries of the host parcel consistent with the "diminishing assets doctrine." The site is covered by a complete geotechnical report and an engineered stormwater management plan. No critical areas on this portion of the site other than slopes. Exhibits A and B have been added to address the mining side of this SEPA determination. Proponent: NORTHWEST ROCK, INC Site Address (If Assigned): 41 W BEERBOWER RD ELMA Directions to Site: NEAR INTERSECTION OF W BEERBOWER RD AND W SCHAFER PARK RD 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 SEP2016-00055 Page 1 of 4 MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 Moto (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 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. ext 571 or mms@co.mason.wa.us with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-350. 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 Community Services Department, 615 W Alder St, Shelton WA 98584 by 12/29/2016. 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. —Z� Authorized Local Government Official Date SEP2016-00055 Page 2 of 4 MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 olos (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION 1) 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. 2) GEO-TECHNICAL A geotechnical report has been prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting Inc and the submittal checklist is has been reviewed and found complete by Michael MacSems of Mason County Community Services Department. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the report. 3) STORM WATER & EROSION CONTROL Escape of silty water or mud from this property shall be considered a violation of County and State storm water management regulations, and could subject the applicant(s) to civil fines or penalties. An engineered stormwater and erosion control plan was written by Hari Sharma of Berglund, Schmidt and Associates and was found to be complete by Michael MacSems of the Mason County Community Services Department. All logging under this FPA shall operate in accordance with the Berglund, Schmidt plan. 4) SLASH ABATEMENT 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. The land owner is fully liable in the event of fire, if he or she fails to appropriately abate the hazard. Extreme fire hazards shall be abated by removing the forest debris, or by other means approved by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). SEP2016-00055 Page 3 of 4 MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 lot$ (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 5) ACCESS Access for logging purposes shall be from the Chandler Pit entrance on Beerbower Road. Operations shall not obstruct W Benthein Road without express permission from Mason County Public Works. 6) HOURS OF OPERATION Noise associated with this application shall not exceed what is allowed under Mason County Code 9.36. Operations shall start no earlier than 7.00 AM and shall end before 8:00 PM on a daily basis. 7) WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits and permission from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources. SEP2016-00055 Page 4 of 4 SE V 0 16 - 5 s E,,r A p5 ►/3 NARRATIVE FOR CHANDLER PIT RECLAMATION AND EXCAVATION PLAN December 6, 2016 PERMIT AREA This mining expansion plan is for an existing Forest Practice mine owned by Weyerhaeuser Co., of which approximately 5.5 acres are currently disturbed by mining and related activities. The permit area is 25.12 acres of a 65 acre parcel of land leased from Weyerhaeuser by Northwest Rock, Inc. Currently adjoining this expansion area on the other 39.88 acres of this 65 acre parcel is a commercial mine site known as the Chandler Pit. This proposed expansion plan will eliminate the existing forest mine on the western side of the parcel and allow for commercial mining to encompass the entire 65 acre parcel rather than just a portion of it. Per Mason County Planning Department,this site falls under Mason County Development Regulation 17.05.012. This is a lawful use that is now Non-Conforming. The site is undeveloped and located on a high bench above the West Benthein Road in Mason County. It is located in the NE'/.of the SE'/.of Section 30,Township 19N, Range 6W,W.M. The property is further described as Assessor's Parcel Number 619304000010. The site is mostly flat except for steep slopes on the western portion of the property. The surrounding area consists mainly of farms and pastures, rural residences,and forestlands. GROUNDWATER The pit floor of the adjoining mine is currently excavated to a depth of 61 feet below pre-mining grade, no standing water or groundwater has been found in the excavated area and no seeps or springs are visible along any of the excavated walls of the site. Well logs indicate water elevation to be 81 feet below pre-mining grade. A minimum 10 foot buffer will remain between excavated mine floor and water table. SUBSEQUENT USE The property is currently zoned Rural Residential 5(1111-5). Upon completion of mining and reclamation, the subject property will be returned to forestland,to be used by Weyerhaeuser for planting and harvesting of timber. SOIL BUDGET The total area that will be stripped for mining is about 19.66 acres. The existing excavation and road leading to it total 5.5 acres, it has already been stripped and piled alongside the mined area. The soil depth determined by test holes, is about 1%z feet,with organic rich topsoil less than 1 foot in depth. This gives approximately 46,877 cubic yards of soil to be stripped, between both mining phases. There is already approximately 14,198 cubic yards of soil alongside the existing excavation,from the previous mining activities,that will be moved out to the perimeter of the reclamation setbacks in Phase 4(Phases shown on Maps). At final reclamation this will be enough soil to cover the entire mined area, and return it to a natural state. SF-PA )6 5 S� �LX Z/3 SOIL AVAILABLE PHASE 3 PHASE 4 TOTAL Overburden stripping 12.22 acres 5.94 acres 18.16 acres @ 1.6 foot depth Cubic Yards to strip 31,544 cu.yds 15,333 cu.yds 46,877 cu.yds Overburden from area .5 acres 5 acres 5.5 acres already mined and roadway Cubic yards to move 1,291 cu.yds 12,907 cu.yds 14,198 cu.yds 61,075 Total cu.yds RECLAMATION SETBACK AND RECLAMATION SLOPING The maximum depth of the mine will be no more than 71 feet below pre-mining topographic grade. The designated Permanent setback around the perimeter of the property on the North, West and South sides will be 25 feet. Reclaimed slopes will be cut no steeper than a 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. When cut slopes are finished in each phase of reclamation,the stripped and stockpiled soils will be pushed down over the slopes and onto the pit floor. MINE PHASING AND RECLAMATION SEQUENCING Phase 3 of mining(on map 2 of 3"Proposed Plan"),will consist of stripping and stockpiling overburden and placing it in berms mostly on the North line of the property in Phase 4,outside the 25 foot permanent setback. Some soils will be placed on the South line in Phase 3 to push down over the finished cut slope, but the majority will be stockpiled in Phase 4. No stripped overburden will be placed at the top of the slopes along the Benthein Rd side(West side of the property). The slopes along the Benthein Rd side will be removed during the mining process and stockpiled overburden will be hauled and placed on the cut slopes as they are completed for reclamation. Stripped overburden will be placed into stockpiles,track walked and seeded to prevent erosion. When mining is complete in Phase 3, mining Phase 4 will begin. Overburden from Phase 4 will be stored on the pit floor in Phase 3, and used as mining/reclamation proceed. SOIL STORAGE Overburden stockpiles will be track walked and seeded to prevent erosion. All soil storage areas and overburden piles will also be protected from erosion by storm water with a series of interception and conveyance ditches, capable of carrying the peak flow of a 25 year precipitation event. Silt fence, straw bales,check dams,channel terracing,and placement of small rip rap or quarry spalls may even be used if necessary to eliminate erosion of stored soils. FINAL DRAINAGE Varying the reclaimed slopes will form swales;this will help direct runoff on to specific areas. It is anticipated that most runoff on reclaimed floor areas and slopes will percolate because of the porous nature of the gravels. See the "Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan" that was turned in to Mason County Planning Dept,for drainage calculations and soil infiltration rates. Runoff will be directed to an area well suited for infiltration,and will not be allowed to intersect the water table. As vegetation becomes established, runoff will be reduced. At final reclamation,the pit floor will be graded to direct all runoff to the Northwest corner of the pit area. Water entering this area will percolate, but may stand during extreme wet weather conditions. REVEGETATION Groundcover seeding will occur in the fall after soils have been redistributed on any reclaimed portion of the site. All areas will be broadcast seeded. Seeding will include fertilizing and dolomite if needed. If necessary, seeding will occur again in the spring to assure success. Seeds will consist of at least 4 components(at least 80 Ibs/ac seed)and will be applied with adequate fertilizer. Initial seeding of Phase 1 (on map 2 of 3"Proposed Plan"),will serve as a test plot to determine what mix, rate of application,and fertilizer is most successful. Fir seedlings provided by Weyerhaeuser Co.,will be planted using the procedure set forth by the Washington Forest Practices Manual. Nearby alder trees will provide a seed source for pioneering alder as well. St�yl 1 )6 E 3t 19 20 30 w CHANDLER PIT JOHN, KYERHAEUSER -j67ZR7 *A LEGAL QRqCR1PT[ON KELLY F SWWAN 2 S 87*IJ'5 S.E RECOMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY REFER TO ADDMOXAL 30 6222 SITE PLAN NOTES ON PAGE 3 OF 3 OWNER: N 2616'30't OWNER\_' WEYERHAEUSER HOLLATZ FAIRLY TRUST X1 WEYERHAqUSER_ LESEE. X C3 NORTHWEST Rocl IN . olshm ��o ri JAVU&L41JM METT Z77 V D Ll 0 LEGEND C OWNER: PROPERTY STEVEN G. nUJWAH Li BOUNDARY Z "",8 ll�A 1, -CLEARING 6w" LIMITS OWNER-- to * - V WLUAM LEE WITH '\.q 0 011INER, OWNER. I. /hf KATHLEEN MAKES GEORQA k WATSON / I JS I / ? a Z OWNER: N- 1"-200 FEET XRRIE&SALLY EA TON V ll / y 1 t �/ 0 U 100 200 400 OWNER k DONALD J.KINZLE OWNER. TO 14ATLOCK VFR MA HAM CURRENT PIT SITE w RIVER HAVEN RE LAW N OWNER RiVER HAVEN RECREA OWNER WASHING710M L OMER; TO SATSOP OVINEIt. TO BRADY ox-my STETSON A,LINDA PALMER ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN WHO., DATE. 9-19-16 NORTHWEST ROCK, INC VICINITY MAP NOTES ON PAGE OWNER, EDDIE HIEDILL80 CHANDLER ��_IIT PAGE 3 OF 3 MCHAEL&KAREN SfNCLAIR owv. SCALE: I.-30 1 OF CHANDLER PIT SECTION 30, T. 19N, R. 6W, W.M. I /tI JCIRI d SlAO(ER �P% I :._ J�, -� � \ _ .. \d1r DHNER: /// .�• r „ Wy DWNEx: LLAn FAMILY musr t. �`-\ - _ _ WE r rK AEu — CURREN�ECLAMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY \ X a �f 1 OWNER: TVWAN LEGEND r f PHASE 4 if QG�` T PHASE tiY ' y j -&f —DIRECTION OF RUNOFF 2 T O ES°AL Ar LIUAN NETT ..�--' I�h\ — m H = I mom,A p, < LESEE: o NORTHWEST ROCK �,1�4 P j Z oRNrR © f\ I MMOMM.� +.... S=EIEN R nu°L,w Uj 'rA V o I NA OWNER, OILIER: � 1 A J E 1 Qv f V- NILLIAM sARTN ,,� PHASE 3 1 y y ` L'i HARES OWNER: —Property CE N 7A A. WATSQR l\ Boundary 1 —'--- OIWIER: t3I C .ERR/E A sALLY EATaN `Y't 1 � u"-_-•`�._--�- .._.___... ¢ •I / v. 1 OWNER: JJJ �\—Clearing �� I v WEYERHAEUSER DONALD 1 KRNIIE \H ,sd�" '�-. •k.x 4Ff��,# ` �:. /w I //�j�i ' i OWNER RIVER HAVEN RECREATIONl r,. �F'/9' l\s \ _ OWNER, OWNER: RIVER HAVEN RECREATION .• "�/'�_��—E� ��1 I ATIn RIVER HAVEN REpPEA=IfMI oRNER: i iNA 1% ' OWNER STATE OF WASHINGION SCALE:1"=200' �zETam OWNER. 0 100 200 400 I EtTRr NELSON DWER QSR:ttdl!11YDA PAVER OVER'EDDIE IIEDLUND DATE: 9-19-16 NORTHWEST ROCK INC. OWNER: MICHAEL&KAREN SINCLAIR DWN: PROPOSED PLAN SCALE: 1"=2� FINAL CONTOURS SHEET 2 of 3 I NOTES SECTION A—AA 1. ALL FINAL RECLAIMED SLOPES SHALL BE AT A MINIMUM 2H:1V. 2. 25' PERMANENT SETBACK AND UNDISTURBED BUFFER AROUND PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY - TO BE UTILIZED AS AN ACCOUSTICAL BARRIER / NOISE ATTENUATION BUFFER. PONAAMT WM4CN 3. PIT FLOORS WILL BE SLOPED TO KEEP STORMWATER ONSITE AND COLLECTED IN THE NORTH— WEST FLOOR AREA OF THE PROPERTY. ! poyY 4. PRIOR 70 ANY GRAVEL EXTRACTION ACTIVITY IN A NEW AREA; HIGH VISIBILITY FENCES WILL iLORRENT PERMIT B"VARY BE INSTALLED TO MARK CLEARING LIMITS. SILT FENCES WILL FOLLOW TO PREVENT ANY SILT 400.00 -1 400.00 LADEN RUNOFF FROM LEAVING THE CLEARED AREA. " HARVEST BwwARr 5. TOP SOIL WILL BE REMOVED AND STOCKPILED FOR FUTURE SITE RECLAMATION WORK. STOCK BEN1H4°R0 CA� PILED SOILS WILL BE HYDROSEEDED TO STABILIZE AND PREVENT EROSION. CLAYAiION SETBACK 6. GRASS LINED DITCHES WILL CONVEY SURFACE RUNOFF 70 THE GRAVEL PIT FLOOR. g8888 8 8 8 0l $ 200.00 ggll I g oo w rn rn C) g ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN NOTES �,°I. D " COMM GROUND~' `z � 200.00 1. SUBSEQUENT USE OF THE SITE WILL BE FORESTRY. .10 2. NO AREAS OF POTENTIAL EROSION PROBLEMS ON THIS SITE. v a l WNW CUAbE - 3. TREES WILL BE CLEARED TO THE 25' SETBACK ON THE NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF WATER TABLE p '-! Q `WATER TABLE THE PERMITTED AREA. STUMPS AND VEGETATION WILL NOT BE CLEARED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS a THAT PHASE OF MINING IS READY TO PROCEED. ai 0.00 00 0+00 2+00 4+00---6+00 8+00--- 101 I f I +00 HORIZONTAL SCALE:1"=200 FEET VERTICAL SCALE:1"=200 FEET SECTION B—BB LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 25'PERMUNENr SETBACK I NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 1=PERMANENT SETBAC7T 19 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, W.M. ALSO KNOWN AS 400.00 _.— _--- TREE HARVEST MY __ I 400.00 MASON COUNTY, WA. TAX PARCEL #619304000010 �.___-____._�___..�._._—. ._._ TREE NM4f5T 9oVNOARr_ _..--_—._.—.I R CLAMATM SETBACK RECIAM�RON SETBA- I 8i 1 1 0 �98 8 o8 8 181 00I aoae 88a58p o Cd S 200.00 g �� g 0 If 9TW 1�88 1 N 200.00 --� c cRau ---�--- _ L. .. , `WATERTOE. M0.00 NLIWARN00 -2+00 0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE:1"=200 FEET VERTICAL SCALE:1"=200 FEET DATE: 9-19-16 NORTHWEST ROCK INC. DWN: IAP2 PROFILE VIEWS SCALE:1" - 00' SHEET 3 OF 3 CHANDL SECTION 30, T. 1 R� OWNER: - JOHN J. STADLER Q'�/ e OV'JNER: l •, WEYERHAEUS€R ' '° S{B713'36'E OWNER: 6ns� ..... s KELLY E. STEIGMAN _ _ N 2616'30•E`,. `� $ c1 6122 ` � 0 NINER: - n- 11629'35• R-12&4767 'C1 '� WEYERHAEUSER f L-100.1964 CBS 02'00'54• E O NINER: � ; JAMES & LILLIAN HETT l OWNER: STEVEN G. TILLMAN OWNER: WILLIAM LEE SMITH �% OWNER: G r:' Q it o 1 - GEORGI A A. WATSON m 'OWNER: II :. Z JERRI E & SALLY EA TONS 11 Z n ; OWNER: DONALD J. KINZLE OWNER: RIVER HA VEN RECREA TI ON OWNER: �- RIVER HAVEN RECREATION ro s BTl931•_f R OWNER; RIVER HAVEN RECREATION is OWNER: ELAINE ZEIGLER C-.3 I OWNER: JEFFRY NELSON SCALE: 1"=300 FEET OWNER: MICHAEL & KAREN SINCL 0 150 300 600 R PIT C. R. 6 W, W.M. iUll 2 0 20106 19 20 {*� 30I 29 otraet 0 WV ER: HOLLATZ FAMILY TRUST gIW a.. Z OA-�,o)(o -00OC49 5! E 1315.6400 RECLAMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY I29 30 WNER: ' EYERHAEUSER� f g -SEE: °` ✓ti ORTHWEST ROCK" IN ., } PG�1 1 0 0 � m Lu o 6 _, OWNER: ItA THLEEN HAKES OWNER: KATHLEEN HAKES - - - N JION PERMIT BOUNDARY 13t5.6292 Imo—_' --- =—-OWNER: -- _-_-- --__—__-- STATE OF WASHINGTON OWNER: Ro OWNER: STETSON & LIP DA PALMER EDDIE HEDLUND DATE: 6-20-16 NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. DWN:--_APR: CHANDLER PIT — SCALE. 1"=300' SHEET 1 OF 1 619305200009 619301300040 619301300010 619305100053 619301400030 619301400020 619301400010 619292300000 0� 619300060000 619305100056 619305100057 619305100058 619305100059 ` 4, 619293100000 619305100072 619305100073 619305100074 1 IF 619305100075 el 619304000010" y 619300060000 619305100076 �`"' 619 05 0008. 619305100081 � s 619305100077 619293202000 619305100080 619305100083 619300060000 619305100079 619305100078 _ 619290060000 UU i 619305100085;619305100086 6p�j1�R 619305100087 619305100089 � 619293202000 � 619305100090 619305100011 619304000010 619305100088 2y 619307600060.619305100010 619305100091 � 2 619304490040 61930510000M19305100093 619305100092 �1 6193076w 00070 619305100094 619304490040 619300060000 619305100097 619304400010 619300060000 619293060000 619305100006 619305100096 619305100098 P PRK RD 619307600080.619305100005 619305100095 aF�� G� 619305100004 619305100099 619304490030 y�5 619304400020 619304400080 619290060000 '619307600090 619305100 -10 619300060000 our e: �' ri, igi d I••_, e i- D E� , GetrrrappingiOiE§er••ri•, I�N, � 619305100003 -19305100101 wi topo, andthe I User o u it. 619305200009 Jd Ja 619301300040 Su �O Ho 619301300010 �� 619301400 619301400030 020 619301400010 619292300000 619300060000-- La 619305100056 Gk/ 619305100057 619305100058 Gh 619305100059 Z 619293100000 SS 619305100072 O 619305100073 619305100074 619305100075 619304000010 619300060000 619305106076 Gm 619305100082 619305100081 619 - 5100077 W Gh 619293202000 619305106080 619305100083 619300060000 Jb 619305100079 619305100078 619290060000 Ca 0 619305100085 619305100087 Rb �Q,�'��O 619293202000 Q 6193051000861619305100089 Rb .1' 619305100090 619305100011 619305100088 --_—____ 619304000010 -- -------- Gm 619307600060 619305100010 Su 619305100091 Gh "ZI 619304490040 J 619305100093 619305100092 a 619304490040 619307600070 619305100094 L" 619300060000 619305100097 619304400010 619300060000 ►.� 619293060000 3 619305100006 S _ 619305100096 619305100098 619307600080 619305100005 Jb 619305100095 = SS" Rp'q�Ql SRO 619305100004 619304490030 619304400020 , 619305100099 Su 619290060000 619304400080 ' r 619307600090 619305100100 S'' 619300060000 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye cubed, USDA, USGS,AEX Getmapping CAerogrida IGN;IGR_�u 619305100003 619305100101 Jb swisstopo, and the�G,IS User Community `_ Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 619305200009 619301300040 619301300010 619301400020 619301400010 619292300000 619301400030 619305100056 619305106057 i I 619305100058 61 92 93 100000 619305100059 619300060000 619305100073 A m asori 619305100074 619304000010 61929310000 619305100075 619300060000g16305100076 619293202000 __,-��Z� 619366t060000 61929.0060000 6193%05100077 619305100080 \\ 619305100078 619293202000 619305100079 t � 6 305100087 61930510`0089� 619304000010 f19305100090 619305100011619305-100088 �619305100091G19300060000 619304000000 619304000000 619293060000 G 193 000600006193 05100092 ,f f 619307.60k0070619305100093 F61�9�3044C0010 619300060000 November 16, 2016 1:5,911�V7 V� 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi Parcels i,I ,� , , , ,,, L County 0 0.075 0.15 0.3 km I Sources. Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, ncrement P Corp., GEBCQ USGS,FAO,NPS,NRCAN,GeoBase,IGN,Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, 1J �* � •� � 1 � - - �� Yi�', 3.. a S"••� 'z A {, A �h - a.•�, ,� '•E ,� v@�2 Ste°♦' +Y � l!'.e. � -ri w �err �►, :. � ate. ♦ h � }`..� �,..�... _* - ti 4 go 40 s- 0 6',Ik3 0/, 2-.016 14-i3 � 1 ♦ a f V� w t .y ,wr► ti . �„ � � '�# , _ pi` p Y��` �l�s 1 mot': � �� a '" 7,t r ��, .1 ! 3a ,�� F �`.�" xr.. �.� f _r y � r;, :! 7 �fi _ � r GG ._r'� a �- �-,,� ,max .f ��..S,�py{.r rSr� t�. ''' � -r a�� - �. V .. f � { �• 06/30/2016 `14. 03 x �. 13 SEPA Environmental Checklist Mason County Permit Center Use: SEP ---20)C0 - 55 ❑ Single Family DNS: $385 Date Rcvd: l Other DNS: 0 to 9.99 acres: $630 10 to 20 acres: $755 , Over 20 acres: $945 B f ❑ DS/E[S: $2,525 + er rf , ' j" Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: C161SS Chandler Pit Expansion 2. Name of applicant: Northwest Rock, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Northwest Rock, Inc. 642 Newskah Rd. Aberdeen, WA. 98520 Contact: Kevin Noffsinger 360-591-5994 SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted). 2014 Page 1 of 11 4. Date checklist prepared: 5-3-2016 5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County Planning Dept. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable)- 2 Phases, 10 years per phase to completion. 11'lax 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Plans to mine the gravel on this parcel. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Report, Stormwater Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 9 Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. DNR- Reclamation Plan DOE- Stormwater 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.) Expand existing commercial rock source to the extents of current parcel of land. Convert existing forest practice pit to commercial pit. 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. Address of site is 41 W. Beerbower Rd. , Elma, WA. 98541. Located in Section 30, T 19N, R 6W, W.M. Mine site is located between Beerbower Rd and Benthein Rd in Elma, WA. Pa e2of11 SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2014 9 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: ) I(Pes c-v\ wesJ k?'Ac .. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 25% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. GAcve. Sr_.naly (oC'VVJ 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, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 2 million tons of gravel to be excavated from a 25 acre area. Slopes cut and graded to a 2H:1V when completed. I I M131� 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)? 0%, site will be replanted and returned to forestland upon completion of mining. 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. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Wheel 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 Pa e3of11 SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2014 9 3. Water a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Type F stream on eastern side of currently permitted mine site. 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. No 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, None. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? 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 Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None 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. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(W version-non project portion omitted) 2014 Page 4 of 11 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Shall be managed per document recorded under Mason County AFN:1943099 - Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan/Erosion and Sediment Control/Spill Plan. 4. Plants a. Check the 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 orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All vegetation, less the buffer areas to be removed where mining will take place. c. List threatened and 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 e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle songbirds. other: mammals:(7e—erl bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Pa e5of11 SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2014 9 b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. 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. Diesel fuel in the Wheel Loader and Dump trucks. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None 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. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Emergency Medical Services in case of an unexpected injury or unexpected illness. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2014 Page 6 of 11 b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Wheel loader and Dump Trucks operating in existing pit. 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. Noise from engines on Front End Loader, and Dump Trucks. Noise from backup alarm on Loader. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Use of "white noise" backup alarms on equipment. Undisturbed vegetation/trees surrounding site will act as an acoustical buffer. No use of compression brakes on haul trucks while near site. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. )�Qii�uC�cej � Currently a Forest Practice mine, adjacent to a commercial mine. cvet�- b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. Site has been used for forest practices. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? None, site to be replanted and returned to forestland upon mining completion. If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? 25 Acres 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No c. Describe any structures on the site. No structures on site. 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 Rural. Forest Practice mine. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? None h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. No SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2014 Page 7 of 11 i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: None 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? None b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Undisturbed Tree/Vegetation buffer around perimeter of site. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted) 2014 Page 8 of 11 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. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. None b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. "'CO/1 Po w)�is Q tD 0 None d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. AID qh��S Site is accessed by County Road named Beerbower RD. I?tA b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. Unknown to nearest Transit stop. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? None SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11.960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2014 Page 9 of 11 d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Will be using access for current mine. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Unknown number of trips per day by Haul Trucks, volume of material to hauled based on demand and schedule of jobs requiring the material. Peaks typically in spring and summer months during weekdays between lam and 5pm. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. None b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone sanitary sewer, septic system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No utilities planned to be used onsite at this time. SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197-11-960)(MC version-non project portion omitted) 2014 Page 10 of 11 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: Date Signed: Print Name of Signee: Kevin Noffsinger If applicable, Position and Agency/Organization: Manager - Northwest Rock, Inc. Date Submitted: (Q-a0 D-0I q SEPA Environmental checklist(WAC 197.11.960)(MC version-non project portion omitted): 2014 Page 11 of 11 MASON COUNTY DCD SEPA Contact List Sent SEPA %b- 15 .5 to (check all that apply) on Skokomish Tribal Nation,Nat Res.Dept WA Department of Ecology ATTN: Randy Lumper Environmental Review Section N 541 Tribal Center Rd.,Skokomish Nation,98584 PO BOX 47703,Olympia,98504-7703 rlumper@skokomish.org separegister@ecy.wa.gov Skokomish Tribal Historic Preservation Officer r7 WA Department of Commerce ATTN: Kris Miller reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov 80 N Tribal Center Rd,Skokomish Nation,98584 shlanayl @skokomish.org F-1 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers SEPA Reviewer-Jason Sweeney Quinault Indian Nation PO Box C-3755, Seattle,98124 ATTN: Mark Mobbs ason.t'sweeney@usace.army.mil PO Box 189,Tahola,98587 mmobbs@quinault.org WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov Squaxin Tribal Nation,Natural Res.Dept 2952 SE Old Olympic HWY, Shelton 98584 WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife jdickison@squaxin.us ATTN: Joshua Benton(360)602-0364 emarbet@squaxin.us (Habitat Biologist-Hood Canal Watershed) szaniewski@squaxin.us 450 Port Orchard Blvd,Suite 290 sneil@squaxin.us Port Orchard,WA 98366 Joshua.Benton@dfw.wa.gov Izi The Confederated Tribe of the Chehalis ATTN: SEPA Reviewer-Glen Connelly 420 Howanut Rd.,Oakville,98568 WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife gconnelly@chehalistribe.org ATTN: Margie Bigelow (Habitat Biologist-S Puget Sound Watershed) WA DNR,South Puget Sound Region 2391 W Deegan Rd., Shelton, 98574 950 Farman Avenue N, Enumclaw,98022-9282 margaret.bigelow@dfw.wa.gov southpuget.region@dnr.wa.gov WA Dept of Transportation WA DNR,Aquatic Resources ATTN: Dale Severson PO BOX 47027,Olympia,98504-7027 P.O. Box 47440, Olympia 98504-7440 Crd@dnr.wa.gov OR-SEPA-REVIEW@wsdot.wa.gov A DNR,SEPA Center City of Shelton ATTN: External Coordinator ATTN:Jason Dose PO BOX 47015,Olympia,98504-7015 525 West Cota St.,Shelton 98584 sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov jasond@ci.shelton.wa.us Olympic Region Clean Air Agency Port of Shelton ATTN:Aaron Manley ATTN: Brandon Palmer 2940-B Limited Ln. NW,Olympia.98502 21 West Sanderson Way, Shelton 98584 aaron.manley@orcaa.org randonP@portofshelton.com Mason County Transit Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation ATTN: Mike Oliver ATTN: Lance Wollwage PO Box 1880, Shelton,98584 P.O. Box 48343, Olympia,98504-8343 oiver@masontransit.org Lance.Wollwage@dahp.wa.gov Mason County PUD#1 ID Tacoma Public Utilities-Real Property Services ATTN: Steve Taylor ATTN: Dave Letterman N 21971 Hwy 101,Shelton,98584 3628 S 35th St,Tacoma, 98409-3192 sntaylor@mason-pudl.org dletterm@cityoftacoma.org E6 Mason Cty P.W.ATTN: Mason Cty E.H.ATTN: Other. School District: E] Mason Cty Bldg ATTN: U_Agent: MC DCD last updated on 8/24/2016 Applicant: MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 616 W Alder St,Shelton,WA 98584 i (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 Description of Proposal: This is a revised version of the original determination of mitigated non-significance for SEPA 2016-00055. Mason County is lead agency because the applicant has applied for a Class IV General FPA on a 15-acre portion of a 65-acre parcel owned by Weyerhaueser.This SEPA has been revised to include the 25-acre expansion of the existing 39.88 acre gravel pit(known as Chandler Pit)on this site,which was created by Weyerhaueser to operate in conjunction with ongoing forestry operations. Several years ago NW Rock leased the mine site and began to operate it commercially. Now NW Rock wishes to utilize the balance of the parcel for commercial mining purposes. Mason County is reviewing an application to remove the trees growing on the western potion of this parcel,which requires a Class IV General (conversion) logging permit. Expansion of the mine itself, as well as reclamation, is under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources(DNR).The zoning at this location is Rural Residential 5 and the mine is considered legal non-conforming.The pit may expand within the boundaries of the host parcel consistent with the"diminishing assets doctrine."The site is covered by a complete geotechnical report and an engineered stormwater management plan. No critical areas on this portion of the site other than slopes. Exhibits A and B have been added to address the mining side of this SEPA determination. Proponent: NORTHWEST ROCK, INC Site Address(If Assigned): 41 W BEERBOWER RD ELMA Directions to Site: NEAR INTERSECTION OF W BEERBOWER RD AND W SCHAFER PARK RD 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.ext 571 or mms@co.mason.wa.us with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-350. 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 Community Services Department,615 W Alder St, Shelton WA 98584 by 12/29/2016. 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 Local Government Official Date MASON COUNTY DCD SEPA Contact List Sent SEPA /C - ' to (check all that apply) on Skokomish Tribal Nation,Nat Res.Dept WA Department of Ecology ATTN: Randy Lumper Environmental Review Section N 541 Tribal Center Rd., Skokomish Nation,98584 PO BOX 47703,Olympia,98504-7703 rlumper@skokomish.org separegister@ecy.wa.gov Skokomish Tribal Historic Preservation Officer WA Department of Commerce ATTN: Kris Miller reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov 80 N Tribal Center Rd,Skokomish Nation,98584 shlanay1 @skokomish.org U.S.Army Corps of Engineers SEPA Reviewer-Jason Sweeney Quinault Indian Nation PO Box C-3755, Seattle,98124 ATTN: Mark Mobbs Jason.t.sweeney@usace.army.mil PO Box 189,Tahola,98587 mmobbs@quinault.org WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov Squaxin Tribal Nation,Natural Res.Dept 2952 SE Old Olympic HWY, Shelton 98584 WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife jdickison@squaxin.us ATTN: Joshua Benton(360)602-0364 emarbet@squaxin.us (Habitat Biologist-Hood Canal Watershed) szaniewski@squaxin.us 450 Port Orchard Blvd,Suite 290 sneil@squaxin.us Port Orchard,WA 98366 Joshua.Benton@dfw.wa.gov The Confederated Tribe of the Chehalis ATTN: SEPA Reviewer-Glen Connelly 420 Howanut Rd.,Oakville,98568 WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife gconnelly@chehalistribe.org ATTN: Margie Bigelow (Habitat Biologist-S Puget Sound Watershed) WA DNR,South Puget Sound Region 2391 W Deegan Rd.,Shelton,98574 950 Farman Avenue N, Enumclaw,98022-9282 margaret.bigelow@dtw.wa.gov southpuget.region@dnr.wa.gov 4 Cc,\N WA Dept of Transportation WA DNR,Aquatic Resources ATTN: Dale Severson PO BOX 47027,Olympia,98504-7027 P.O. Box 47440,Olympia 98504-7440 and@dnr.wa.gov OR-SEPA-REVIEW@wsdot.wa.gov WA DNR,SEPA Center City of Shelton ATTN: External Coordinator ATTN:Jason Dose PO BOX 47015,Olympia,98504-7015 525 West Cota St.,Shelton 98584 sepacenter@dnr.wa.gov jasond@ci.shelton.wa.us Olympic Region Clean Air Agency Port of Shelton ATTN:Aaron Manley ATTN: Brandon Palmer 2940-B Limited Ln. NW,Olympia.98502 21 West Sanderson Way, Shelton 98584 aaron.manley@orcaa.org BrandonP@portofshelton.com X I Mason County Transit Office of Archaeology&Historic Preservation 777"""rrr"' ATTN: Mike Oliver ATTN: Lance Wollwage PO Box 1880,Shelton,98584 P.O. Box 48343,Olympia, 98504-8343 moliver@masontransit.org Lance.Wollwage@dahp.wa.gov /50 Mason County PUD#1 a Tacoma Public Utilities-Real Property Services ATTN: Steve Taylor ATTN: Dave Letterman N 21971 Hwy 101, Shelton,98584 3628 S 35th St,Tacoma, 98409-3192 sntaylor@mason-pud1.org dletterm@cityoftacoma.org Mason Cty P.W.ATTN: Mason Cty E.H.ATTN: Other. School District: 0 Mason Cty Bldg ATTN: Agent: MC DCD last updated on 8/242016 Applicant:/-Si'z n'`- t MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 Z� (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 Description of Proposal: This SEPA is associated with a Class IV General logging permit on a 15-acre portion of a 65-acre parcel owned by Weyerhaueser. There is currently a gravel pit (known as Chandler Pit) on this site, which was created by Weyerhaues�r to operate in conjunction with ongoing forestry operations. Several years ago NW Rock leased the mine site and began )6 operate it commercially. Now NW Rock wishes to utilize the balance of the parcel for commercial mining purposes. Part of that process is the removal of the trees growing on the western potion of this parcel, which requires a Class IV General (conversion) logging permit. This SEPA is associated only with the logging required to expand the pit. All mining activities �n this site will be reviewed and permitted by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The site is coffered by a complete geotechnical report and an engineered stormwater management plan. No critical areas on this portion of the site other than slopes. Proponent: NORTHWEST ROCK, INC Site Address (If Assigned): 41 W BEERBOWER RD ELMA Directions to Site: NEAR INTERSECTION OF W BEERBOWER RD AND W SCHAFER PARK RD Parcel Number: 619304000010 Legal Description: N1/2 SE E OF R/W (BENTHEIN RD) & W1/2 W112 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. SEP2016-00055 Page 1 of 4 MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 i� (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 Please contact Michael MacSems at ext. X 571 or mms@co.mason.wa.us with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-350. 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 Community Services Department, 615 W Alder St, Shelton WA 98584 by 12/5/2016. 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 Local Government Official Date i I� i i SEP2016-00055 Page 2 of 4 MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 Moto (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION 1) 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 deye' loper/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. Failur4to do so may result in civil penalties. 2) GEO-TECHNICAL A geotechnical report has been prepared Oy Materials Testing & Consulting Inc and the submittal checklist is has been reviewed/Ond found complete by Michael MacSems of Mason County Community Services Department. The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the report. r 3) STORM WATER & EROSION CONTROL Escape of silty water or mud from tPis property shall be considered a violation of County and State storm water managemeht regulations, and could subject the applicant(s) to civil fines or penalties. An engineereo,stormwater and erosion control plan was written by Hari Sharma of Berglund, Schmidt and Associates and was found to be complete by Michael MacSems of the Mason CountiCommunity Services Department. All logging under this FPA shall operate in accordance with the Berglund, Schmidt plan. 4) SLASH ABATEMENT 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 fired hazard area. The land owner is fully liable in the event of fire, if he or she fails to appropriately abate the hazard. Extreme fire hazards shall be abated by removing the forest debris, or by other means approved by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). SEP2016-00055 Page 3 of 4 MASON COUNTY Department of Community Services Planning Division 615 W Alder St, Shelton, WA 98584 olos (360)427-9670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANC (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2016-00055 5) ACCESS Access for logging purposes shall be from the Chandler Pit entrance on Beerbower Road. Operations shall not obstruct W Benthein Road without express permission from Mason County Public Works. SEP2016-00055 Page 4 of 4 Page 3 of 4 CHANDLER PIT serrm as r lox s ow, ex MAXX COMM NIL `Rho, C- r rMa b rr PLAN NOTIN ON l �'� * • + ~ I GL 3 OF I �� 1 r ♦ � ; � ti�S?��fl� r M Ji�t'?Y[ � � � y,F� .' � »L�F1°MA�U-S�EF� � +ai•4++w. LAM * 1 reo r w:r+! "i ft 1:• i� ri= x. a•,Joj Of 0 a► W 1 ° i - ----- say-- -- ------ ---------------- Vs �..+�. p4 •� ,r _ 1� �� gyp, �i �. ,. r`.2OO rat .•_.,e.s. ♦*. + I rr� - + ) C �r rr �iay Y. �j oo 20 400 `has" ` : w r * * 15t11 .' +• too ews w � x II W" [CVRKW KOUkMAfkAFPtiJWff 6OtM6Vtr rJN-" • {7 .l„ OW VICINFY MAP No=ON Pros ,_ �'►�+�z.�2os!+�_ - PAWS er* •••••*�• CHANDLER PIT _I!S G41JP f�lfJ lYlAf+ 7i'G�M As you can see from the depiction below,the project area is overlain by at least the five-and ten-year times of travel to the water system in question. The SW portion closest to the road appears to encroach on the one- year and six-month times of travel as well, which is of greater concern. The call we received was in response to logging as they've begun clearing in that area. I would appreciate it if you could please provide me with the SEPA checklist, DNS (including distribution list), staff report(if any), and permit approval just so I have them for our records. It's my understanding that representatives from the homeowners' association and Northwest Rock are meeting tomorrow to discuss how this could potentially be addressed. Evidently the company rep told them that one permit condition is that if they hit water, they must cease work; but at the same time,that might indicate that a contributing aquifer has already been breached. I suspect I know the answer, but is there any action you might see as appropriate on the County's part? Thank you for your assistance. file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5ACF95 D9Masonmai11001613462... 4/13/2018 Page 4 of 4 f �q =AA Ilk a+ti' �, ♦ f ice• • �¢ /`. ...�,4 7, ilk , ALA d111�1 Deborah Johnson Wellhead Protection Specialist Office of Drinking Water Washington State Dept. of Health Phone: 360.236.3133 Mail: Walk-In: Email: deborah.iohnson@doh.wa.gov PO Box 47822 243 Israel Road SE, 2nd floor Web:www.doh.wa.gov/drinkingwater Olympia,WA 98504-7822 Tumwater,WA file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5ACF95D9Masonmail1001613462... 4/13/2018 SFtINGT zjD a1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES � N ie GEOLOGY AND o EARTH RESOURCES DIVISION 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE OF NATUVL MAIL STOP 47007 OLYMPIA,WA 98504-7007 360-902-1450 FAX 360-902-1785 December 5, 2016 TRS 711 GEOLOGYODNR.WA.GOV WWW.DNR.WA.GOV MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES-PLANNING DIVISION ATTN: MICHAEL MACSEMS 615 W ALDER ST SHELTON, WA 98584 RE: SEPA Comment for SEP2016-00055,Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit Dear Mr. MacSems, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(SEP2016- 00055)for the Northwest Rock,Inc.located in Mason County. The Department of Natural Resources(DNR)currently permits an existing surface mine of 39.55 acres under the permit number 70-013152. The proposal's SEPA checklist includes the expansion of the mine to an additional 25 acres to the west of the existing mine area. This area is not included in the current permit area. Therefore,an expanded surface mine reclamation permit application will be required to be submitted to the DNR. The SEPA determination by Mason County states that the environmental impacts of mining will be assessed by the DNR at the time of our permitting. Per WAC 197-11-060,subsection(3)(b)states, "Proposals or parts of proposals that are related to each other closely enough to be,in effect,a single course of action shall be evaluated in the same environmental document." Furthermore,subsection(4)(b)states, "In assessing the significance of an impact,a lead agency shall not limit its consideration of a proposal's impacts only to those aspects within its jurisdiction,including local or state." As such,this SEPA review appears to be incomplete. The DNR will comment on impacts of mining once a complete SEPA review and threshold determination has been issued by Mason County. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me by calling 360-902-1438. Sincerely, OA� <�,�- Carrie Gillum Surface Mine Reclamation Program Division of Geology and Earth Resources c: File#70-013152 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER.DNR IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER. Page 1 of 2 Michael MacSems -RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA From: Michael MacSems To: Gillum, Carrie(DNR) Date: 12/5/2016 11:33 AM Subject: RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA CC: Windom, David Ms Gillum, Thank you for providing comments on the NW Rock SEPA 16-55. We understand your reference to WAC 197-11-060.(3).(b). We are willing to reissue a MDNS if your office can provide technical assistance in preparing the document. As you may know, commercial mining is exempt from the County's critical area regulations and we do not issue mining permits. The land use is non-conforming with the zoning, but the County understand that the doctrine of diminishing assets allows the expansion of mines within the boundaries of the host parcel. The geo-technical report and stormwater plan provided to us does address the totality of the project. We request that your office provide Mason County with additional conditions for a revised SEPA document. Mason County wishes to work with your office for the best end result possible. I am aware that I have another case pending(Peninsula Top Soil short subdivision near Belfair)that will also require cooperation between our agencies. Thank you for your consideration of how best to help us help you. Michael MacSems >>> "Gillum, Carrie (DNR)" <Carrie.Gillum@dnr.wa.gov> 12/5/2016 9:24 AM >>> Mr. MacSems, Attached is the DNR Surface Mining Reclamation programs comment for SEPA. Thanks, Carrie Gillum, LG Washington State Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine Reclamation Geologist (360) 902-1438 (office) (360) 791-2270 (cell) Carrie Gillum file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5845508BMasonmai110016134621... 12/5/2016 Page 2 of 2 From: Michael MacSems [mms@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:39 AM To:gconnelly@chehalistribe.org;Allan Eaton <AIIanE@co.mason.wa.us>; Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>; HPA Applications (DFW) <hpaapplications@dfw.wa.gov>; Bigelow, Margaret M (DFW) <Margaret.Bigelow@dfw.wa.gov>; Gillum, Carrie (DNR)<Carrie.Gillum@dnr.wa.gov>; DNR RE SEPACENTER<SEPACENTER@dnr.wa.gov>; DNR RE SPS Forest Practices <south puget.forestpractices@d n r.wa.gov>; ECY RE SEPA REGISTER<separegister@ecy.wa.gov>; Steven Taylor <sntaylor@mason-pudl.org>; Mike Oliver<moliver@masontransit.org>; aaron.manley@orcaa.org; mmobbs@quinault.org Cc: Michael MacSems<Mms@co.mason.wa.us>; Kevin Noffsinger<kevin@nwrock.com> Subject:SEPA for NW Rock FPA SEPA 2016-00055 For: NW Rock Purpose: Class IV General FPA for the expansion of a commercial gravel mine Location 41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma Sec 30, Twp 19N., Rng 6W, WM TPN: 61930-40-00010 County Contact: Michael MacSems ext 571 Comments Due By: 12/5/16 Thank you. file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 845508BMasonmail 10016134621... 12/5/2016 Page 1 of 3 Michael MacSems - RE: RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA FYI From: Michael MacSems To: Noffsinger, Kevin Date: 12/5/2016 2:59 PM Subject: RE: RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA FYI CC: MacSems, Michael Kevin, Thank you. I met with management this morning and we decided that we would be willing to rerun the SEPA MDNS with the scope of the full project provided that DNR would provide us with any additional conditions or other information that would bring the document up to what they are looking for (i.e. DNR needs to do the work). I relayed this request to Ms Gillum by e-mail this morning and have not heard back yet. Michael PS: Has Mason County signed this SM6 yet? If not, I don't think it is too early to do so. >>> "Kevin Noffsinger" <kevin@nwrock.com> 12/5/2016 2:37 PM>>> Michael, I have been working through the permitting process on the expansion just as I did with the original permit. I spoke with Rian Skov at DNR surface mines prior to our first meeting (at Mason County) in regards to the expansion, and he was aware of what our plan was. I told him that after I received an SM6 from Mason County I would bring that and an SM8 to the DNR, and begin going through the reclamation permit process with them. I was informed after the fact that Rian Skov was no longer my contact at DNR and that Carrie Gillum was now the person to speak with. I have not spoken with Carrie about the plans we have yet, I called and left a voicemail a few weeks ago, and have called again today and left her a message. I will let you know what I find out when I speak with her. Kevin From: Michael MacSems [mms@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 10:16 AM To: Kevin Noffsinger<kevin@nwrock.com> Subject: Fwd: RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA FYI Kevin, fi le:///C:[Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/5 845 80C6Masonmail l 0016134621... 12/5/2016 Page 2 of 3 I'm forwarding the SEPA comments from Carrie Gillum. I am not totally surprised by her comments, but it puts the County in an awkward position (to be reviewing a project for which we have no regulations or experience). I will be discussing how to respond with my management and I will update you when I have any news. Do you have any information about your permit process with DNR that might be helpful? Michael >>> "Gillum, Carrie (DNR)" <Carrie.Gillumkdnr.wa.gov> 12/5/2016 9:24 AM >>> Mr. MacSems, Attached is the DNR Surface Mining Reclamation programs comment for SEPA. Thanks, Carrie Gillum, LG Washington State Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine Reclamation Geologist (360) 902-1438 (office) (360) 791-2270(cell) Carrie Gillum From: Michael MacSems [mailto:mms@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:39 AM To:gconnelly@chehalistribe.org;Allan Eaton <AIIanE@co.mason.wa.us>; Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>; HPA Applications (DFW)<hpaapplications@dfw.wa.gov>; Bigelow, Margaret M (DFW)<Margaret.Bigelow@dfw.wa.gov>; Gillum,Carrie (DNR)<Carrie.Gillum@dnr.wa.gov>; DNR RE SEPACENTER<SEPACENTER@dnr.wa.gov>; DNR RE SPS Forest Practices <southpuget.forestpractices@dnr.wa.gov>; ECY RE SEPA REGISTER<separegister@ecy.wa.gov>; Steven Taylor <sntaylor@mason-pudl.org>; Mike Oliver<moliver@masontransit.org>; aaron.manley@orcaa.org; mmobbs@quinault.org Cc: Michael MacSems<Mms@co.mason.wa.us>; Kevin Noffsinger<kevin@nwrock.com> Subject:SEPA for NW Rock FPA SEPA 2016-00055 For: NW Rock Purpose: Class IV General FPA for the expansion of a commercial gravel mine file:///C:/Users/rams/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 845 80C6Masonmai110016134621... 12/5/2016 Page 1 of 3 Michael MacSems - RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA From: "Gillum, Carrie (DNR)" <Carrie.Gillum@dnr.wa.gov> To: 'Michael MacSems' <mms@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 12/6/2016 11:14 AM Subject: RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA Thank you for your response. I am happy to assist and offer suggestions for the NW Rock SEPA determination. These suggestions that I make are based on my experience preparing these documents and may be useful to you in preparing yours. The main objective is to cover the activities on site that are closely related enough to be considered one action. I suggest changing the description for the MDNS to be: • Removing the language about SEPA only covering the logging and that the mining will be covered separately by DNR. • Adding that this is an expansion of an existing 39.88 acre mine by 25.12 acres to clarify the changes in area. • Retain the Class IV permit and it's area of coverage language. Some additional documents should be included for commenters to review. These include • maps that show existing and reclamation topography and cross sections. It looks like the map you provided with the determination shows existing topography already. I spoke with Kevin of NW Rock yesterday and he indicated they already had these completed. • 1 also suggested to him including a mining/reclamation narrative. I appreciate you including me in your process. If there are any questions about this project or future mining projects, please feel free to contact me or anyone else in the Surface Mine Reclamation Program. Thanks again, Carrie Gillum, LG Washington State Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine Reclamation Geologist (360) 902-1438 (office) (360) 791-2270 (cell) file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 8469D98Masonmai110016134621... 12/6/2016 Page 2 of 3 From: Michael MacSems [mms@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 11:34 AM To: Gillum, Carrie (DNR) <Carrie.Gillum@dnr.wa.gov> Cc: Windom, David (DOHi) <DWindom@co.mason.wa.us> Subject: RE: SEPA for NW Rock FPA Ms Gillum, Thank you for providing comments on the NW Rock SEPA 16-55. We understand your reference to WAC 197-11-060.(3).(b). We are willing to reissue a MDNS if your office can provide technical assistance in preparing the document.As you may know, commercial mining is exempt from the County's critical area regulations and we do not issue mining permits. The land use is non-conforming with the zoning, but the County understand that the doctrine of diminishing assets allows the expansion of mines within the boundaries of the host parcel. The geo-technical report and stormwater plan provided to us does address the totality of the project. We request that your office provide Mason County with additional conditions for a revised SEPA document. Mason County wishes to work with your office for the best end result possible. I am aware that I have another case pending(Peninsula Top Soil short subdivision near Belfair)that will also require cooperation between our agencies. Thank you for your consideration of how best to help us help you. Michael MacSems >>> "Gillum, Carrie (DNR)" <Carrie.Gillum&dnr.NA,a.uov> 12/5/2016 9:24 AM>>> Mr. MacSems, Attached is the DNR Surface Mining Reclamation programs comment for SEPA. Thanks, Carrie Gillum, LG Washington State Department of Natural Resources Surface Mine Reclamation Geologist (360) 902-1438 (office) L360) 791-2270 (cell) Carrie Gillum file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 8469D98Masonmail10016134621... 12/6/2016 Page 3 of 3 From: Michael MacSems [mailto:mms@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 9:39 AM ' To:gconnelly@chehalistribe.org;Allan Eaton<AIIanE@co.mason.wa.us>; Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) <Gretchen.Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov>; HPA Applications (DFW) <hpaapplications@dfw.wa.gov>; Bigelow, Margaret M (DFW)<Margaret.Bigelow@dfw.wa.gov>; Gillum, Carrie (DNR) <Carrie.Gillum@dnr.wa.gov>; DNR RE SEPACENTER<SEPACENTER@dnr.wa.gov>; DNR RE SPS Forest Practices <southpuget.forestpractices@dnr.wa.gov>; ECY RE SEPA REGISTER<separegister@ecy.wa.gov>; Steven Taylor <sntaylor@mason-pudl.org>; Mike Oliver<moliver@masontransit.org>; aaron.manley@orcaa.org; mmobbs@quinault.org Cc: Michael MacSems<Mms@co.mason.wa.us>; Kevin Noffsinger<kevin@nwrock.com> Subject:SEPA for NW Rock FPA SEPA 2016-00055 For: NW Rock Purpose: Class IV General FPA for the expansion of a commercial gravel mine Location 41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma Sec 30, Twp 19N., Rng 6W, WM TPN: 61930-40-00010 County Contact: Michael MacSems ext 571 Comments Due By: 12/5/16 Thank you. file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 8469D98 Masonmai110016134621... 12/6/2016 Page 1 of 3 Michael MacSems - Re: Chandler Pit Job# 16SO84 From: Luke McCann<luke.mccann@mtc-inc.net> To: Michael MacSems<mms@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 7/25/2016 9:40 AM Subject: Re: Chandler Pit Job# 16SO84 Oh, and I almost forgot to address your final question. As for the clearing, I imagine if they need to log the site sooner than they plan to excavate,that should be fine. Soils and slopes appear suitably strong. If they are able to vegetated with some kind of cover where possible, or leave stumps in where possible,that would be great,but I'm not alarmed if they need to clear sooner than they excavate. Again, following the general construction recs laid out in the rest of the report. Luke Preston McCann, G.I.T. Project Geologist SW Region Geotech Department Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. 2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW I Olympia, WA 98512 P: 360-534-9777 1 F: 360-534-9779 Website: http://www.mtc-inc.net On Jul 25, 2016 9:30 AM, "Luke McCann" <luke.mccann a;mtc-inc.net>wrote: Hi michael, I'm happy to clarify. The cross sections on pages 6 & 7 represent two different situations. The ones on page 6 are direct cross sections of the steepest points of the existing slopes on the western portions of the site. These can be assumed to generally represent the slopes and soils present on site. The ones on page 7 are based on the proposed regrate after mining, with the proposed 25 foot setback from the road. All scenarios appear to be suitably stable and feasible as planned,with or without trees, as long as our construction recommendations section is followed. The black overlay, including shaded regions around the site are directly copied from the existing site conditions survey map provided to us by the client. They do not represent any specific buffers as far as I know, and we're not set by us. Your assumption is correct,there do not appear to be any active landslide hazard areas on site based on our field observations, and slope stability analysis. As long as our construction recs are followed, along with the items you mentioned, regrading should be fine. Luke Preston McCann, G.I.T. Project Geologist SW Region Geotech Department Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. 2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW I Olympia, WA 98512 P: 360-534-9777 1 F: 360-534-9779 file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5 795 DE80Masonmail 10016134621... 7/26/2016 Page 2 of 3 Website: http://www.mtc-inc.net On Jul 21, 2016 10:32 AM, "Michael MacSems" <mms(a)co.mason.wa.us>wrote: Hello Luke, My name is Michael MacSems and I am a land use planner at Mason County and I am reviewing MTC's geotechnical report for Northwest Rock(#165084). Since we planners are not engineers, we use a checklist system to simply determine that all required elements are included in the report. This case is a little bit unusual in that the permit I am reviewing is to cut the trees in preparation for the pit expansion, but the expansion itself is not regulated by Mason County.None-the-less I do expect to receive phone calls from the public and want to as knowledgeable as I can about the project. Below are some questions that I have for you. 1. I don't understand the cross sections on pages 6 and 7,are these meant to be generic or do they correspond to actual locations on the site? 2. Figure 2. I'm uncertain how to interpret the shaded area around the pit expansion site. I thought it might represent a 25' buffer, but I don't think a buffer would completely encircle the site. Please explain. 3. Checklist item 4 asked for a site plan that among other things, shows the boundaries of the LSHA(if any). I don't see this clearly identified in Figure 2. From my reading of page 8, I'm thinking that there isn't an actual LSHA with in the study area of the report except as described in MCC 8.52.140.B.1.A.vi. The MCC code speaks in percentages of slope instead of degrees of slope. Based on my reading of Figure 4,the steepest slopes along Benthein Rd are 27 degrees or 54%, but otherwise do not have any of the characteristic described in 8.52.140.B.LA and that the logging of these slopes does not present a hazard if caution is exercised with stormwater and erosion control. Please confirm that I am reading this right. MCC 8.52.140.B.(1) Classification. (A) The following shall be classified as landslide hazard areas: (i)Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps and rock falls (see Figure F 100). (ii)Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e., cuts or fills. (iii)Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils. (iv) Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action. (v) Slopes greater than fifteen percent(8.5 degrees)and having the following: A. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock(e.g., sand overlying clay); and B. Springs or groundwater seepage. (vi)Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. I have one final question concerning timing that comes from a recommendation on page 8 which file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5795DE80Masonmai110016134621... 7/26/2016 Page 1 of 2 Michael MacSems -Re: Chandler Pit Job# 16SO84 From: Luke McCann<luke.mccann@mtc-inc.net> To: Michael MacSems<mms@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 7/25/2016 9:31 AM Subject: Re: Chandler Pit Job# 16SO84 Hi michael,I'm happy to clarify. The cross sections on pages 6 & 7 represent two different situations. The ones on page 6 are direct cross sections of the steepest points of the existing slopes on the western portions of the site. These can be assumed to generally represent the slopes and soils present on site. The ones on page 7 are based on the proposed regrate after mining,with the proposed 25 foot setback from the road. All scenarios appear to be suitably stable and feasible as planned,with or without trees, as long as our construction recommendations section is followed. The black overlay, including shaded regions around the site are directly copied from the existing site conditions survey map provided to us by the client. They do not represent any specific buffers as far as I know, and we're not set by us. Your assumption is correct,there do not appear to be any active landslide hazard areas on site based on our field observations, and slope stability analysis. As long as our construction recs are followed, along with the items you mentioned,regrading should be fine. Luke Preston McCann, G.I.T. Project Geologist SW Region Geotech Department Materials Testing& Consulting, Inc. 2118 Black Lake Boulevard SW I Olympia, WA 98512 P: 360-534-9777 1 F: 360-534-9779 Website: http://www.mtc-inc.net On Jul 21, 2016 10:32 AM, "Michael MacSems" <mms@co.mason.wa.us>wrote: Hello Luke, My name is Michael MacSems and I am a land use planner at Mason County and I am reviewing MTC's geotechnical report for Northwest Rock(#165084). Since we planners are not engineers, we use a checklist system to simply determine that all required elements are included in the report. This case is a little bit unusual in that the permit I am reviewing is to cut the trees in preparation for the pit expansion,but the expansion itself is not regulated by Mason County.None-the-less I do expect to receive phone calls from the public and want to as knowledgeable as I can about the project. Below are some questions that I have for you. 1. 1 don't understand the cross sections on pages 6 and 7, are these meant to be generic or do they correspond to actual locations on the site? 2. Figure 2. I'm uncertain how to interpret the shaded area around the pit expansion site. I thought it might represent a 25'buffer,but I don't think a buffer would completely encircle the site. Please explain. 3. Checklist item 4 asked for a site plan that among other things, shows the boundaries of the LSHA file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5795DC8AMasonmail 1001613462... 7/26/2016 Page 2 of 2 (if any). I don't see this clearly identified in Figure 2. From my reading of page 8, I'm thinking that there isn't an actual LSHA with in the study area of the report except as described in MCC 8.52.140.B.LA.vi. The MCC code speaks in percentages of slope instead of degrees of slope. Based on my reading of Figure 4,the steepest slopes along Benthein Rd are 27 degrees or 54%, but otherwise do not have any of the characteristic described in 8.52.140.B.LA and that the logging of these slopes does not present a hazard if caution is exercised with stormwater and erosion control. Please confirm that I am reading this right. MCC 8.52.140.B.(1) Classification. (A) The following shall be classified as landslide hazard areas: (i)Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps and rock falls (see Figure F 100). (ii)Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e., cuts or fills. (iii) Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils. (iv)Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action. (v) Slopes greater than fifteen percent(8.5 degrees) and having the following: A. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock(e.g., sand overlying clay); and B. Springs or groundwater seepage. (vi)Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. I have one final question concerning timing that comes from a recommendation on page 8 which states "It is recommended that site preparation activities avoid disturbing the native vegetation until clearing becomes a necessity". This seems a very reasonable recommendation,but I am concerned that the logging permit may expire (two years -not renewable)before the operator is ready to clear all of the slope between the pit and Benthein Rd. I will talk to Kevin Noffsigner about this, but I wanted to get an idea from you of the relative importance of this recommendation. Thank you for your assistance on this. Michael MacSems Planner The information contained in this transmission may be confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and delete the original message. Thank you. file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5795DC8AMasonmail 1001613 462... 7/26/2016 GEO 16 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: ,N Vy 2c,,A Permit#: FAI ZG)6-cyyj I6 Parcel#: 6 I GJ 3 6 50 - aGc 10 Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: ) / Z ^) /L Go 1. (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, OK? Comment: (b) A discussi n of specific soil types OK?�Z Comment: (c) A discussion of ground water conditions OK? Comment: (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology OK? Comment: (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands OK? Comment: (f) A discussion,.of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records OK? Comment: 2. A site plan that identifies the important development and geologic features. OK? Comment: 3. Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. OK? I Comment: 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: L 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? Comment: 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 coe cents should be a value of 0.15. OK? Comment: 7. (a) AppropriaW restrictions on placement of drainage features OK? �' Comment: (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields OK? ' Comment: (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement o�comvacted fills and footings. OK? Comment: Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. 2 S OK? Comment: Nrs ,��(e -- � } ��.ft \A kk f3� (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. SCIL lxc�t OK? Comment: 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. OK? 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, landslides and harmful construction methods. OK? L Comment: 10. An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. r OK? Comment: 11. Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. OK? Comment: 12. 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 nature of existing and proposed development on the site. OK? �` Comment: Are the Documents signed and stamped? By whom? License#: License type: A&"e- FIRST REVIEW Ef Approved ❑ Need more info. If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by )'� /VI � , on 1.'L-j a )/L_C- . Time spent in review: SECOND REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by , on . Time spent in second review: THIRD REVIEW/ UPDATE ❑ Approved ❑ Need more info. Reviewed by , on . Time spent in third review: Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Nffc Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering•Materials Testing•Special Inspection•Environmental Consulting June 29, 2016 Kevin Noffsinger Northwest Rock 642 Newsah Rd Aberdeen, WA. 98520 360-533-3050 kevin(dnwrock.com Subject: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma, Washington Geotechnical Engineering &Consulting Services MTC Project No.: 16SO84 Dear Mr. Noffsinger: At your request, Materials Testing &Consulting, Inc. (MTC)has completed a limited-scope geotechnical investigation and slope stability assessment of existing site conditions. This report includes site and slope visual reconnaissance, limited subsurface testing, slope stability analysis per Mason County Code, and review of available geologic literature at the above referenced subject property. The project site is located at 41 West Beerbower Road, near Elma, Washington. Services were provided in accordance with our proposal dated May 12th, 2016. It is our understanding that this study was conducted in support of the westward expansion of gravel mining operations from the current pit to the 25 foot setback along West Benthein Road. MTC understands a site investigation is needed to meet the county code critical area requirements for geohazard assessment. The following report presents the findings and conclusions of our literature review and site investigation, addresses inherent concerns and feasibility of proposed site development, and provides geotechnical recommendations for planning and design. This report is intended to reduce the inherent risks associated with site development within a geologically hazardous area. Site Investigation Methodology: On April 31 st, 2016, an MTC Staff Geologist and field technician visited the site to perform visual reconnaissance of the surface and topographic features of the subject property and its proximal slope. During this visit, MTC conducted subsurface exploration as needed for a geologic hazard assessment and site characterization. Site dimensions and general slope topography were observed and documented where appropriate for slope considerations at representative intervals using hand survey equipment as access allowed. Conditions were compared to existing topographic maps provided by the client. Corporate • 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone 360.755.1990 • Fax 360.755.1980 SW Region • 2118 Black Lake Blvd. S.W.• Olympia, WA 98512 • Phone 360.534.9777 • Fax 360.534.9779 NW Region • 805 Dupont, Suite 5 • Bellingham, WA 98226 • Phone 360.647.6061 • Fax 360.647.81 It Kitsap Region • 5451 N.W. Newberry Hill Road, Suite 101 • Silverdale, WA 98383 • Phone/Fax 360.698.6787 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Salient slope features and existing vegetation were documented as observed in order to assess general site and slope stability as well as look for signs of local instability of an erosional or subsurface nature currently or in the past. The slope face was heavily vegetated at the time of our site visit. The slope was observed and measured directly from within the site and from the public access road. Surface profile of the slope was interpreted based on approximate in-field measurements and client provided site surveys. MTC advanced three Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer(DCP)tests to depths up to approximately 6.5 feet maximum below present grade (BPG) at representative locations within the project area to document in-situ soil strength. Penetrometer tests were terminated upon reaching practical refusal depth on very dense or hard conditions. During penetrometer advancement, blow counts were recorded in 10 centimeter increments as a thirty-five-pound weight was dropped a distance of 15 inches. Blow counts were then converted to resistance (kg/cm2), standard penetration blow counts (N-values), and corresponding soil consistency, with complete results shown on the attached logs. Direct observations of soils, where exposed by erosion or local cuts, were used to supplement interpretation of DCP data. To confirm soil conditions, supplemental test pits were performed in four locations within the vicinity of the quarry expansion, and along the slope where site conditions allowed access. Observations and soil field classifications from the test pits were used to correlate blow count data with generalized subsurface conditions. Exploration locations are shown schematically on the attached site map in Figure 2, Appendix A2. A location and vicinity map is provided as Figure 1, Appendix Al. Typical measured or estimated slope conditions are shown schematically on the attached topographic profile in Figure 3, Appendix B. Complete exploration results are presented in Appendix C. Surface and Slope Conditions: The project site consists of the Mason County parcel (61930-40-00010) west of the existing Northwest Rock quarry. The property is accessed from West Beerbower Road and the project site is accessed by following a gravel road running along the southern edge of the property. Excavation of the property is proposed to approach a minimum setback of 25 feet from West Benthein Road on the western edge of the property. Finished slopes are proposed to be graded at a 2H:IV. The property surroundings are generally forested along the slopes, and clear near existing access roads and current mining operations. The project site is generally deforested from the crest of the slope to the existing quarry. Topography in this area varies due to active mining operations, blockades placed along the crest slope and access roads connecting both of the parcels. The prevailing feature of the project site is an open area on the north side, which appeared to have undergone exploratory mining operations. The crest of the slope runs approximately parallel to West Benthein Road, ranging in distance to the road by about 50 feet to 250 2 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 feet. An out of service access road runs from the southwest corner of the parcel to existing access roads above,however both ends of this road have been blocked off with earthen berms and general debris. Subsurface Conditions: Subsurface conditions were assessed by DCP results, and observed directly in the test pits and along the walls of the quarry. Test pits were excavated by the client at four locations as shown in Appendix A2. DCPs reached dense conditions at approximately 1.0 to 6.5 feet below present grade (BPG) and test pits were difficult to excavate from approximately 2 to 8 feet to their respective termination depths. DCP-1 was advanced at a location approximately 4 feet east of the earth and debris berm at the slope crest. Soils encountered were typically dense to refusal depth of about 1.0 foot BPG. The clearing at the slope crest where DCP-1 was advanced may have been consolidated sometime in the past by heavy equipment traffic in the vicinity of the access road. DCP-2 was advanced approximately 250 feet east of the slope toe and 16 feet north of the access road. Soils encountered were typically loose to medium dense to a depth of about 1.5 feet BPG, becoming dense to very dense through refusal at approximately 6.5 feet BPG. DCP-3 was advanced approximately 56 feet east of the slope toe and 8 feet north of the access road. Soils encountered were typically loose to dense to a depth of about 5.5 feet BPG, becoming dense to very dense through refusal at approximately 6.5 feet BPG. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-1 were found to be brown well-graded gravel with sand and trace silt to depths of approximately 12.5 feet BPG, gravel was observed up to 6 inches in diameter. Below, interbedded lenses of sand appeared on the walls of the excavation between approximately 13.0 to 15.0 feet BPG. Soils appeared to become less fine with depth and sand lenses appeared again between approximately 17.0 to 18.0 feet BPG. TP-1 was terminated in brown poorly- graded sand with gravel and trace silt at approximately 20.0 feet BPG. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-2 were found to be orange-brown gravelly topsoil to depths of approximately 6 inches BPG, this topsoil was rich in organics and contained roots up to 2 inches in diameter. Below, soils were found to be orange-brown to brown poorly-graded gravel with sand and trace silt to the termination depth of approximately 15.0 feet BPG. Excavation became more difficult past about 4.0 feet BPG, and shallow lenses of sand and gravel were observed throughout the test pit excavation. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-3 were found to be brown gravelly topsoil to depths of approximately 2.0 feet BPG, this topsoil was rich in organics and generally well vegetated. Below, soils 3 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 were found to be orange-brown to brown poorly-graded gravel with sand and trace silt to the termination depth of approximately 15.0 feet BPG. Excavation was generally more difficult with depth. At about 8.0 feet BPG moisture appeared to increase and silt content decreased. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-4 were similar to identical to those encountered at TP- 3. Excavation became very difficult at about 7.0 feet BPG and the test pit was terminated at approximately 8.0 feet BPG. Soils observed during excavation appeared consistent with glacial outwash soils. Observations of subsurface soil conditions were also noted within the existing exposed quary walls in the active gravel mine. Glacial outwash sediments appeared to exist throughout the entire depth exposed. Surface and Subsurface Water Conditions: Major water features in the vicinity of the project site include an eastern and western tributary branch of the Satsop River. The closest of these being about 40 feet below and approximately 1,000 feet to the west of West Benthein Road. In the active quarry, east of the project site, soils along the excavated walls appeared to be moist where they were freshly exposed and only minor ponding water was observed in the lowest tier of the work area. This ponding water appeared to be the result of the collection of rain water from higher tiers of the quarry transporting silt to the lowest tier. Perched and daylighting water were not observed on site. The DCP rods were retrieved from their maximum depth of 6.5 feet BPG in a dry to slightly damp condition along the profile of the slope. Groundwater conditions are considered to exist outside the depths of consideration for this study. MTC's scope of work did not include determination of seasonal groundwater elevation variations, documentation of wet season site conditions, or conclusive measurement of groundwater elevations at depths past the extent feasible for exploration. Regional groundwater level is assumed to be below the depth of concern for this study, based on topographic conditions and site elevation, vicinity surface water occurrences, and cursory review of available well logs in the subject area. Summary of Geologic Literature Review: MTC reviewed available map publications to assess known geologic conditions and hazards present at the site location. MTC understands a 1:24000 scale map is not available for the site vicinity. The Washington Interactive Geologic Map, maintained by the Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DNR DGER) depicts mapped surface geology of 1:1 00,000-scale detail. MTC reviewed available map publications and online literature sources to assess geologic conditions and 4 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington :Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 slope stability present at the site location and vicinity. These available resources map the soils in the quarry and immediate site vicinity as Quaternary Outwash Gravel (Qgo), primarily of the latest Vashon State. These soils commonly consist of sand and gravel mixtures with silt, and can be densely compact below weathered and deleterious cover soils. Quaternary Alluvium(Qa) deposits exist west of the project site, coinciding with the historic path and flood plain of the eastern branch of the Satsop River tributary found there. To the northeast of the project site is a unit of Oligocene-Eocene Marine sedimentary rocks of the Lincoln Creek Formation(OEm(lc)). No recent or historically significant slides were found to have been reported in the vicinity of the quarry. Slope Stability Analysis and Building Setbacks Based on the survey data provided by the client, MTC has determined that the critical areas along Benthein Road are approximately a positive 2:1 slope at two locations east of the roadway. The proposed mining operations along the roadway will result in a negative 2:1 slope for the entire length of Benthein Road adjacent to the quarry. Slope stability was modeled for these two conditions using GeoStudio's Slope/W (2012) program in both static and dynamic loading conditions (ca = 0.15g). Scenarios were based on client provided survey data along with our field measurements, and reflect the worst anticipated conditions as understood by MTC at this time. 5 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Ehna,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Under static loading, the model demonstrates that the slope does not appear susceptible to surficial raveling or significant deep-seated failure. The minimum static factor of safety is equal to 2.585 for existing unmodified critical slopes and 2.598 in the proposed post mining case, as presented in the cross sections below. This exceeds the typically required safety factor of 1.5 for static loading. Existing Critical Slope— Static Conditions tp tffi t� i0 '30 1>D t2Q I10 00 0 10 I0 n 0 '.t W 30 X IN i10 R0 +30 u0 ,W In In IN I Distance(ft) Proposed Modified Slope— Static Conditions 115 125 „o ,c.5 ,A tic 13c Ib 1N 115 10 05 00 0 t0 M 30 -0 50 80 T0 BO 90 i00 110 170 ,30 Distance(ft) 6 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 For dynamic loading conditions, the model was subjected to a horizontal and vertical acceleration of 0.15g, per Mason County critical area code. The dynamic model demonstrated that the slopes do not appear to be susceptible to significant surficial or deep-seated failures. The minimum critical slip surface factor of safety is equal to 1.739 for existing unmodified critical slopes and 1.778 in the proposed post mining case, as presented in the cross sections below. This exceeds the typically required safety factor of 1.15 for dynamic loading. Existing Critical Slope— Dynamic Conditions 2W ,90 ,N tc 170 sz� tso W ,b ,>D d 120 110 100 0 10 20 70 40 50 30 'C N 90 100 11C 12C 1n 14 'E0 'E0 I'D 1s0 1S Distance(It) Proposed Modified Slope— Dynamic Conditions 175 170 M 3 Im 15. 1.5 Ctad W 130 +s 1.a ,15 119 105 00 0 10 20 50 40 50 fi0 10 s0 90 iC0 110 120 130 14 Distance(tt) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Presently, the slopes do not exhibit excessive signs of ongoing instability, such as significant leaning trees or tension cracking in the surface of the soil. It is recommended that site preparation activities avoid disturbing the native vegetation until clearing becomes a necessity. The upper slope and face should not be disturbed without proper planning and implementation of protective measures to avoid excessive erosion of the exposed surfaces. Other erosion control measures are present in sections below. Discussion and Recommendations: The findings of MTC's subsurface explorations and slope reconnaissance at the subject site appear generally consistent with available geologic literature and indicate favorable conditions exist for the scale of development. Based on available soil data from MTC's explorations and review of vicinity well reports, regional groundwater level is interpreted to be below the base elevation of the slope and out of the realm of concern for this study. The existing slope face is generally vegetated with trees and common undergrowth. Signs of surface erosion are minimal and no indications of past or active slope instability were seen on the slope directly below the site. The designation of the site as a critical area seems based primarily on slope gradient as opposed to a known or suspected hazardous condition. Based on the information herein, MTC provides the following site analysis, and development-specific, recommendations to be followed to minimize the inherent risks of development in this critical area. Road Setback After our analysis of critical area considerations, and slope stability of post site development, it is MTC's opinion that the proposed activities, setbacks, and slope grades are acceptable. To manage and prevent the potential for onsite and offsite impacts, the following are recommended: • No concentrated water is to be directed towards sloped areas. • Maintain the proposed buffers and setback from the southern slopes beyond existing roads. • No filling or structural development between or along the road or previously mentioned slopes. At that time, allowance may be best considered upon accounting for the scale of improvements, relation to the proposed work, and specific location relative to the adjacent slope, as well as local municipal requirements. Revegetation is typically encouraged within protective slope zones. MTC does not recommend reducing the currently proposed setback, without reevaluation, to ensure slope stability is maintained. It is preferable to increase the setback as much as possible to increase design life in a geologically active environment. In other words, the client should make all reasonable attempts to allow for greatest separation from the slope crest to the majority of the road, such as by shifting or reorienting as possible. 8 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington !Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Drainage Controls MTC recommends proper drainage controls for mitigating the increased potential for stormwater runoff is implemented along with project site development to protect conditions of the slope. Where possible, pervious surfaces should be employed to limit the effect of development on existing site conditions (such as for access drives and walkways). MTC does not recommend dispersion or infiltration of collected stormwater between any residence, road or structure and any adjacent slope crest, or on the slope itself. Increased runoff or localized stormwater inundation can be detrimental to long-term erosional and global slope stability. Alternatively, water sources may be tightlined away from the slopes, roads and structures to an existing catch basin, or down the slope to be released past the base using appropriate energy-reducing features at the exit point to limit the potential for point erosion. Allowance of downslope dispersal into pre-existing drainage ditches or channels may be subject to local regulations. Any drainage tightlines shall be composed of appropriately sturdy material (such as rigid PVC), sized adequately according to anticipated volume, and anchored sufficiently. MTC recommends slope tightlines be inspected by the owner periodically to look for signs of damage or displacement that could result in leakage or catastrophic failure and slope erosion or failure, and be re-anchored or replaced if required. Erosion Protection Erosion is one of the most common driving forces leading to slope instability. In addition to the above commentary, the following general recommendations should be implemented in general to reduce long- term erosion potential of the slope below the project site and maintain the present slope stability: 1. The ground surface adjacent to structures or roads should be sloped to drain away and slope at a 5% minimum to prevent adjacent ponding of water. Drains should be incorporated as needed for the building and site design to help maintain a dry building area. 2. Minimize the volume and velocity of water that travels toward and down the slope face (via proper choice of site development features including stormwater controls discussed above). 3. Avoid accelerating slope erosion and mass wasting due to human activity such as: a) Adding side-cast debris to the slopes b) Using heavy construction equipment on or near steep slopes c) Excavating near adjacent steep slopes toe or on slope face d) Placing excavated soil near the steep slope crest 4. Prior to construction, a silt fence and/or a continuous line of straw bales should be placed on the slopeward edge of the construction area. Heavy construction equipment, construction materials, or native and imported soils should not be placed behind the erosion control devices. Suitable temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be implemented at the construction site during and immediately after ground disturbance occurs. Temporary areas bare of vegetation 9 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 should be protected from erosion via a blanket of straw or rolled erosion control product (RECP) during prolonged breaks in site work and prior to reseeding or revegetation. 5. At the end of the project, all disturbed vegetation should be repaired and maintained until it is established. Concentrated surface water should not be allowed to traverse the slope during or after the construction phase of the project. Roof downspouts and footing drains should be routed into closed separate pipes which outfall into appropriate drainages. Outlets for these pipes should be protected from erosion through the use of rip-rap or some other energy dissipating device. Similarly, concentrated drainages should be captured in closed pipe systems and routed down slope to appropriate outfalls. 6. Clearing of existing vegetation outside the proposed building area on and adjacent to the existing slopes should be avoided except as approved by a qualified professional. This provides additional stability to the loose top soil and minimizes the effects of down-slope water movement. This is excepting removal of dead or dying trees if posing a direct hazard to site installations or adjacent roadways. 7. Grading or excavation of soils during construction should be accompanied by grass reseeding and re-vegetation as the project is completed. According to "Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners" (Manashe, 1993) the following types of vegetation provide good to excellent erosion control. Common Name Botanical Name Deciduous/Evergreen Mature Height(ft) Vine Maple Acer cricinatum Deciduous 10+ Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor Deciduous 10+ Willow Salix spp. Deciduous 10+ Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Deciduous 3+ Rose Rose spp. Deciduous 2-10 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Deciduous To 12 Salal Gaultheria shallon Evergreen To 4 Oregon grape Mahonia spp. Evergreen To 6 Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Deciduous To 12 Evergreen Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen To 8 Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Deciduous 12+ Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum Deciduous 60 Pacific madrone Arbutus menziesii Evergreen 70 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Evergreen 200+ 10 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Closing Remarks: The project location is within a designated geologically hazardous slope area. Upon acceptance and use of this report, and its interpretations and recommendations, the owner shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless MTC, including its owners and employees, from any adverse effects resulting from development in a critical area. Ultimately it is the owner's choice to develop and live in a geologically hazardous area, and therefore the future consequences, both anticipated and unknown, are solely the responsibility of the owner. The discussions and interpretations presented herein are not intended to provide a warranty or guarantee of future site conditions. By using this report for development of the subject property, the owner must accept and understand that it is not possible to fully anticipate all inherent risks of development within a geologically hazardous critical area. The recommendations provided above are intended to reduce, but not eliminate, such risks as is practically feasible from the point of view of geotechnical engineering. We trust this report presents the information you require. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully Submitted; �11p J. RA U CPa� A ' cfi 52959 h 1 �SSIdNALtiNG` David Rauch, P.E. Cody Laramie E.I.T. Luke Preston McCann, G.I.T. Engineering Division Manager Engineer-In-Training Project Geologist Attached: Limitations and Use of this Report Appendix Al. Location and Vicinity Map Appendix A2. Aerial Photo Site Plan with Test Locations Appendix B. Slope Topographic Profile Appendix C. Exploration Logs Appendix D. Laboratory Results 11 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Limitations and Use of This Report Recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed development and construction activities, our field observations and exploration and our laboratory test results. It is possible that soil and groundwater conditions could vary and differ between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that vary or differ from those described herein, MTC shall be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, our recommendations shall also be reviewed. We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by MTC during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the author of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard;they are not incorporated into it or"included by reference", as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law. This report may be used only by Kevin Noffsinger, Northwest Rock, and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than 18 months from the date of the report. Note that if another firm assumes Geotechnical Engineer of Record responsibilities they need to review this report and either concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations or provide alternate findings, conclusions and recommendation under the guidance of a professional engineer registered in the State of Washington. The recommendations of this report are based on the assumption that the Geotechnical Engineer of Record has reviewed and agrees with the findings,conclusion and recommendations of this report. Land or facility use, on- and off-site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the intended use of the report, MTC may recommend that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non- compliance with any of these requirements by Northwest Rock, the property owner or anyone else will release MTC from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and Northwest Rock agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold MTC harmless from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. We recommend that MTC be given the opportunity to review the final project plans and specifications to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly interpreted. We assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The scope of work for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. 12 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix Al. Location and Vicinity Map 41-4t. site Vicinity rk t r, y I z - ' 3 x Site Location �•`A,. �'i✓.fa ` b A��'.yob nPl NY..a 'T * Maps Source: Google Imagery 2016 Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Site Location and Vicinity Map FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Blvd. 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia,WA 98512 Elma, WA 98541 13 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix A2. Aerial Photo Overview WEYE_RHAEt/S£R,\ r .� LESFE- RN.1EU'.tR ;NORTHWEST ROCI•:, INC. ry 4j. 72, fAli+-Y �. �� A � Q �• � � r � ;�.t I TP#3 �lil ( -`✓1,'4y a ,t� .t / ?i r, �1'�.��,-` t At E t =30Q 1 DC 300. , SCALE IS APPROXIMATE Map Source: LEGEND *Not for Construction* Google Imagery 2016&Client Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Provided Survey z Test oit Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. Site Layout with Test Locations FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia,WA 98501 Elma,WA 98541 2 14 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix B1. Topographic Profiles Profile A West East TP-3 t t t DCP-1 t DCP-2 t TP-4 t t t " ' A� � 3 t DCP-3 t 7- t t 0000, t � 10, Earth and Debris Berm A9 Earthen Berm West Benthein Road 0 75 SCALE IS APPROXIMATE (Based on field measurements) SCALE(FEET) *Not for Construction I inch=50 feet Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. Topographic Profile FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia,WA 98501 Elma,WA 98541 15 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix B2. Topographic Profiles Profile B West East B 2T, B' West Benthein Road 0 75 SCALE IS APPROXIMATE (Based on provided surveys) SCALE(FEET) +Not for Construction I inch=50 fat Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. Topographic Profile FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia,WA 98501 Elma,WA 98541 4 16 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix B3. Topographic Profiles Profile C J� west (Generalized Post Mining Condition) East v 25'bfinimum Setback 2 Q I z� C' C West Bmthein Road 0 75 SCALE IS APPROXIMATE (Based on Proposed Plans) SCALE(FEET) *Not for Construction I inch—50 feet Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. Topographic Profile FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia,WA 98501 Elma,WA 98541 5 17 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix C. Exploration Logs Unified Soil Classification System Chart MajorDieisions Grapy t:SCs Tvpical Description Sampler Symbol Description Standard Penetration Test(SPT) Coarse °p.�. Gw WeB-graded Gravels.Gcavel•SandMix- GrainedSods Gravel o .O•o toes �Ig'g'7?' Clean Gravels LIL! ShebvTube More Than •' GP Pomty-Graded Curls Gravel-Sand LILT 5000 of •�,� x1vaures ® Gnb or Bud Coarse Frar tionRetained ' GM Silty Gravels.Gravel-Sand-SiltMixtures \.lore Than50% Oallo.4 O O 8 Caifoma(3.0"O.D.) Retained On Srve Gravels With Fines vo.200Sieve jp -� GC Clayey Gravels.Gravel-Sand-ClayMix- tmes , Modified California(2.5"O.D.) SW Wed-graded Sands,Gravetiy Sands Sand StraU¢rap6ie Contact Clean Sands More Than SP Poorly-Graded Sands. Gravelly Sands DatiaM Stratigraphr Contact 50%of Between Sod Strata Coarse Frao- \ Gradual Change Between Soil tionPassing S,I Silty Sands-Sand-SitMishres Strata No.4 Sieve ----- Approximate location of Sands W1th Fines strarapaphic change SC Clayey sands.Clay Mixttaes Fine Grained ML Inorganic Silts.rock Flora.Clayey Silts Groundvvater observed at time of Soils R6h Low Plasticity exploration Measured groundwater level in Sits&Clays Liquid Limit Less CL InorganicClaysofLowToMedium Y expksatzm.well.orpiezometer Than 10 Plasticity LSoreThan504-o 'f Perchedn•atrobsenedattime Passina The OL Organ`Silts and Organic Silty Clays of ♦ of exploration No.200 Sieve Law Plasticity lriF1 Inorganic Silts ofModerat Plasticity Mo dine is Silts&Clays Liquidl-iniit CH InorganicClaysofHighPlasticity Description % Greater Than 50 Trace >5 OH Organic Clays And Silt ofMecWm to Some 5-12 High Plasticity pT Peat,Humus.Soils with Predomirmmly With >12 Highh Organic Soils Organic Content Soil Consistency Grain Size Granalsr Soils Fine-grained Soils DESCRIPTION I SIEVE GRAD;SIZE APPRO`IMATE SIZE SIZE Dertslti• .SPT Consistency SPT Blmccount Bim vownt Boulders >12" >12" Larger than a basketball Very Loose 04 Very Soft 0-7. Cobbles 3-12" 3-12- Fist to basketball Loose 4-10 Soft 24 Coarse 3/4-3' 3/4-3" Thumb to fist Gravel Medium 10-30 Firm 4-8 Fine 4-3,4- 0.19-0.75- Pea to thumb Deese Dense 30.50 Stiff 8-15 Coarse si10-a4 0.079-0.19" Rock soh to pea Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 15-30 Sand Medium 040-C 10 0.017-0.079" Sugar to rock salt Hard >30 Fne a200-#40 0.0029-0.017" Flour to Sugar Fines Passing <0.0029. Fbua and Smaller Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Exploration Log Key FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Blvd. 41 W Beerbower Rd / Olympia, WA 98512 Elma, WA 98541 b is Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 NN'Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington ;Materials Testing S Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit TP-1 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started :5131/16 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed :5/31/16 Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method :Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location :Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTC Project#16SO84 Logged By :LM LL U > c = w n. DESCRIPTION m R ❑ D 0 U) � 0 Well-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 6 inch diameter,wet,dense.BROWN. 1 2 3 Finer than No.200:2.6% Moisture Content:6.3% 4 5 6 GW 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Poorly-Graded SAND with GRAVEL and trace SILT,gravel up to 6 inch diameter,wet,dense.GRAY to GRAY-BROWN. Finer than No.200:3.5% Moisture Content:4.7% 14 15 Interbedded lenses of sand found from approximately 13.0'to 15.0'. 16 Sp 17 Cleaner sand lense found from approximately 17.0'to 18.0'. 18 19 20 Total Depth=20.0 feet 21 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 22 23 24 25 19 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit TP-2 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started :5/31/16 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed :5/31/16 Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method :Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location :Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTC Project#16S084 Logged By LM m U_ v_ > C = y J rn a DESCRIPTION a d o 0 in 3 0 GW GRAVELLY TOPSOIL,organic rich with roots up to 2 inch diameter,dry,loose to medium dense.ORANGE. 1 c: Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 2 inch diameter,dry,dense.ORANGE-BROWN to BROWN. 2- 3- 4— Hard digging starting from approximately 4.0'to termination depth.Interbedded sand and gravel lenses, approximately 6 inches thick,throughout the rest of the excavation. 5 6 7 6 GP 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Depth=15.0 feet 16 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log Of Test Pit TP-3 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started :5/31/16 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed :5131/16 Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTC Project#16SO84 Logged By LM m d � U > a v a- DESCRIPTION E o Z) 0 'n 3 0 GRAVELLY TOPSOIL,organic rich,twigs,moss,roots,dry,loose to medium dense.BROWN. 1 GW 2 r: Poody-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 2 inch diameter,dry,dense.ORANGE-BROWN 3- to BROWN. Finer than No.200:2.3% Moisture Content:7.9% 4 Hard digging starting from approximately 2.0'to termination depth.Interbedded sand lenses throughout the rest 5 of the excavation. 6- 7- 8— Apparent moisture increase and decrease in silt content at approximately 8.0'. GP 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Depth=15.0 feet 16 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 NN'Beerbo,,%er Rd,Elma,Washington INlaterials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit TP-4 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started :5/31/16 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed :5/31/16 Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location :Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTC Project#16SO84 Logged By :LM ru LL m LL U > c = a DESCRIPTION i U Q m C� co 0 GRAVELLY TOPSOIL,organic rich,twigs,moss,roots,dry,loose to medium dense.BROWN. 1 GW 2 Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 2 inch diameter,dry,dense.ORANGE-BROWN 3 to BROWN. 4- Hard digging starting from approximately 2.0'.Interbedded sand lenses throughout the rest of the excavation. 5 GP 6 7 Very hard digging starting from approximately 7.0'. 8 Total Depth=8.0 feet 9 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,NN ashington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Materials Testing and Consulting 2118 Black Lake Blvd.,NW PROJECT NUMBER: 16SO84 Olympia,WA 98512 DATE STARTED: 01-14-2016 DATE COMPLETED: 01-14-2016 HOLE#: DCP-1 CREW: CULM SURFACE ELEVATION: E-dsting Grade PROJECT: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation WATER ON COMPLETION: None Encountered ADDRESS:41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,WA 98541 HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: V Upslope from Berm at Slope Crest CONE AREA: 10 sq.cm BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm /c& 0 50 100 150 N SAND&SILT CLAY 13 57.7 ^».......... 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 49 217.6 ............................................• - VERYDENSE HARD 1 ft 50 222.0 ............................................. VERYDENSE HARD 2ft 3ft - lm 411 5 ft 6ft 2m 7ft 8ft 9ft - 3m 10ft lift 12ft 4m 13ft WILDCATALS 23 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Materials Testing and Consulting 2118 Black Lake Blvd.,NW PROJECT NUMBER. 16S084 Olympia,WA 98512 DATE STARTED: 05-31-2016 DATE COMPLETED: 05-31-2016 HOLE#: DCP-2 CREW: CULM SURFACE ELEVATION: Eidsting Grade PROJECT: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation WATER ON COMPLETION: None Encountered ADDRESS:41 W Beerbower Rd,Ehna,WA 98541 HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 tbs. LOCATION:Approx 259 Upslope from Slope Toe,16'N of Access Road CONE AREA: 10 sq.cm BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm cm° 0 50 100 150 N SAND&SILT CLAY 3 13.3 3 VERYLOOSE SOFT - 5 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - I ft 10 44.4 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 71.0 ..................•• 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF - 18 79.9 ..................••••• 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 2 ft 27 119.9 .................................• - DENSE HARD 31 137.6 ....................................• _ DENSE HARD 35 155.4 ............................................. DENSE HARD 3 ft 38 168.7 ............................................. DENSE HARD 1 m 41 182.0 ..........................................••• VERYDENSE HARD 24 92.6 .......................... MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 4 ft 14 54.0 •^••••^••^•• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 20 77.2 ..................•••• 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 24 92.6 .......................... - MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 5 ft 24 92.6 .......................... - MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 28 108.1 ............................... - MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 31 119.7 .................................. - DENSE HARD 6 ft 35 135.1 ......................................• - DENSE HARD 50 193.0 ............................................• - VERYDENSE HARD 2m 7 ft 9 1i - 3m 10 ft 11 ft 12 ft 4m 13ft 'NILCCA'XLS 24 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 WILDCAT DYNANHC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Materials Testing and Consulting 2118 Black Lake Blvd.,NW PROJECT NUMBER: 16SO84 Olympia,WA 98512 DATE STARTED: 05-31-2016 DATE COMPLETED: 05-31-2016 HOLE#:DCP-3 CREW:CULM SURFACE ELEVATION: ExistingGade PROJECT:Chandler Pit G;otechnical Investigation WATER ON COMPLETION: None Encountered ADDRESS:41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,WA 98541 HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION:Approx 56'Upslope from Slope Toe,8'N of Access Road CONE AREA: 10 sq.cm BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm K cmz 0 50 100 150 N' SAND&SILT CLAY - 3 13.3 3 VERYLOOSE SOFT - 7 31.1 ........ 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 1 ft 22 97.7 ........................••• - MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF - 19 84.4 ..................•••••• 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF - 22 97.7 ........................••• - MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTLFF - 2 ft 17 75.5 .................... 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF - 12 53.3 ............••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 8 35.5 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 3 R 4 17.8 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 1 m 5 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 15.4 •• 4 VERYLOOSE SOFT - 4 ft 2 7.7 2 VERYLOOSE SOFT 4 15.4 •• 4 VERYLOOSE SOFT - 9 34.7 ......•••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 5 ft 8 30.9 ......•• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 11 42.5 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 17 65.6 ..................• 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTLFF 6 ft 38 146.7 .......................................... - DENSE HARD 50 193.0 ............................................. VERYDENSE HARD 2m 7 ft 8 ft 9 tt - 3m 1011 I I tl 12 1i - 4m 13ft WILDCAT.XLS 25 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix D. Laboratory Results Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to better identify the soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depths on the individual boring logs. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent in situ soil conditions. All of our recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgment. MTC cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. Soil samples for this project will be retained for a period of 3 months following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil samples were visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they were obtained. They were subsequently packaged and returned to our laboratory where they were reexamined and the original description checked and verified or modified. With the help of information obtained from the other classification tests, described below, the samples were described in general accordance with ASTM Standard D2487. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate locations on the individual exploration logs, located in Appendix C, and are qualitative only. GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION Grain-size distribution analyses were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standard D422 on representative soil samples to determine the grain-size distribution of the on-site soil. The information gained from these analyses allows us to provide a description and classification of the in-place materials. In turn, this information helps us to understand engineering properties of the soil and thus how the in- place materials will react to conditions such as heavy seepage, traffic action, loading, potential liquefaction, and so forth. The results are presented in this Appendix. 26 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Sieve Report Project:Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Received:31-May-16 AS Df D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project#: 16S084 Sampled By:CL GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand Client:NW Rock Date Tested:2-Jun-16 Sample Color: Source:TP-I @ 3' Tested By:JE Brown ACCREDITED Sam le#:S16-196 • "" ASTM D•2216,ASTM D-2419,ASTM D-4318,ASTM D-5821 D,„=0.300 mm "o Gravel=67.5% Cceff of Gm ature.C.=2.07 Specifications Dpp,=0.696 min %Sand=29.9% Cceff.of Gnifomtity.C�=18.15 No Specs Dr„t=1.421 nun p/Sit&Clay=2.6%A Fineness Modulo=5.92 Sample Meets Specs 7 N/A Dtmt=4.266 rrm Liquid Lii=n(a Plastic Link=Wit Dt,pt=8.860 stun Plasticity Index=da Moisture%,as sampled=6.3% Dt.)=12.625 nun Sand Egtmskta=n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent=r D„pt=36.524 mm Fracture%,I Face=n/a Req'd Fracture%,I Face=r Dust Ratio= 3/8 Fmctu %.2+Faces=n/a Re'd Fracture%.2+Faces=r ASTM C-136 ASTM D-6913 Actual Interpolated creio si:e u-eoo Cumulative Cumulative Steve Sloe Min Percent Percent Specs I Specs 4 US Metric Passln Passlu Yb YY Be rt; �g63r11£Sis� Max ,max ,a°ax 12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0. I 00/ I 10.00" 250.00 l00% 100.0p4 0.0% Ii l I II I! I i i l i i I II 8.00" 200.00 100p/A 100.0% 0.0% °°� 'ii' 111 6.00" 150.00 IUOp/A 101)1 1 0.0% 4.00" 100.00 100% 100.01% 1 0.0% 3.00" 75.00 1W/6 100.0% i 0.01% 2.50" 63.00 1001/ 1001 0.01% ;1 I III I 100" 50.00 loop/A 100.01% 0.01% ,,III it 'III I i i aAa 1.75" 45.00 loop/. 100p/0 100.01% 0.0% !III III I t I ii i i I I 1.50" 37.50 91% 91% 100.0% ! 0.01% .I!! it ' III ICI ! I 1.25" 31.30 83% 83% 100.01% ' 0.01% ' enax 1.00" 25.00 75% 75% 100.0% 1 0.0% !III I it i i I! I i IN I I 3/4" 19.00 r_% 72% 100.01% 0.0% j!II ii�ll i I ii i I jll! eapx. sus^ 16.00 68% 68% 100.01i i o.opi 1/2" 12.50 fro% 60% 100.01/6 i 0.0% !I ! ! I !fl 3/8" 9.50 53% 53% 100.0% 0.0% " 1/4" 6.30 40% 40% 100.01/ j 0.0pi #4 4.75 33% 33% 100.0% { 0.00/A :1 #8 2.36 200/6 100.01/p c 0.0% #10 2.00 18% 18% 100.0pi f 0.011illl I i #16 1.18 14% 100.0% t 0.0% r� !! ! � #20 0.850 12% 12% 100.0% 0.0% #30 0.600 9% 100.0% 0.0% 'i I III II i I i i i !!I. III I I i i!i it #40 0.425 r/ r/ 100.0% ; 0.0% ,ox ,apa #50 0.300 5% 100.01% I 0.0% '! I ` #60 0.250 4% 4% 101 � 0.0% !:ill it I i f �� ri"r•••.!� I i #80 0.180 4% 4% 100.0% 0.0% , aA,p A.wiAx °DO aDO ,a°A0a 10.0.aa 1A°p a.,0° #100 0.150 3% 3% 100.0°/A ! 0.0% #140 0.106 3% 100.0% 0.0% #170 0.090 3% I01 01 � #200 0.075 2.6% 2.6% 100.0°/A 0.0% 1 1 S E 'open a Tec�ncal Servkea PS.19969a 27 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Sieve Report Project:Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Received:31-May-16 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project#: 16SO84 Sampled By:CL SP,Poorly graded Sand with Gravel Client:NW Rock Date Tested: 2-Jun-I6 Sample Color: Source:TP-1 @ 13' Tested By:JE Gray/Brown ACCREDITED Sam le#:S16-197 ASTM D-2216,ASTM D-2419,ASTM D-4318,ASTM D-5821 Dt„=0.159 tmn o,Gravel=32.5% Coeff.of Cm atLwe.C;=0.92 Specifications Do,,=0.326 mm %Sand=63.9% Coeff.of uniformity.Cu;=11.78 No Specs Dtnr=0.472 rtun %Silt&Clay=3.5% Fineness Modu4s=4.42 Sample Meets Specs?N/.a Dnm1=1.073 torn Liquid Lori=da Plastic Lanit=da Dtpt=1634 mm Plasticity Index=da Moisture io,as sampled=4.7 Duw=3.845 turn Sand Equivalent=da Req'd Sand Equivalent=� Dt p=12.905 nun Fracture%,I Face=nda Req'd Fracture%,I Face=e Dust Ratio= 23/88 Fracture%.2+Faces=n/a Re'd Fracture 40.2+Faces= ASTM C-136 ASTM D-6913 Actual Interpolated cmnazpdcu>vua, _ Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Sit Percent Percent Specs Specs 4 bb bb t,x 4'x�'sa uer S&94'H>a@c� Us Metric Passing t Passina Max mix 12.00" 300.00 loop/. 100.0% 0.0% 10.00^ 250.00 100% 100.01% 0.0% !I i� I• I I i t I III i !I i 8.00" 200.00 IOU% 100.0% 0.0% 6.00" 150.00 1000/o IOD.O% � 0.0% i 5 IIII I I i t I I . i.i I 4.00" IOD.00 1000% 100.01/0 0.0% 3.00" 75.00 1W/o 100.01A I O.W. IIII I I I I i II I I 111 iii EI i 2.50" 63.00 100% 100.01A I 0.0% IIII I I I Ii� I I i ii�i 100" 50.00 loop/o 100.00/ 0.0% 1.75" 45.00 1 1W/o 100.0% 0.0% iiil I II. 1 A I I11111 1 II 1.50" 37.50 1"/p 100.01% 0.0% �Iil �� :it I fl i i IIII it 1.25" 31.50 100p/p 100.01% 0.01% Loo^ 25.00 100% I00% 100.0% 0.o% € .ox iii III I I i i iliili I I !II�I i ! �i IIII ilillii i 1!I I 314^ 19.00 95% 95% lao.o% 0.0% 5B" 16.00 94% 94p/p 10D.0% O.Op/o 1n" 12.50 899% 899% 100.0p� i 0.01/ I I i I lit I ! i III I I i IIII i I I lit II i 3✓8" 9.50 83% 83% 100.0°/ j o.Opr 1/4" 6.30 74% 74% 100.00/ I 0.CP/ I II N1111 I i I II I I :Iii II I i #4 4.75 67% 67% 100.00/p O.op/ IIII I ! r 08 2.M 48% 100.0% 0.00/ i!I I I III 1111 i I 11 #10 2.00 45% 45% 100.01% 0.0pi #16 1.18 32% 100.01% 0.0% #20 0.Mo 26% 26% 100.01% 0.(M ! 'n #30 0.600 19p/o 100.0% 0.01/ JillI I I I I I I I l i ti40 0.425 14% 14% 100.0% 0.0% ,ox Ill II #50 0.300 9% 100.0% 0.01/ Ell ill l I #60 0.250 7% 7p/o 100.00/0 I 0.0% IIII I ! i!! ! #80 0.180 6% 65/6 100.01/0 I 0.0°/. °doom. 1m.o.o lame ,.om o.,m o.o,. .mpnx #100 0.150 5116 5% 100.00/o I 0.01% #140 0.106 4% 100.01/0 0.01% #170 0.090 40/6 100.01/0 0.0% #200 0.075 3.5% 3.5% 100.0% j 0.0% a...S1,= i 3 a E Ina^n a T.cPn.al S^ry m PS.19 98 28 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Sieve Report Project: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Received:31-May-16 ASINI D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project#: 16SO84 Sampled By:CL GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand Client:NW Rock Date Tested:2-Jun-16 Sample Color: Source:TP-3 @ 3' Tested By:JE Brown ACCREDITED r Sam le#: S16-198 ASTM D-2216,ASTM D-2419,ASTM D-4318,ASIM D-5821 D,;,=0.207 min %Gravel=54.4% Coeff of Curt-atwe,C�=0.49 Specifications D(.p,=0.327 nnn %Sand=43.2% Coeff.of Uniformity,C,;=30.22 No Specs Do t)=0.436 mm %Sit&Clay=13% Fineness Modulus=5.10 Sample Meets Specs?N/A Dtp,=1.263 mm L4W Lia"t=Wit Plastic Limit=da D„a,=6.280 ,inn Phs&*Index=nda Moisture%,as sampled=7.9% Dr.,=9.891 min Sand Equivalent=nt/a Reg•d Sand Equivalent=• D,yo,=21.079 ,inn Fracture%,1 Face=da Reqd Fracture 9b,I Face=r Dust Ratio= 4/25 Fm=e%.2+Faces=n/a Re'd Fracture%.2+Faces=� ASTM C-136 ASTM D-6913 Actual Interpolated Wain Sia pY,ICutlpn Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs i Specs w 4 rt,.. e.•:`�' 'lR4t B L06gi3@$a. DS Metric Psssing Passing Max i Min ,� ^,ti^ 12.00" 300.00 loop/. lao.opr 0.0pi illi �••��! it 81 it I!IIIII i liii 10,00" 250.00 I001/p 100.0% 0.0% :!ii III • II I III I 1 iI 8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% °° 'ilii i 6.00" 150.00 lao^i 100.0% 0.0% Hlla.ao^ 100.00 lao^i 10Do% 0.0% ill it 3.00" 75.00 100% 100.01% 0.0% I I II 111 I i 150" 63.00 100% IM01% 0.0% !iIi i� I l i ! 2.00" 50.00 100% 100.0°/p 1 0.wo 'oi 1.75" 45.00 100% IM01/6 0.0% iiilil I 11 I i I 1.50^ 37.50 100% 100.0% o.o% ,;i i I t 1.25^ 31.50 loop/. IN% 100.0% i 0.0% i I i I •it 1.00" 25.00 94% 94% 100.0% ! 0.0% 3/4" 19.00 88% 98% 100.0% i 0.0% i 518" 16.00 r-% 72% 100.0p� 0.0% i� i I i• i 1 x ln" 12.50 67% 67% 100.0% 0.0% 3/8" 9.50 59% 59p/ 100.0% i 0.0% <°. 11. 1 1 1 t •601 va" 6.30 50% 50% 100.0pr 0.0% 'III I I II I #4 4.75 46% M% 100.0% 0.opi I!I i .i #8 2.36 37% 100.0% 0.0% p0.0" 4l0 zoo 35% 35% 100.0% 0.0 LI8 00. .;III i I 'il I i I i #16 ?9% 10% 0.0°h it #20 0.850 278/ 27% 100.0% 1 0.0% ;III I I i III I #30 0.600 20% 100.0% ; 0.0°h #40 0.425 15% 15% 100.0pi ao% Iili I� ii ! �ii i 11 i I p #50 0.300 9% 100.0pi i 0.09/6 ii #60 0.250 6% 6% 1oo.opi o.opr, III! !i ••.JJ i i ! i #80 0.180 41/6 49/6 100.06/6 0.0% °.°.m° ,main ,e.mo ,.pm p.,m paw oaap.ax #100 0.150 39/6 3% 100.0% 0.0% #140 0.106 A. 100.0% ` 0.0% #I70 0.090 31/6 100.0% ; 0.0p/ #200 0.075 2.3% 2.3% 100.0% i 0.0% �•••s=• p••p� Mess•= p•.p«^• nt S s E i-i 8 Tpcftrical S^Mcpp PS,1NO-N 29 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 N ar 1`tvie sl Ro c i<, Parcel# (� �q 3(D ~V-0" UU0 l 0 Site Address �-I w b eAo4ler KA L lmti 71 WA (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) 3 -S (b) A discussion of specific soil types, Located on page(s) 3 —'" (c) A discussion of ground water conditions, Located on page(s) (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology, Located on page(s) �— (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetle Located on page(s) 9- (f) A discussion of history oflandslide activity in the vicinity, as Located on page(s) LI}}`"5 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geol Located on Map(s) IT (3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s) (4) The area of the proposed development, the boundaries of the be delineated (top, both sides, and toe) on a geologic map of the site. Located on Map(s) Y-51 i T (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) _7 l 5 -i 7 (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 0.16. Located on page(s) S—7 (7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, Located on page(s) (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields, Located on page(s) h o Setif +& 1°�OPoSe c�. Page 1 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 A r (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings, Located on page(s) NA Clo L 1 E`fo l pfoeos e c� (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) C) (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) ?_ (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) (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) %—Ib (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 5-2 (11) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management, drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths. Located on page(s) (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s), ti h . lw _eJ r vir"i tRr Es pco�o s e r1 (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) I�' I, Dave, Rc-,uc k / P. E, 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 Geotechnicai Report, dated I_tAn e. 214 k a 16 ,and entitled 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 recommenda'o 14and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and sa (Signature and Stamp) �woF WAs H�� 52959 O,Z "GISTa 1� �SSJONALE�G 3 - �dl Ply Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 Page 1 of 2 Michael MacSems - Chandler Pit .Job# 16SO84 From: Michael MacSems T o: luke.mccann@mtc-inc.net Date: 7/21/2016 10:32 AM Subject: Chandler Pit Job# 16SO84 CC: rams Hello Luke, My name is Michael MacSems and I am a land use planner at Mason County and I am reviewing MTC's geotechnical report for Northwest Rock(#I6S084). Since we planners are not engineers,we use a checklist system to simply determine that all required elements are included in the report. This case is a little bit unusual in that the permit I am reviewing is to cut the trees in preparation for the pit expansion, but the expansion itself is not regulated by Mason County.None-the-less I do expect to receive phone calls from the public and want to as knowledgeable as I can about the project. Below are some questions that I have for you. 1. I don't understand the cross sections on pages 6 and 7, are these meant to be generic or do they correspond to actual locations on the site? 2. Figure 2. I'm uncertain how to interpret the shaded area around the pit expansion site. I thought it might represent a 25' buffer,but I don't think a buffer would completely encircle the site. Please explain. 3. Checklist item 4 asked for a site plan that among other things, shows the boundaries of the LSHA(if any). I don't see this clearly identified in Figure 2. From my reading of page 8, I'm thinking that there isn't an actual LSHA with in the study area of the report except as described in MCC 8.52.140.B.LAM.The MCC code speaks in percentages of slope instead of degrees of slope. Based on my reading of Figure 4,the steepest slopes along Benthein Rd are 27 degrees or 54%, but otherwise do not have any of the characteristic described in 8.52.140.B.LA and that the logging of these slopes does not present a hazard if caution is exercised with stormwater and erosion control. Please confirm that I am reading this right. MCC 8.52.140.B.(1) Classification. (A) The following shall be classified as landslide hazard areas: (i)Areas with any indications of earth movement such as debris slides, earthflows, slumps and rock falls(see Figure F 100). (ii) Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e., cuts or fills. (iii)Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils. (iv)Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action. file:///C:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5790A4A4Masomnai11001613462... 7/21/2016 Page 2 of 2 (v) Slopes greater than fifteen percent(8.5 degrees) and having the following: A. Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock(e.g., sand overlying clay);and B. Springs or groundwater seepage. (vi)Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. I have one final question concerning timing that comes from a recommendation on page 8 which states "It is recommended that site preparation activities avoid disturbing the native vegetation until clearing becomes a necessity". This seems a very reasonable recommendation, but I am concerned that the logging permit may expire(two years- not renewable)before the operator is ready to clear all of the slope between the pit and Benthein Rd. I will talk to Kevin Noffsigner about this,but I wanted to get an idea from you of the relative importance of this recommendation. Thank you for your assistance on this. Michael MacSems Planner file:NC:/Users/mms/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5790A4A4Masonmai11001613462... 7/21/2016 Goa IL - 4-� BERGLUND, SCHMIDT RECEIVED & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . UL'I PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS • 615 W. Alder Street CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN for NORTHWEST ROCK CHANDLER PIT TAX PARCEL 619304000010 NE '/a, SE '/a, SECTION 30, T 19N9 R 6WWM MASON, WASHINGTON Prepared for: NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen, WA 98520 (360) 533-3050 By: Berglund, Schmidt & Associates, Inc. 2323 Bay Avenue Hoquiam, WA 98550 (360) 532-7630 August 25, 2016 BERGLUND, SCHMIDT & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN for NORTHWEST ROCK CHANDLER PIT TAX PARCEL 619304000010 NE 11, SE 1/, SECTION 30, T 19N9 R 6WWM MASON, WASHINGTON Prepared for: NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. 642 Newskah Road Aberdeen, WA 98520 (360) 533-3050 By: Berglund, Schmidt & Associates, Inc. 2323 Bay Avenue Hoquiam, WA 98550 �� 2c/ (360) 532-7630 ()y MA August 25, 2016 � 34285 4 �'t'Lns�CISTF,VL 't Sf�NAL E� i BERGLUND, SCHMIDT & A S S O C I A T E S I N C 2323 Bay Avenue Hoquiam,WA 98550 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS (360)532-7630 - FAX(877)419-9683 www.berglundschmidt.com November 14, 2016 Mr. Michael MacSems Mason County Planning Dept. 615 W Alder Street Shelton,WA 98584 RE: Stormwater Review for Northwest Rock, Inc. -Chandler Pit Mr. MacSems: In response to your email, dated November 7, 2016, please see my comments below. Regarding Section 1.9.11.(a)&(b), please see page 2 of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSPPP), number 8"Construction Phasing'for comments addressing wet season construction. Gravel extraction from Chandler Pit is based on prevailing market conditions and not on the dry or wet season. Construction activities will occur as the market dictates. With regard to Critical Areas, please see CSPPP, page 2, number 5. There are no critical habitats in this location. Section 1.10.(a)—(d)-The Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM)Trapezoidal Pond volume calculations are included in Appendix H of the CSPPP document. (b)and (c) are not applicable. Section 11.1.(c)—Erosion and Sediment Control Notes can be found in the CSPPP document,Appendix G, Sheet 3 of 3,and in Exhibit 1, "BMP Details", of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) included within the CSPPP document. Section 11.2.(d)-Erosion and Sediment Control Notes found in the CSPPP document,Appendix G,Sheet 3 of 3, "Additional Site Plan Notes", number 2,state that there are"No areas of potential erosion problems on this site." Sections 11.3 through 8— 3. Not applicable 4. Not applicable 5. (a)through(g)are not applicable. (h) is specified in the CSPPP,Appendix C,Sheet 3 of 3. (i) through(k)are not applicable. (1) is also included in the CSPPP,Appendix C,Sheet 3 of 3 and in the SWPPP, Exhibit 1, "BMP Details", "C233 Silt Fence". (m) is discussed in the CSPPP,Appendix C, Sheet 1 and 2 of 3. 6. Not applicable 7. Not applicable 8. Monitoring locations are discussed in the CSPPP, Exhibit A,4.0 of the SWPPP,specifically 4.2. Stormwater Quality Sampling is not required. 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Narrative.................................I 1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements.................................................1 2. Project Description ................................................................................................................1 3. Existing Conditions................................................................................................................1 3.1 Topography......................................................................................................................1 3.2 Drainage Pattern..............................................................................................................1 3.3 Vegetation.........................................................................................................................2 4. Adjacent Areas.......................................................................................................................2 5. Sensitive and Critical Areas..................................................................................................2 6. Soils ........................................................................................................................................2 7.Erosion Problem Areas..........................................................................................................2 8. Construction Phasing. ...........................................................................................................2 9. Construction Schedule...........................................................................................................3 10. Engineering Calculations.....................................................................................................3 11. Operations and Maintenance ..............................................................................................3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP) APPENDIX B: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma, WA APPENDIX C: Site Plans APPENDIX D: National Wetland Inventory MAP APPENDIX E: IPAC Trust Resources Report APPENDIX F: NRCS Soil Survey for Mason County, WA, Chandler Pit APPENDIX G: Mining Reclamation Plan APPENDIX H: Engineering Calculations APPENDIX 1: O&M Declaration of Covenants Form Recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 1 2323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630 1 (877)419-9683(fax) BERGLUND, SCHMIDT & A S S O C I A T E S , I N C . PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS Section 1-Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Narrative 1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements Provided in Appendix A: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Chandler Pit. 2. Proiect Description The project site is located in the southwest corner of Mason County, Tax Parcel number 6193- 04-000010 located within the Northeast %4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 19 North Range 6 West Willamette Meridian. This site consists of 25.12 acre area west of the existing permitted 39.88 acres site. The property is accessed from West Beerbower Road and the project is accessed by following a gravel road running along the southern edge of the property. This project consists of developing a large stone pond at the above referenced site to minimize sediment runoff to adjacent waters. The pond is created as the gravel mining progresses per the market demand. The total size of this project is approximately 25.12 acres. Although the proposal does not generate any impervious surfaces,the calculations for post development runoff are based on 100% impervious area. This conservative approach ensures the site is in compliance during all phases of the construction activities. The total area disturbed during the project is 23.66 acres. Total volume of cut and fill material is calculated at 1,115,000cubic yard. This work is being done to satisfy the requirements of the Forest Practice Application filed with Mason County. 3.0 Existin2 Conditions Existing condition is described in detail in the Geotechnical report prepared by Materials Testing & Consulting (MTC), Inc, of Olympia, Washington. A copy of the report is presented in Appendix B: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation, 41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma, Washington. 3.1 Topoaraphv Existing topographic map of the site is presented in Appendix C: Site Plans. USDA soil survey map lists the site soil as Gh (Grove gravelly sandy loam 0-5% slope), Gk (Grove gravelly sandy loam 5 to 15%), and Gm (Grove gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30%). The northerly portion of the property is relatively flat. The southern portion of the property is steeper. Overall, the original ground varied in topography between 0% and 30% and drained into the Decker Creek. 3.2 Drainage Pattern The majority of the original runoff from the site ran into Decker creek to the southwest. The existing drainage pattern consists of the original drainage and the man made drainage created during the gravel removal operation. The man made drainage ends up in a gravel pit with adequate capacity to infiltrate all the surface runoff. 1 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP 3.3 Vegetation 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,vine maple,and scotch broom. 4. Adiacent areas The project will not affect any streams, lakes, wetlands, residential areas and roads. The site runoff will be directed into a pond and infiltrated into the ground. A review of the federal wetland database shows three categories of wetland: Estuarine and Marine Deepwater, Freshwater Emergent Wetland, and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland. None of these wetlands adjoin the site. 5. Sensitive and Critical Areas IPAC Trust Resources Report for the site from U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service states" There are no critical habitats in this location". A copy of the IPAC Trust Resources Report is presented in Appendix E. The site is classified as geologically hazardous area. There are no other listed sensitive and critical areas on this site. 6. Soils In general, USDA soil survey lists the site soil as Gh (Grove gravelly sandy loam 0-5% slope), Gk(Grove gravelly sandy loam 5 to 15%), and Gm(Grove gravelly sandy loam 15 to 30%). Soil texture ranges from gravelly sandy loam to very gravelly sandy loam. The permeability range for this soil is 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr. This soil type is not easily susceptible to wind or water erosion. The suspended soil particles settle quickly because of their size. Less than 3.5% of the soil particles pass through the #200 sieve. Since there is hardly any plasticity associated with these particles, the most of these particles are likely in the silt range. Site specific soil information is presented in Appendix B: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington. 7. Erosion Problem areas There are no existing erosion problem areas. The implementation of this construction stormwater pollution prevention plan will pre-empt any possibility of the future erosion problem. 8. Construction Phasine Gravel extraction is based on the prevailing market conditions. Therefore, the proposed construction activities will occur as the market dictates. Prior to any gravel extraction activity is initiated in a new area; high visibility fences will be installed to mark the clearing limits. Silt fences will be installed immediately thereafter to prevent any silt laden runoff from leaving the cleared area. Top soil will be removed and stockpiled in windrows for future site reclamation work. Stockpiled soil will be hydro-seeded to prevent soil erosion. In addition, silt fences will be installed down gradient of the windrows. Once the top soil is stockpiled, the gravel below is porous and generally does not generate surface runoff. In extreme rainfall events, silt fences will 2 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP be installed down gradient to prevent silt migration. Construction phasing and reclamation process are described in detail in the Mining Reclamation Plan in Appendix G. 9. Construction Schedule Gravel extraction is based on the prevailing market conditions. Therefore, the proposed construction activities will occur as the market dictates. The anticipated schedule is presented in the Mining Reclamation Plan,Appendix G. 10. Engineering Calculations Runoff detention calculations are presented in Appendix H. The pond sizing computation is based on the infiltration rate of 1.9 in/hr. 11. Operations and Maintenance An operation and maintenance schedule for the proposed stormwater facility and the BMPs, and the party responsible for maintenance is identified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in Appendix A. A completed copy of the O& M Declaration of Covenants form recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office and submitted to the Permit Assistance center is presented in Appendix I. 3 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 12323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) BERGLUND, SCHMIDT & ASSOCIATES , 1 N C . ►ROFFSSIONAt fNOINEFRS& LAND SVFtVEV019 Construction Stormwater General Permit Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for Chandler Pit Prepared for: The Washington State Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office Perm ittee/ Owner Developer Operator/ Contractor Northwest Rock, Inc. Northwest Rock, Inc. I Northwest Rock, Inc. Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) Name Organization Contact Phone Number Jason Messmer Northwest Rock (360) 533-3050 SWPPP Prepared By Name Organization Contact Phone Number Hari Sharma, P.E. Berglund, Schmidt & 360-532-7630 Associates, Inc. SWPPP Preparation Date August 25, 2016 Project Construction Dates Activity / Phase Start Date End Date Gravel Pit Excavation Currently Operating Based on Demand for Gravel Table of Contents 1 Project Information.............................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Proposed Construction Activities.................................................................................. 5 2 Construction Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs)........................................... 6 2.1 The 13 Elements.......................................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Element 1: Preserve Vegetation / Mark Clearing Limits ........................................ 6 2.1.2 Element 2: Establish Construction Access............................................................ 6 2.1.3 Element 3: Control Flow Rates ............................................................................. 6 2.1.4 Element 4: Install Sediment Controls .................................................................... 7 2.1.5 Element 5: Stabilize Soils ..................................................................................... 7 2.1.6 Element 6: Protect Slopes..................................................................................... 8 2.1.7 Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets ............................................................................. 8 2.1.8 Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets........................................................... 9 2.1.9 Element 9: Control Pollutants................................................................................ 9 2.1.10 Element 10: Control Dewatering ..........................................................................11 2.1.11 Element 11: Maintain BMPs.................................................................................11 2.1.12 Element 12: Manage the Project..........................................................................12 2.1.13 Element 13: Protect Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs .................................12 3 Pollution Prevention Team.................................................................................................13 4 Monitoring and Sampling Requirements NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE IS NO DISCHARGE FROM THIS SITE— NO NPDES PERMIT IS REQUIRED...................................13 4.1 Site Inspection — Not required.....................................................................................13 4.2 Stormwater Quality Sampling — Not required ..............................................................13 4.2.1 Turbidity Sampling — Not required........................................................................13 4.2.2 pH Sampling — Not required.................................................................................13 5 Discharges to 303(d) or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Waterbodies.........................13 5.1 303(d) Listed Waerbodies — N/A.................................................................................13 5.2 TMDL Waterbodies — N/A...........................................................................................13 6 Reporting and Record Keeping..........................................................................................13 6.1 Record Keeping..........................................................................................................13 6.1.1 Site Log Book ......................................................................................................13 6.1.2 Records Retention...............................................................................................14 6.1.3 Updating the SWPPP...........................................................................................14 6.2 Reporting....................................................................................................................14 6.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports..............................................................................14 6.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance..............................................................................14 Page 12 List of Tables Table 1 — Summary of Site Pollutant Constituents ..................................................................... 5 Table2— Pollutants ................................................................................................................... 9 Table3— pH-Modifying Sources...............................................................................................10 Table4— Management.............................................................................................................12 Table 5— BMP Implementation Schedule .................................................................................12 Table6—Team Information......................................................................................................13 List of Exhibits Exhibits/Glossary 1. BMP Detail 2. Correspondence 3. Site Inspection Form Page 13 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym /Abbreviation Explanation 303(d) Section of the Clean Water Act pertaining to Impaired Waterbodies BFO Bellingham Field Office of the Department of Ecology BMP(s) Best Management Practice(s) CESCL Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead CO2 Carbon Dioxide CRO Central Regional Office of the Department of Ecology CSWGP Construction Stormwater General Permit CWA Clean Water Act DMR Discharge Monitoring Report DO Dissolved Oxygen Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERO Eastern Regional Office of the Department of Ecology ERTS Environmental Report Tracking System ESC Erosion and Sediment Control GUILD General Use Level Designation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units NWRO Northwest Regional Office of the Department of Ecology pH Power of Hydrogen RCW Revised Code of Washington SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure su Standard Units SWMMEW Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington SWMMWW Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control SWRO Southwest Regional Office of the Department of Ecology TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load VFO Vancouver Field Office of the Department of Ecology WAC Washington Administrative Code WSDOT Washington Department of Transportation WWHM Western Washington Hydrology Model Page 14 1 Project Information Project/Site Name: Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit Street/Location: 41 W Beerbower Road City: Elma State: WA Zip code: 98541 Subdivision: N/A Receiving waterbody: N/A 1.1 Existing Conditions Total acreage (including support activities such as off-site equipment staging yards, material storage areas, borrow areas). Total acreage: 25.12 Acres Disturbed acreage: 23.66 Acres Existing structures: None Landscape topography: Trees, native vegetation Drainage patterns: Drains to Decker Creek Existing Vegetation: 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. Critical Areas (wetlands, streams, high erosion Existing steeper slopes will be removed during risk, steep or difficult to stabilize slopes): gravel extraction. No wetlands, streams, or high erosion risk List of known impairments for 303(d) listed or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the receiving waterbody: None Table 1 includes a list of suspected and/or known contaminants associated with the construction activity. Table 1 —Summary of Site Pollutant Constituents Constituent Location Depth Concentration (Pollutant) Dust Pit area Varies Unknown Silt-Laden Runoff Pit area Varies Unknown 1.2 Proposed Construction Activities Description of site development (example: subdivision): Excavation for rock/gravel. Description of construction activities (example: site preparation, demolition, excavation): Clearing and grubbing (site preparation), excavation during rock/gravel mining. Description of site drainage including flow from and onto adjacent properties. Must be consistent with Site Map in Appendix C of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: Page 15 Drainage will be contained into pit area. All runoff percolates through the gravel pit floor and recharges the ground water. Description of final stabilization (example: extent of revegetation, paving, landscaping): Revegetation with native vegetation. The subsequent usage of the site will be forestry. Contaminated Site Information: Proposed activities regarding contaminated soils or groundwater (example: on-site treatment system, authorized sanitary sewer discharge): This site is not a contaminated site. 2 Construction Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) NOTE: The SWPPP is a living document reflecting current conditions and changes throughout the life of the project. These changes may be informal (i.e., hand-written notes and deletions). Update the SWPPP when the CESCL has noted a deficiency in BMPs or deviation from original design. 2.1 The 13 Elements 2.1.1 Element 1: Preserve Vegetation / Mark Clearing Limits List and describe BMPs: High Visibility Fence, BMP C103, to mark the clearing limit. Installation Schedules: Ongoing Inspection and Maintenance plan: If the fence has been damaged or visibility reduced, it shall be repaired or replaced immediately and visibility restored. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager 2.1.2 Element 2: Establish Construction Access List and describe BMPs: Construction access routes are already in place. Erosion and sediment from access roads is controlled by covering the surface with gravel. Installation Schedules: N/A; existing road Inspection and Maintenance plan: Daily when the mine is in operation. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager 2.1.3 Element 3: Control Flow Rates Will you construct stormwater retention and/or detention facilities? ® Yes❑ No Will you use permanent infiltration ponds or other low impact development (example: rain gardens, bio-retention, porous pavement) to control flow during construction? Page 16 ® Yes❑ No List and describe BMPs: Treatment of storm water on this projects 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. Stormwater will not be directly or indirectly discharged to adjoining streams. The need for stream bank erosion control is not anticipated for this project. Installation Schedules: Ongoing as the gravel is extracted, the pond volume increases. Inspection and Maintenance plan: Daily when the mine is in operation. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager 2.1.4 Element 4: Install Sediment Controls List and describe BMPs: Silt Fencing will be used to intercept the sediment laden runoff before it enters the pond. Topsoil and hydroseed will be used to reclaim the pit. See expanded BMP C233 from the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Wester Washington, Volume ll, Chapter 4, Pages 367-375. This project will not divert any storm runoff onto adjacent properties. Through the use of approved erosion and sediment control methods as listed above, and temporary ditching to divert the runoff to the existing gravel pit, the adjacent properties and streams shall be protected from runoff from this site. Installation Schedules: Ongoing Inspection and Maintenance plan: • Repair any damage immediately. • Intercept and convey all evident concentrated flows uphill of the silt fence to a sed- iment pond. • Check the uphill side of the fence for signs of the fence clogging and acting as a barrier to flow and then causing channelization of flows parallel to the fence. If this occurs, replace the fence or remove the trapped sediment. • Remove sediment deposits when the deposit reaches approximately one-third the height of the silt fence, or install a second silt fence. • Replace filter fabric that has deteriorated due to ultraviolet breakdown. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager 2.1.5 Element 5: Stabilize Soils West of the Cascade Mountains Crest: Number of Days Soils Can Season Dates be Left Exposed During the Dry Season May 1 — September 30 7 days Page 17 During the Wet Season October 1 —April 30 1 2 days Stabilize stockpiled soil by hydroseeding upon completion of the top soil removal phase of the work. Stock pile soil will be placed in a winrow and silt fence will be installed on the downgradient side to prevent silt migration. Soils must be stabilized at the end of the shift before a holiday or weekend if needed based on the weather forecast. Anticipated project dates: Start date: Currently operating End date: Based on demand for gravel. Will you construct during the wet season? ® Yes❑ No List and describe BMPs: 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 hydroseeding. Areas that have reached final grade and will not be further worked shall be permanently stabilized as soon as possible. Installation Schedules: Ongoing Inspection and Maintenance plan: Daily when the mine is in operation. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager 2.1.6 Element 6: Protect Slopes Will steep slopes be present at the site during construction? ❑ Yes® No List and describe BMPs: Cut and fill slopes will change on a regular basis due to the nature of the surface mining activities. However, a stable slope will be maintained at all times during the mining operation. Upon completion of mining, the pit will be reclaimed per the Reclamation Plan attached as Appendix G of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Installation Schedules: Ongoing Inspection and Maintenance plan: Daily when the mine is in operation. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager 2.1.7 Element 7: Protect Drain Inlets The grass lined ditches will convey the surface runoff to the gravel pit. There will be no culverts or pipes at the site. List and describe BMPs: BMP 201 from the 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume ll, Chapter 4, Pages 333-335. (Listed in Exhibit 1: BMP Detail) Installation Schedules: Beginning of each phase of mining. Page 18 Inspection and Maintenance plan: During the establishment period, check grass-lined channels after every rainfall. • After grass is established, periodically check the channel; check it after every heavy rainfall event. Immediately make repairs. • It is particularly important to check the channel outlet and all road crossings for bank stability and evidence of piping or scour holes. • Remove all significant sediment accumulations to maintain the designed carrying capacity. Keep the grass in a healthy,vigorous condition at all times, since it is the primary erosion protection for the channel. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager 2.1.8 Element 8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets List and describe BMPs: This project will not divert any storm runoff into adjacent streams or properties. 100% of the surface runoff percolates and recharges the ground water. Installation Schedules: N/A Inspection and Maintenance plan: N/A Responsible Staff: N/A 2.1.9 Element 9: Control Pollutants The following pollutants are anticipated to be present on-site: Table 2 — Pollutants Pollutant (List pollutants and source, if applicable) Petroleum based oils Petroleum based grease Gasoline Diesel Fuel List and describe BMPs: Equipment used on this site shall be kept in reasonable maintenance and not leak any pollutants. Equipment must also be kept reasonabley 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. There are locked gates to this site to mitigate any vandalism. Installation Schedules: Ongoing Inspection and Maintenance plan: Daily when the mine is in operation. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager Will maintenance, fueling, and/or repair of heavy equipment and vehicles occur on-site? ® Yes❑ No Page 19 Absorbent oil pads will be used while working on equipment. There is a pickup truck with a 60 gallon fuel tank used on site under constant supervision. List and describe BMPs: As stated previously, equipment will be kept reasonabley 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. Installation Schedules: Ongoing Inspection and Maintenance plan: Daily when the mine is in operation. Responsible Staff: Kevin Noffsinger, Manager Will wheel wash or tire bath system BMPs be used during construction? ❑ Yes® No List and describe BMPs: N/A Installation Schedules: N/A Inspection and Maintenance plan: N/A Responsible Staff: N/A Will pH-modifying sources be present on-site? ❑ Yes® No If yes, check the source(s). Table 3— pH-Modifying Sources ❑ None ❑ Bulk cement ❑ Cement kiln dust ❑ Fly ash ❑ Other cementitious materials ❑ New concrete washing or curing waters ❑ Waste streams generated from concrete grinding and sawing ❑ Exposed aggregate processes ❑ Dewatering concrete vaults ❑ Concrete pumping and mixer washout waters ❑ Recycled concrete ❑ Rec cled concrete stockpiles ❑ Other (i.e., calcium lignosulfate) [please describe: ] List and describe BMPs: N/A Installation Schedules: N/A Inspection and Maintenance plan: N/A Responsible Staff: N/A Page 110 Will uncontaminated water from water-only based shaft drilling for construction of building, road, and bridge foundations be infiltrated provided the wastewater is managed in a way that prohibits discharge to surface waters? ❑ Yes® No List and describe BMPs: N/A Installation Schedules: N/A Inspection and Maintenance plan: N/A Responsible Staff: N/A 2.1.10 Element 10: Control Dewatering No dewatering required. List and describe BMPs: N/A Installation Schedules: N/A Inspection and Maintenance plan: N/A Responsible Staff: N/A 2.1.11 Element 11: Maintain BMPs All temporary and permanent Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) BMPs shall be maintained and repaired as needed to ensure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with each particular BMP specification (see Volume II of the SWMMWW or Chapter 7 of the SWMMEM. Visual monitoring of all BMPs installed at the site will be conducted at least once every calendar week and within 24 hours of any stormwater or non-stormwater discharge from the site. If the site becomes inactive and is temporarily stabilized, the inspection frequency may be reduced to once every calendar month. All temporary ESC BMPs shall be removed within 30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or after the temporary BMPs are no longer needed. Trapped sediment shall be stabilized on-site or removed. Disturbed soil resulting from removal of either BMPs or vegetation shall be permanently stabilized. Additionally, protection must be provided for all BMPs installed for the permanent control of stormwater from sediment and compaction. BMPs that are to remain in place following completion of construction shall be examined and restored to full operating condition. If sediment enters these BMPs during construction, the sediment shall be removed and the facility shall be returned to conditions specified in the construction documents. Page 111 2.1.12 Element 12: Manage the Project The project will be managed based on the following principles: • Projects will be phased to the maximum extent practicable and seasonal work limitations will be taken into account. • Inspection and monitoring: o Inspection, maintenance and repair of all BMPs will occur as needed to ensure performance of their intended function. o Site inspections and monitoring will be conducted in accordance with Special Condition S4 of the CSWGP. Sampling locations are indicated on the Site Map. Sampling station(s) are located in accordance with applicable requirements of the CSWGP. • Maintain an updated SWPPP. o The SWPPP will be updated, maintained, and implemented in accordance with Special Conditions S3, S4, and S9 of the CSWGP. As site work progresses the SWPPP will be modified routinely to reflect changing site conditions. The SWPPP will be reviewed monthly to ensure the content is current. Check all the management BMPs that apply at your site: Table 4—Management ® Design the project to fit the existing topography, soils, and drainage patterns ® Emphasize erosion control rather than sediment control ® Minimize the extent and duration of the area exposed ® Keep runoff velocities low ® Retain sediment on-site ® Thoroughly monitor site and maintain all ESC measures ❑ Schedule major earthwork during the dry season ® Other (please describe) — Divert all surface runoff to the pit and percolate to recharge the ground water. Table 5— BMP Implementation Schedule Phase of Construction Stormwater BMPs Date Wet/Dry Project Season Clearing/grubbing BMP C103 Ongoing Wet/Dry Gravel mining BMP C233 Ongoing Wet/Dry Site maintenance BMP C201 Ongoing Wet/Dry Reclamation BMP C125 & Hydroseed BMP Ongoing Wet/Dry 2.1.13 Element 13: Protect Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs Not applicable. Page 112 3 Pollution Prevention Team Table 6 — Team Information Title Name(s) Phone Number Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead Jason Messmer 360-533-3050 (CESCL) Resident Engineer Hari Sharma, PE 360-532-7630 Emergency Ecology Contact Chris Johnson 360-407-7194 Emergency Permittee/ 360-533-3050 Owner Contact Kevin Noffsinger 360-591-5994 Non-Emergency Owner Contact Kevin Noffsinger 360-533-3050 Monitoring Personnel Jason Messmer 360-533-3050 Ecology Regional Office Southwest Regional Office 360-407-6300 4 Monitoring and Sampling Requirements NOT APPLICABLE AS THERE IS NO DISCHARGE FROM THIS SITE - NO NPDES PERMIT IS REQUIRED 4.1 Site Inspection - Not required 4.2 Stormwater Quality Sampling - Not required 4.2.1 Turbidity Sampling - Not required 4.2.2 pH Sampling - Not required 5 Discharges to 303(d) or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Waterbodies 5.1 303(d) Listed Waerbodies - 5.2 TMDL Waterbodies - 6 Reporting and Record Keeping 6.1 Record Keeping 6.1.1 Site Log Book A site log book will be maintained for all on-site construction activities and will include: • A record of the implementation of the SWPPP and other permit requirements Page 113 • Site inspections • Sample logs 6.1.2 Records Retention Records will be retained during the life of the project and for a minimum of three (3) years following the termination of permit coverage in accordance with Special Condition S5.0 of the CSWGP. Permit documentation to be retained on-site: • CSWGP • Permit Coverage Letter • SWPPP • Site Log Book Permit documentation will be provided within 14 days of receipt of a written request from Ecology. A copy of the SWPPP or access to the SWPPP will be provided to the public when requested in writing in accordance with Special Condition S5.G.2.b of the CSWGP. 6.1.3 Updating the SWPPP The SWPPP will be modified if: • Found ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site. • There is a change in design, construction, operation, or maintenance at the construction site that has, or could have, a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the State. The SWPPP will be modified within seven (7) days if inspection(s) or investigation(s) determine additional or modified BMPs are necessary for compliance. An updated timeline for BMP implementation will be prepared. 6.2 Reporting 6.2.1 Discharge Monitoring Reports — No discharge but monitor the following Parameters: Oil sheen and pH of the ponded water per Table 2 of the Final Industrial Stormwater General Permit, January 2, 2015. 6.2.2 Notification of Noncompliance If any of the terms and conditions of the permit is not met, and the resulting noncompliance may cause a threat to human health or the environment, the following actions will be taken: 1. Ecology will be notified within 24-hours of the failure to comply by calling the applicable Regional office ERTS phone number (Regional office numbers listed below). 2. Immediate action will be taken to prevent the discharge/pollution or otherwise stop or correct the noncompliance. If applicable, sampling and analysis of any noncompliance Page 114 will be repeated immediately and the results submitted to Ecology within five (5) days of becoming aware of the violation. 3. A detailed written report describing the noncompliance will be submitted to Ecology within five (5) days, unless requested earlier by Ecology. Specific information to be included in the noncompliance report is found in Special Condition S5.F.3 of the CSWGP. Anytime turbidity sampling indicates turbidity is 250 NTUs or greater, or water transparency is 6 cm or less, the Ecology Regional office will be notified by phone within 24 hours of analysis as required by Special Condition S5.A of the CSWGP. • Central Region at (509) 575-2490 for Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Klickitat, Okanogan, or Yakima County • Eastern Region at (509) 329-3400 for Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Spokane, Stevens, Walla Walla, or Whitman County • Northwest Region at (425) 649-7000 for Island, King, Kitsap, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, or Whatcom County • Southwest Region at (360) 407-6300 for Clallam, Clark, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Lewis, Mason, Pacific, Pierce, Skamania, Thurston, or Wahkiakum Include the following information: 1. Your name and / Phone number 2. Permit number 3. City/ County of project 4. Sample results 5. Date/Time of call 6. Date/Time of sample 7. Project name In accordance with Special Condition S4.D.5.b of the CSWGP, the Ecology Regional office will be notified if chemical treatment other than CO2 sparging is planned for adjustment of high pH water. Page 115 Appendix/Glossary A. Site Map The site map that meets the requirements of Special Condition S9.E of the CSWGP is provided in Appendix C: Site Plans. B. BMP Detail BMPs are presented in Exhibit 1. C. Correspondence Correspondence is presented in Exhibit 2. D. Site Inspection Form A Site Inspection Form is presented in Exhibit 3. Pas= e 16 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit SWPPP EXHIBIT 1 BMP Detail Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 12323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) BMP C103: High Visibility Fence Purpose Fencing is intended to- 1 . Restrict clearing to approved limits. 2. Prevent disturbance of sensitive areas, their buffers, and other areas required to be left undisturbed. 3. Limit construction traffic to designated construction entrances, exits, or internal roads. 4. Protect areas where marking with survey tape may not provide adequate pro- tection. Conditions of Use To establish clearing limits plastic or metal fence may be used: • At the boundary of sensitive areas, their buffers, and other areas required to be left uncleared. • As necessary to control vehicle access to and on the site. Design and Installation Specifications High visibility plastic fence shall be composed of a high-density polyethylene material and shall be at least four feet in height. Posts for the fencing shall be steel or wood and placed every 6 feet on center(maximum) or as needed to ensure rigidity. The fencing shall be fastened to the post every six inches with a polyethylene tie. On long continuous lengths of fencing, a tension wire or rope shall be used as a top stringer to prevent sagging between posts.The fence color shall be high visibility orange. The fence tensile strength shall be 360 lbs./ft. using the ASTM D4595 testing method. Metal fences shall be designed and installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. Metal fences shall be at least 3 feet high and must be highly visible. Fences shall not be wired or stapled to trees. Maintenance Standards If the fence has been damaged or visibility reduced, it shall be repaired or replaced immediately and visibility restored. BMP C120: Temporary and Permanent Seeding Purpose Seeding reduces erosion by stabilizing exposed soils. A well-established vegetative cover is one of the most effective methods of reducing erosion. Conditions of Use Use seeding throughout the project on disturbed areas that have reached final grade or that will remain unworked for more than 30 days. The optimum seeding windows forwestern Washington are April 1 through June 30 and September 1 through October 1. Between July 1 and August 30 seeding requires irrigation until 75 percent grass cover is established. Between October 1 and March 30 seeding requires a cover of mulch with straw or an erosion control blanket until 75 percent grass cover is established. Review all disturbed areas in late August to early September and complete all seeding by the end of September. Otherwise, vegetation will not establish itself enough to provide more than average protection. • Mulch is required at all times for seeding because it protects seeds from heat, mois- ture loss, and transport due to runoff. Mulch can be applied on top of the seed or simultaneously by hydroseeding. See BMPC121:Mulching(P.284)for spe- cifications. • Seed and mulch, all disturbed areas not otherwise vegetated at final site sta- bilization. Final stabilization means the completion of all soil disturbing activities at the site and the establishment of a permanent vegetative cover, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as pavement, riprap, gabions, or geotextiles) which will prevent erosion. Design and Installation Specifications Seed retention/detention ponds as required. Install channels intended for vegetation before starting major earthwork and hydroseed with a Bonded Fiber Matrix. For vegetated channels that will have high flows, install erosion control blankets over hydroseed. Before allowing water to flow in vegetated channels, establish 75 percent vegetation cover. If vegetated channels cannot be estab- lished by seed before water flow; install sod in the channel bottom—over hydromulch and erosion control blankets. • Confirm the installation of all required surface water control measures to prevent seed from washing away. • Hydroseed applications shall include a minimum of 1,500 pounds per acre of mulch with 3 percent tackifier. See BMPC121:Mulching(p.284)for specifications. • Areas that will have seeding only and not landscaping may need compost or meal- based mulch included in the hydroseed in order to establish vegetation. Re-install native topsoil on the disturbed soil surface before application. • When installing seed via hydroseeding operations, only about 1/3 of the seed actually ends up in contact with the soil surface. This reduces the ability to establish a good stand of grass quickly. To overcome this, consider increasing seed quantities by up to 50 percent. • Enhance vegetation establishment by dividing the hydromulch operation into two phases: 1. Phase 1- Install all seed and fertilizer with 25-30 percent mulch and tackifier onto soil in the first lift. 2. Phase 2- Install the rest of the mulch and tackifier over the first lift. Or, enhance vegetation by: 1. Installing the mulch, seed, fertilizer, and tackifier in one lift. 2. Spread or blow straw over the top of the hydromulch at a rate of 800-1000 pounds per acre. 3. Hold straw in place with a standard tackifier. Both of these approaches will increase cost moderately but will greatly improve and enhance vegetative establishment. The increased cost may be offset by the reduced need for: • Irrigation. • Reapplication of mulch. • Repair of failed slope surfaces. This technique works with standard hydromulch (1,500 pounds per acre minimum) and BFM/MBFMs (3,000 pounds per acre minimum). • Seed may be installed by hand if: • Temporary and covered by straw, mulch, or topsoil. • Permanent in small areas (usually less than 1 acre) and covered with mulch, topsoil, or erosion blankets. • The seed mixes listed in the tables below include recommended mixes for both temporary and permanent seeding. • Apply these mixes,with the exception of the wetland mix, at a rate of 120 pounds per acre. This rate can be reduced if soil amendments or slow- release fertilizers are used. • Consult the local suppliers or the local conservation district for their recom- mendations because the appropriate mix depends on a variety of factors, including location, exposure, soil type, slope, and expected foot traffic. Altern- ative seed mixes approved by the local authority may be used. • Other mixes may be appropriate, depending on the soil type and hydrology of the area. • Tablell-4.1 .2TemporaryErosionControlSeedMix(p.280) lists the standard mix for areas requiring a temporary vegetative cover. Table 11-4.1.2 Temporary Erosion Control Seed Mix % Weigh % Purity% Germination Chewings or annual blue grass 40 98 90 Festuca rubra var. commutate or Poa anna Perennial rye 50 98 90 Lolium perenne Redtop or colonial bentgrass 5 92 85 Agrostis alba or Agrostis tenuis White dutch clover 5 98 90 Trifolium repens • Tablell-4.1 .3LandscapingSeedMix(p.281) lists a recommended mix for land- scaping seed. Table II-4.1.3 Landscaping Seed Mix % Weigh % Purity% Germination Perennial rye blend 70 98 90 Lolium perenne Chewings and red fescue blend 30 98 90 Festuca rubra var commutata or Festuca rubra • Tablell-4.1 .4Low-GrowingTurfSeedMix(P.281) lists a turf seed mix for dry situ- ations where there is no need for watering. This mix requires very little main- tenance. Table II-4.1.4 Low-Growing Turf Seed Mix % Weigh % Purity% Germination Dwarf tall fescue (several varieties) 45 98 90 Festuca arundinacea var. Dwarf perennial rye (Barclay) 30 98 90 Lolium perenne var. barclay Red fescue 20 98 90 Festuca rubra Colonial bentgrass 5 98 90 Agrostis tenuis • Tablell-4.1 .5BioswaleSeedMix*(P.281) lists a mix for bioswales and other inter- mittently wet areas. Table II-4.1.5 Bioswale Seed Mix* % Weight % Purity % Germination Tall or meadow fescue Festuca arundinacea or Festuca ela- 75-80 98 90 tior Seaside/Creeping bentgrass 10-15 92 85 Agrostis palustris Redtop bentgrass 5-10 90 80 Agrostis alba or Agrostis gigantea * Modified Briargreen, Inc. Hydroseeding Guide Wetlands Seed Mix • TableI1-4.1 .6WetArea Seed Mix*(p.282) lists a low-growing, relatively non-invas- ive seed mix appropriate for very wet areas that are not regulated wetlands. Apply this mixture at a rate of 60 pounds per acre. Consult Hydraulic Permit Authority (HPA) for seed mixes if applicable. Table II-4.1.6 Wet Area Seed Mix* % Weight % Purity % Germination Tall or meadow fescue Festuca arundinacea or Festuca ela- 60-70 98 90 tior Seaside/Creeping bentgrass 10-15 98 85 Agrostis palustris Meadow foxtail 10-15 90 80 Alepocurus pratensis Alsike clover 1-6 98 90 Trifolium hybridum Redtop bentgrass 1-6 92 85 Agrostis alba * Modified Briargreen, Inc. Hydroseeding Guide Wetlands Seed Mix • Tablell-4.1.7MeadowSeedMix(P.282) lists a recommended meadow seed mix for infrequently maintained areas or non-maintained areas where colonization by native plants is desirable. Likely applications include rural road and utility right-of- way. Seeding should take place in September or very early October in order to obtain adequate establishment prior to the winter months. Consider the appro- priateness of clover, a fairly invasive species, in the mix. Amending the soil can reduce the need for clover. Table 11-4.1.7 Meadow Seed Mix % Weigh % Purity% Germination Redtop or Oregon bentgrass 20 92 85 Agrostis alba or Agrostis oregonensis Red fescue 70 98 90 Festuca rubra White dutch clover 10 98 90 Trifolium repens • Roughening and Rototilling: • The seedbed should be firm and rough. Roughen all soil no matter what the slope. Track walk slopes before seeding if engineering purposes require compaction. Backblading or smoothing of slopes greater than 4H:1 V is not allowed if they are to be seeded. • Restoration-based landscape practices require deeper incorporation than that provided by a simple single-pass rototilling treatment.Wherever prac- tical, initially rip the subgrade to improve long-term permeability, infiltration, and water inflow qualities.At a minimum, permanent areas shall use soil amendments to achieve organic matter and permeability performance defined in engineered soil/landscape systems. For systems that are deeper than 8 inches complete the rototilling process in multiple lifts, or prepare the engineered soil system per specifications and place to achieve the specified depth. • Fertilizers: • Conducting soil tests to determine the exact type and quantity of fertilizer is recommended. This will prevent the over-application of fertilizer. • Organic matter is the most appropriate form of fertilizer because it provides nutrients (including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) in the least water- soluble form. • In general, use 10-4-6 N-P-K (nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium)fertilizer at a rate of 90 pounds per acre. Always use slow-release fertilizers because they are more efficient and have fewer environmental impacts. Do not add fer- tilizer to the hydromulch machine, or agitate, more than 20 minutes before use. Too much agitation destroys the slow-release coating. • There are numerous products available that take the place of chemical fer- tilizers. These include several with seaweed extracts that are beneficial to soil microbes and organisms. If 100 percent cottonseed meal is used as the mulch in hydroseed, chemical fertilizer may not be necessary. Cottonseed meal provides a good source of long-term, slow-release, available nitrogen. • Bonded Fiber Matrix and Mechanically Bonded Fiber Matrix: • On steep slopes use Bonded Fiber Matrix (BFM) or Mechanically Bonded Fiber Matrix (MBFM) products. Apply BFM/MBFM products at a minimum rate of 3,000 pounds per acre of mulch with approximately 10 percent tackifier. Achieve a minimum of 95 percent soil coverage during application. Numer- ous products are available commercially. Installed products per man- ufacturer's instructions. Most products require 24-36 hours to cure before rainfall and cannot be installed on wet or saturated soils. Generally, products come in 40-50 pound bags and include all necessary ingredients except for seed and fertilizer. • BFMs and MBFMs provide good alternatives to blankets in most areas requir- ing vegetation establishment. Advantages over blankets include: • BFM and MBFMs do not require surface preparation. • Helicopters can assist in installing BFM and MBFMs in remote areas. • On slopes steeper than 2.5H:1V, blanket installers may require ropes and harnesses for safety. • Installing BFM and MBFMs can save at least$1 ,000 per acre com- pared to blankets. Maintenance Standards Reseed any seeded areas that fail to establish at least 80 percent cover(100 percent cover for areas that receive sheet or concentrated flows). If reseeding is ineffective, use an alternate method such as sodding, mulching, or nets/blankets. If winter weather pre- vents adequate grass growth, this time limit may be relaxed at the discretion of the local authority when sensitive areas would otherwise be protected. • Reseed and protect by mulch any areas that experience erosion after achieving adequate cover. Reseed and protect by mulch any eroded area. • Supply seeded areas with adequate moisture, but do not water to the extent that it causes runoff. Approved as Equivalent Ecology has approved products as able to meet the requirements of BMPC120:Tem- poraryandPermanentSeeding. The products did not pass through the Technology Assessment Protocol — Ecology(TAPE) process. Local jurisdictions may choose not to accept this product approved as equivalent, or may require additional testing prior to con- sideration for local use. The products are available for review on Ecology's website at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/newtech/eciuivalent.htmi. BMP C125: Topsoiling / Composting Purpose Topsoiling and composting provide a suitable growth medium for final site stabilization with vegetation.While not a permanent cover practice in itself, topsoiling and com- posting are an integral component of providing permanent cover in those areas where there is an unsuitable soil surface for plant growth. Use this BMP in conjunction with other BMPs such as seeding, mulching, or sodding. Note that this BMP is functionally the same as BMPT5.13:Post-ConstructionSoilQualityand Depth(p.911)which is required for all disturbed areas that will be developed as lawn or landscaped areas at the completed project site. Native soils and disturbed soils that have been organically amended not only retain much more stormwater, but they also serve as effective biofilters for urban pollutants and, by supporting more vigorous plant growth, reduce the water, fertilizer and pesticides needed to support installed landscapes. Topsoil does not include any subsoils but only the material from the top several inches including organic debris. Conditions of Use • Permanent landscaped areas shall contain healthy topsoil that reduces the need for fertilizers, improves overall topsoil quality, provides for better vegetal health and vitality, improves hydrologic characteristics, and reduces the need for irrigation. • Leave native soils and the duff layer undisturbed to the maximum extent prac- ticable. Stripping of existing, properly functioning soil system and vegetation for the purpose of topsoiling during construction is not acceptable. Preserve existing soil systems in undisturbed and uncompacted conditions if functioning properly. • Areas that already have good topsoil, such as undisturbed areas, do not require soil amendments. • Restore, to the maximum extent practical, native soils disturbed during clearing and grading to a condition equal to or better than the original site condition's mois- ture-holding capacity. Use on-site native topsoil, incorporate amendments into on- site soil, or import blended topsoil to meet this requirement. • Topsoiling is a required procedure when establishing vegetation on shallow soils, and soils of critically low pH (high acid) levels. • Beware of where the topsoil comes from, and what vegetation was on site before disturbance, invasive plant seeds may be included and could cause problems for establishing native plants, landscaped areas, or grasses. • Topsoil from the site will contain mycorrhizal bacteria that are necessary for healthy root growth and nutrient transfer.These native mycorrhiza are acclimated to the site and will provide optimum conditions for establishing grasses. Use com- mercially available mycorrhiza products when using off-site topsoil. Design and Installation Specifications Meet the following requirements for disturbed areas that will be developed as lawn or landscaped areas at the completed project site: • Maximize the depth of the topsoil wherever possible to provide the maximum pos- sible infiltration capacity and beneficial growth medium. Topsoil shall have: • A minimum depth of 8-inches. Scarify subsoils below the topsoil layer at least 4-inches with some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified lay- ers, where feasible. Ripping or re-structuring the subgrade may also provide additional benefits regarding the overall infiltration and interflow dynamics of the soil system. • A minimum organic content of 10% dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content in turf areas. Incorporate organic amendments to a minimum 8-inch depth except where tree roots or other natural features limit the depth of incorporation. • A pH between 6.0 and 8.0 or matching the pH of the undisturbed soil. • If blended topsoil is imported, then fines should be limited to 25 percent passing through a 200 sieve. • Mulch planting beds with 2 inches of organic material • Accomplish the required organic content, depth, and pH by returning native topsoil to the site, importing topsoil of sufficient organic content, and/or incorporating organic amendments.When using the option of incorporating amendments to meet the organic content requirement, use compost that meets the compost specification for Bioretention (See BMPT7.30:BioretentionCells,Swales,andPlanterBoxes (p 959)), with the exception that the compost may have up to 35% biosolids or manure. • Sections three through seven of the document entitled, Guidelines and Resources for Implementing Soil Quality and Depth BMP T5.13 in WDOE Stormwater Man- agement Manual for Western Washington, provides useful guidance for imple- menting whichever option is chosen. It includes guidance for pre-approved default strategies and guidance for custom strategies. Check with your local jurisdiction concerning its acceptance of this guidance. It is available through the organization, Soils for Salmon. As of this printing the document may be found at: http://www.soils- forsalmon.org/pdf/Soil BMP Manual.pdf. • The final composition and construction of the soil system will result in a natural selection or favoring of certain plant species over time. For example, incorporation of topsoil may favor grasses, while layering with mildly acidic, high-carbon amend- ments may favor more woody vegetation. • Allow sufficient time in scheduling for topsoil spreading prior to seeding, sodding, or planting. • Take care when applying top soil to subsoils with contrasting textures. Sandy top- soil over clayey subsoil is a particularly poor combination, as water creeps along the junction between the soil layers and causes the topsoil to slough. If topsoil and subsoil are not properly bonded, water will not infiltrate the soil profile evenly and it will be difficult to establish vegetation. The best method to prevent a lack of bond- ing is to actually work the topsoil into the layer below for a depth of at least 6 inches. • Field exploration of the site shall be made to determine if there is surface soil of suf- ficient quantity and quality to justify stripping. Topsoil shall be friable and loamy (loam, sandy loam, silt loam, sandy clay loam, and clay loam). Avoid areas of nat- ural ground water recharge. • Stripping shall be confined to the immediate construction area. A 4-inch to 6- inch stripping depth is common, but depth may vary depending on the particular soil. All surface runoff control structures shall be in place prior to stripping. • Do not place topsoil while in a frozen or muddy condition, when the subgrade is excessively wet, or when conditions exist that may otherwise be detrimental to proper grading or proposed sodding or seeding. • In any areas requiring grading remove and stockpile the duff layer and topsoil on site in a designated, controlled area, not adjacent to public resources and critical areas. Stockpiled topsoil is to be reapplied to other portions of the site where feas- ible. • Locate the topsoil stockpile so that it meets specifications and does not interfere with work on the site. It may be possible to locate more than one pile in proximity to areas where topsoil will be used. • Stockpiling of topsoil shall occur in the following manner: • Side slopes of the stockpile shall not exceed 2H:1 V. • Between October 1 and April 30: • An interceptor dike with gravel outlet and silt fence shall surround all topsoil. • Within 2 days complete erosion control seeding, or covering stockpiles with clear plastic, or other mulching materials. • Between May 1 and September30: • An interceptor dike with gravel outlet and silt fence shall surround all topsoil if the stockpile will remain in place for a longer period of time than active construction grading. • Within 7 days complete erosion control seeding, or covering stockpiles with clear plastic, or other mulching materials. • When native topsoil is to be stockpiled and reused the following should apply to ensure that the mycorrhizal bacterial, earthworms, and other beneficial organisms will not be destroyed: 1. Re-install topsoil within 4 to 6 weeks. 2. Do not allow the saturation of topsoil with water. 3. Do not use plastic covering. Maintenance Standards • Inspect stockpiles regularly, especially after large storm events. Stabilize any areas that have eroded. • Establish soil quality and depth toward the end of construction and once estab- lished, protect from compaction, such as from large machinery use, and from erosion. • Plant and mulch soil after installation. • Leave plant debris or its equivalent on the soil surface to replenish organic matter. • Reduce and adjust,where possible, the use of irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, rather than continuing to implement formerly established practices. BMP C201 : Grass-Lined Channels Purpose To provide a channel with a vegetative lining for conveyance of runoff. See FiQurell- 4.2.1Typica[Grass-LinedChannels(p.336)for typical grass-lined channels. Conditions of Use This practice applies to construction sites where concentrated runoff needs to be con- tained to prevent erosion or flooding. • When a vegetative lining can provide sufficient stability for the channel cross sec- tion and at lower velocities of water(normally dependent on grade). This means that the channel slopes are generally less than 5 percent and space is available for a relatively large cross section. • Typical uses include roadside ditches, channels at property boundaries, outlets for diversions, and other channels and drainage ditches in low areas. • Channels that will be vegetated should be installed before major earthwork and hydroseeded with a bonded fiber matrix (BFM). The vegetation should be well established (i.e., 75 percent cover) before water is allowed to flow in the ditch. With channels that will have high flows, erosion control blankets should be installed over the hydroseed. If vegetation cannot be established from seed before water is allowed in the ditch, sod should be installed in the bottom of the ditch in lieu of hydromulch and blankets. Design and Installation Specifications Locate the channel where it can conform to the topography and other features such as roads. • Locate them to use natural drainage systems to the greatest extent possible. • Avoid sharp changes in alignment or bends and changes in grade. • Do not reshape the landscape to fit the drainage channel. • The maximum design velocity shall be based on soil conditions, type of vegetation, and method of revegetation, but at no times shall velocity exceed 5 feet/second. The channel shall not be overtopped by the peak volumetric flow rate calculated using a 10-minute time step from a 10-year, 24-hour storm, assuming a Type 1A rainfall distribution. Alternatively, use 1.6 times the 10-year, 1-hour flow indicated by an approved continuous runoff model to determine a flow rate which the chan- nel must contain. • Where the grass-lined channel will also function as a permanent stormwater con- veyance facility, consult the drainage conveyance requirements of the local gov- ernment with jurisdiction. • An established grass or vegetated lining is required before the channel can be used to convey stormwater, unless stabilized with nets or blankets. • If design velocity of a channel to be vegetated by seeding exceeds 2 ft/sec, a tem- porary channel liner is required. Geotextile or special mulch protection such as fiberglass roving or straw and netting provides stability until the vegetation is fully established. See Figurell-4.2.2TemporaryChannelLiners(p.337). • Check dams shall be removed when the grass has matured sufficiently to protect the ditch or swale unless the slope of the swale is greater than 4 percent. The area beneath the check dams shall be seeded and mulched immediately after dam removal. • If vegetation is established by sodding, the permissible velocity for established vegetation may be used and no temporary liner is needed. • Do not subject grass-lined channel to sedimentation from disturbed areas. Use sed- invent-trapping BMPs upstream of the channel. • V-shaped grass channels generally apply where the quantity of water is small, such as in short reaches along roadsides. The V-shaped cross section is least desirable because it is difficult to stabilize the bottom where velocities may be high. • Trapezoidal grass channels are used where runoff volumes are large and slope is low so that velocities are nonerosive to vegetated linings. (Note: it is difficult to construct small parabolic shaped channels.) • Subsurface drainage, or riprap channel bottoms, may be necessary on sites that are subject to prolonged wet conditions due to long duration flows or a high water table. • Provide outlet protection at culvert ends and at channel intersections. • Grass channels, at a minimum, should carry peak runoff for temporary construction drainage facilities from the 10-year, 24-hour storm without eroding.Where flood hazard exists, increase the capacity according to the potential damage. • Grassed channel side slopes generally are constructed 3H:1 V or flatter to aid in the establishment of vegetation and for maintenance. • Construct channels a minimum of 0.2 foot larger around the periphery to allow for soil bulking during seedbed preparations and sod buildup. Maintenance Standards During the establishment period, check grass-lined channels after every rainfall. • After grass is established, periodically check the channel; check it after every heavy rainfall event. Immediately make repairs. • It is particularly important to check the channel outlet and all road crossings for bank stability and evidence of piping or scour holes. • Remove all significant sediment accumulations to maintain the designed carrying capacity. Keep the grass in a healthy, vigorous condition at all times, since it is the primary erosion protection for the channel. Figure 11-4.2.1 Typical Grass-Lined Channels Typical V-Shaped Channel Cross-Section With Rock \\ Center (150-225mm) Key in Fabric Grass-Lined Fitter Fabric Typical Parabolic Channel Cross-Section With Rock Center for Base Flow \>�i�/A/��\7�A (150-225mm) With Channel /` Key in Fabric \; Filter Fabric Liner Typical Trapezoidal Channel Cross-Section Design Depth 1 Overcut channel 2'(50mm)to allow bulking during seedbed preparation \lam and growth of vegetation. With Rock Center Filter Fabric for Base Flow NOT TO SCALE Figure II-4.2.1 Typical Grass-Lined Channels DEPARTMENT OF Revised June 2015 ECOLOGY Please see h .Yrwww.ec .wa. v/co ri dP y go py ght.htmlfor copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability,and disclaimer. Figure 11-4.2.2 Temporary Channel Liners Overlap 6" (150mm)minimum Y :�a Excavate channel to design grade and cross section Longitudinal Design Depth / anchor trench Overcut channel 2'(50mm)to allow bulking during seedbed preparation Typical installation with :*.f. erosion control blankets M/6 or turf reinforcement mats 6" Intermittent Check Slot Longitudinal Anchor Trench Shingle-lap spliced ends or begin new roll in an intermittent check slot Prepare soil and apply seed before OJ installing blankets,mats,or other u_ temporary channel liner system M Notes: 1. Design velocities exceeding 2 fUsec(0.5 l m/sec)require temporary blankets,mats, or similar liners to protect seed and soil until vegetation becomes established. 2. Grass-lined channels with design velocities exceeding 6 fttsec(2 m/sec)should include turf reinforcement mats. NOT TO SCALE Figure II-4.2.2 Temporary Channel Liners DEPARTMENT OF Revised July2015 ECOLOGY Please see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ccpynght.htm1 for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability,and disclaimer. BMP C233: Silt Fence Purpose Use of a silt fence reduces the transport of coarse sediment from a construction site by providing a temporary physical barrier to sediment and reducing the runoff velocities of overland flow. See Figurell-4.2.12SiltFence(p.369)for details on silt fence construction. Conditions of Use Silt fence may be used downslope of all disturbed areas. • Silt fence shall prevent soil carried by runoff water from going beneath, through, or over the top of the silt fence, but shall allow the water to pass through the fence. • Silt fence is not intended to treat concentrated flows, nor is it intended to treat sub- stantial amounts of overland flow. Convey any concentrated flows through the drainage system to a sediment pond. • Do not construct silt fences in streams or use in V-shaped ditches. Silt fences do not provide an adequate method of silt control for anything deeper than sheet or overland flow. Figure II-4.2.12 Silt Fence Joints in filter fabric shall be spliced at posts.Use staples,wire rings or equivalent to attach fabric to posts 2'k2"by 14 Ga.wire or equivalent, if standard strength fabric used rr-------- rr II II Minimum I 8'max I 4'k4"trench I � I u Post spacing may be increased to 8'if wire backing is used fence 2' p wood posts,steel posts,or equivalent 7'x2"by 14 Ga.wire or equivalent, if standard strength fabric used y\\\ l Filter fabric -T 7 min BackIll trench native soil or 34"- ///�/\ 1.5"washed gravel y 12-mtn �/\\\//\�r�� Minimum \y \\/ 4'k4"trench 7'x7'wood posts,steel fence posts,or equivalent NOT TO SCALE VWFigure II-4.2.12 Silt Fence DEPARTMENT OF Revised October 2014 ECOLOGY Please see http://Nnvw.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability,and disclaimer. Design and Installation Specifications • Use in combination with sediment basins or other BMPs. • Maximum slope steepness (normal (perpendicular) to fence line) 1 H:1 V. • Maximum sheet or overland flow path length to the fence of 100 feet. • Do not allow flows greater than 0.5 cfs. • The geotextile used shall meet the following standards. All geotextile properties listed below are minimum average roll values (i.e., the test result for any sampled roll in a lot shall meet or exceed the values shown in Tablell-4.2.3Geotextile Standards(P.370)): Table II-4.2.3 Geotextile Standards Polymeric Mesh AOS 0.60 mm maximum for slit film woven (#30 sieve). (ASTM D4751) 0.30 mm maximum for all other geotextile types (#50 sieve). 0.15 mm minimum for all fabric types (#100 sieve). Water Permittivity 0.02 sec-1 minimum (ASTM D4491) Grab Tensile Strength 180 lbs. Minimum for extra strength fabric. (ASTM D4632) 100 Ibs minimum for standard strength fabric. Grab Tensile Strength 30% maximum (ASTM D4632) Ultraviolet Resistance 70% minimum (ASTM D4355) • Support standard strength fabrics with wire mesh, chicken wire, 2-inch x 2-inch wire, safety fence, or jute mesh to increase the strength of the fabric. Silt fence materials are available that have synthetic mesh backing attached. • Filter fabric material shall contain ultraviolet ray inhibitors and stabilizers to provide a minimum of six months of expected usable construction life at a temperature range of 0°F. to 120°F. • One-hundred percent biodegradable silt fence is available that is strong, long last- ing, and can be left in place after the project is completed, if permitted by local reg- ulations. • Refer to Figurell-4.2.12SiltFence(p.369)for standard silt fence details. Include the following standard Notes for silt fence on construction plans and specifications: 1. The contractor shall install and maintain temporary silt fences at the locations shown in the Plans. 2. Construct silt fences in areas of clearing, grading, or drainage prior to starting those activities. 3. The silt fence shall have a 2-feet min. and a 2'/z-feet max. height above the original ground surface. 4. The filter fabric shall be sewn together at the point of manufacture to form fil- ter fabric lengths as required. Locate all sewn seams at support posts. Altern- atively, two sections of silt fence can be overlapped, provided the Contractor can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Engineer, that the overlap is long enough and that the adjacent fence sections are close enough together to prevent silt laden water from escaping through the fence at the overlap. 5. Attach the filter fabric on the up-slope side of the posts and secure with staples,wire, or in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Attach the filter fabric to the posts in a manner that reduces the potential for tearing. 6. Support the filter fabric with wire or plastic mesh, dependent on the properties of the geotextile selected for use. If wire or plastic mesh is used, fasten the mesh securely to the up-slope side of the posts with the filter fabric up-slope of the mesh. 7. Mesh support, if used, shall consist of steel wire with a maximum mesh spa- cing of 2-inches, or a prefabricated polymeric mesh. The strength of the wire or polymeric mesh shall be equivalent to or greater than 180 lbs. grab tensile strength. The polymeric mesh must be as resistant to the same level of ultra- violet radiation as the filter fabric it supports. 8. Bury the bottom of the filter fabric 4-inches min. below the ground surface. Backfill and tamp soil in place over the buried portion of the filter fabric, so that no flow can pass beneath the fence and scouring cannot occur. When wire or polymeric back-up support mesh is used, the wire or polymeric mesh shall extend into the ground 3-inches min. 9. Drive or place the fence posts into the ground 18-inches min. A 12—inch min. depth is allowed if topsoil or other soft subgrade soil is not present and 18- inches cannot be reached. Increase fence post min. depths by 6 inches if the fence is located on slopes of 3H:1 V or steeper and the slope is perpendicular to the fence. If required post depths cannot be obtained, the posts shall be adequately secured by bracing or guying to prevent overturning of the fence due to sediment loading. 10. Use wood, steel or equivalent posts. The spacing of the support posts shall be a maximum of 6-feet. Posts shall consist of either: • Wood with dimensions of 2-inches by 2-inches wide min. and a 3-feet min. length. Wood posts shall be free of defects such as knots, splits, or gouges. • No. 6 steel rebar or larger. • ASTM A 120 steel pipe with a minimum diameter of 1-inch. • U, T, L, or C shape steel posts with a minimum weight of 1.35 lbs./ft. • Other steel posts having equivalent strength and bending resistance to the post sizes listed above. 11. Locate silt fences on contour as much as possible, except at the ends of the fence, where the fence shall be turned uphill such that the silt fence captures the runoff water and prevents water from flowing around the end of the fence. 12. If the fence must cross contours,with the exception of the ends of the fence, place gravel check dams perpendicular to the back of the fence to minimize concentrated flow and erosion. The slope of the fence line where contours must be crossed shall not be steeper than 3H:1 V. • Gravel check dams shall be approximately 1-foot deep at the back of the fence. Gravel check dams shall be continued perpendicular to the fence at the same elevation until the top of the check dam intercepts the ground surface behind the fence. • Gravel check dams shall consist of crushed surfacing base course, gravel backfill for walls, or shoulder ballast. Gravel check dams shall be located every 10 feet along the fence where the fence must cross contours. • Refer to Figure II-4.2.13 Silt Fence Installation by Slicing Method (p.374) for slicing method details. Silt fence installation using the slicing method specifications: 1 . The base of both end posts must be at least 2-to 4-inches above the top of the filter fabric on the middle posts for ditch checks to drain properly. Use a hand level or string level, if necessary, to mark base points before install- ation. 2. Install posts 3-to 4-feet apart in critical retention areas and 6-to 7-feet apart in standard applications. 3. Install posts 24-inches deep on the downstream side of the silt fence, and as close as possible to the filter fabric, enabling posts to support the filter fabric from upstream water pressure. 4. Install posts with the nipples facing away from the filter fabric. 5. Attach the filter fabric to each post with three ties, all spaced within the top 8- inches of the filter fabric. Attach each tie diagonally 45 degrees through the fil- ter fabric, with each puncture at least 1-inch vertically apart. Each tie should be positioned to hang on a post nipple when tightening to prevent sagging. 6. Wrap approximately 6-inches of fabric around the end posts and secure with 3 ties. 7. No more than 24-inches of a 36-inch filter fabric is allowed above ground level. Compact the soil immediately next to the filter fabric with the front wheel of the tractor, skid steer, or roller exerting at least 60 pounds per square inch. Compact the upstream side first and then each side twice for a total of four trips. Check and correct the silt fence installation for any deviation before compaction. Use a flat-bladed shovel to tuck fabric deeper into the ground if necessary. Figure II-4.2.13 Silt Fence Installation by Slicing Method Ponding height max.24" POST SPACING: T max.on open runs Attach fabric to 4'max.on pooling areas Top of Fabric ` upstream side of post Ii Belt FLOW—^ J POST DEPTH: top 8.. Drive over each side of As much below ground silt fence 2 to 4 times as fabric above ground with device exerting 60 p.s.i.or greater Diagonal attachment 100%compaction 100%compaction doubles strength I I rI I g Attachment Details: CL • Gather fabric at posts,if needed. • Utilize three ties per post,all within top 8" -j V of fabric. • Position each tie diagonally,puncturing holes vertically a minimum of 1"apart. • Hang each be on a post nipple and tighten No more than 24"of a 36" securely.Use cable ties(50 Ibs)or soft fabric is allowed above ground wire. +Operation Rdl of silt fence Post installed Fabric after above compaction Oground Silt Fence — — 200- _ 300mm III- Horizontal chisel point Slicing blade (76 mm width) (18 mm width) Completed Installation Vibratory plow is not acceptable because of horizontal compaction NOT TO SCALE Figure II-4.2.13 Silt Fence Installation by Slicing Method DEPARTMENT OF Revised November2015 ECOLOGY Please see 1ttp.1Avww.ecy wa.gov/ccpyrig1tJtm1 for copyright notice including permissions, State of Washington limitation of liability,and disclaimer. Maintenance Standards • Repair any damage immediately. • Intercept and convey all evident concentrated flows uphill of the silt fence to a sediment pond. • Check the uphill side of the fence for signs of the fence clogging and acting as a barrier to flow and then causing channelization of flows parallel to the fence. If this occurs, replace the fence or remove the trapped sediment. • Remove sediment deposits when the deposit reaches approximately one-third the height of the silt fence, or install a second silt fence. • Replace filter fabric that has deteriorated due to ultraviolet breakdown. 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit SWPPP EXHIBIT 2 Correspondence Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 12323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) Mason County Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Checklist Project Name: County Project No, Review Date: Construction SWPPP Reviewer: Minimum Requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual The Stormwater checklist identifies the minimum requirements of the DOE 2005 Stormwater Manual. The Checklist is intended to identify the locations within the plan that addresses the minimum requirements. Mason County will not perform a technical evaluation of the submittal. Rather, the checklist provides a guide to allow Mason County to review the submittal and determine if the applicant has addressed the minimum features that make up a Stormwater plan. I It is incumbent upon the applicant and his/her engineer to fulfill all the applicable requirements of the 2005 Stormwater Plan as it relates to the proposed project. Review by Mason County is intended to determine if the plan has addressed the minimum requirements. Applicant's engineer shalt be responsible for the technical accuracy of the submitted Stormwater plan. During construction of the project, the stormwater plan engineer of record or his/her authorized representative shall inspect the site to ensure the stormwater plan is being implemented as designed. Upon completion of the project, the engineer or his authorized representative shall be required to certify that the stormwater plan has been implemented as designed. Failure to meet the minimum requirements could result in delay or rejection of the application until the deficiencies are corrected. Section l - Construction SWPPP Narrative 1. Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements _ a. Describe how each of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Element has been addressed though the Construction SWPPP. — b. identify the type and location of BMPs used to satisfy the required element. c. Written justification identifying the reason an element is not applicable to the proposal. 12 Required Elements - Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan _ 1. Mark Clearing Limits, See page/paragraph _ 2. Establish Construction Access, See page/paragraph 3. Control Flow Rates, See page/paragraph _ 4. install Sediment Controls, See page/paragraph — 5. Stabilize Soils, See page/paragraph Mason County Check list 05 Revised 5.20.09 l Mason County Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Checklist _ 6. Protect Slopes, See page/paragraph _ 7. Protect Drain Inlets, See page/paragraph B. Stabilize Channels and Outlets, See page/paragraph 9. Control Pollutants, See page/paragraph _ 10. Control De- Watering, See page/paragraph _ l 1. Maintain BMPs, See page/paragraph _ 12. Manage the Project, See page/paragraph 2. Project Description _a. Total project area. Acres Sq. Ft. _b. Total proposed impervious area. Acres Sq. Ft. _c. Total proposed are to be disturbed, included off-site borrow and fill areas. Ac. _ Sq. Ft. j _d. Total volumes of proposed cut and fill. Cubic Yards f 3. Existing Site Conditions _a. Description of the existing topography. See page/paragraph ____b. Description of the existing vegetation. See page/paragraph j _c. Description of the existing drainage. See page/paragraph 4. Adjacent Areas ' ____ I. Description of adjacent areas that may be affected by the site disturbance _ a. Streams, See page/paragraph _b. Lakes, See page/paragraph _c. Wetlands, See page/paragraph _d. Residential Areas, See page/paragraph _e. Roads, See page/paragraph f. Other, See page/paragraph T II. Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water. (Minimum distance of 400 yards), See page/paragraph 5. Critical Areas _ a. Description of critical areas that are on or adjacent to the site. See page/paragraph _ b. Description of special requirements for working in or near critical areas. See page/paragraph 6. Soi is _ Description of on-site soils. _ a. Soil names) , See page/paragraph b. Soil mapping unit, See page/paragraph Mason County Check list 05 Revised 5.20.09 Mason County Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Checklist c. Erodibitity, See page/paragraph _d. Settleability, See page/paragraph _ e. Permeability, See page/paragraph _f. Depth, See page/paragraph _ g. Texture, See page/paragraph _ h. Soil Structure, See page/paragraph 7. Erosion Problem Areas _ Description of potential erosion problems on site. See page/paragraph 8. Construction Phasing _ a. Construction sequence, See page/paragraph _ b. Construction phasing (if proposed) , See page/paragraph 9. Construction Schedule _ I. Provide a proposed construction schedule, See page/paragraph _ II. Wet Season Construction Activities _a. Proposed wet season construction activities, See page/paragraph _b. Proposed wet season construction restraints for environmentally sensitive/critical areas. See page/paragraph 10. Engineering Calculations 1. Provide Design Calculations. _ a. Sediment Ponds/Traps, See page/paragraph — b. Diversions, See page/paragraph C. Waterways, See page/paragraph d. Runoff/Stormwater Detention Calculations, See page/paragraph 11. Operations and Maintenance. a. An operation and maintenance schedule shall be provided for all proposed stormwater facilities and 9MPs, and the party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. An operation and maintenance (O&M) Declaration of Covenant will be required to cover all privately owned and maintained stormwater facilities. O&M Declaration of Covenant forms are available at the Mason County Permit Assistance Center, 425 W. Cedar Street, Shelton, WA 98584. The proponent shall record a copy of the completed Declaration with the Mason County Auditors' office. A copy of the recorded document must be submitted to the Permit Assistance Center together with this completed Checklist. See page/paragraph Mason. County Check list 05 Revised 5.20.09 Mason County Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Checklist Section 11 - Erosion and Sediment Control Plans 1. General _ a. Vicinity Map, See page/paragraph _ b. Clearing and Grading Approval Block, See page/paragraph c. Erosion and Sediment Control Motes, See page/paragraph 2. Site Plan _a. Legal description of subject property _b. North Arrow _ c. Indicate boundaries of existing vegetations, e.g. tree lines, pasture areas, etc. d. Identify and label areas of potential erosion problems, See page/paragraph —e. Identify any on-site or adjacent surface waters, critical areas and associated buffers f. Identify FEMA base flood boundaries and Shoreline Management boundaries (if applicable), See page/paragraph g. Show existing and proposed contours _h. Indicate drainage basins and direction of flow for individual drainage areas i. Label final grade contours and identify developed condition drainage basins _j. Delineate areas that are to be cleared and graded _k. Show all cut and fill slopes indicating top and bottom of slope catch lines 3. Conveyance Systems _ a. Designate locations for swales, interceptor trenches, or ditches — b. Show all temporary and permanent drainage pipes, ditches, or cut-off trenches Required for erosion and sediment control c. Provide minimum slope and cover for all temporary pipes or call out pipe inverts —d. Show grades, dimensions, and direction of flow in all ditches, swales, culverts, and pipes _ e. Provide details for bypassing off-site runoff around disturbed areas —f. Indicate Locations and outlets of any dewatering systems 4. Location of Detention BMPs —a. Identify location of detention BMPs. 5. Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities _ a. Show the locations of sediment trap(s), pond(s), and pipe structures. _b. Dimension pond berm widths and inside and outside pond slopes. _c. Indicate the trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions. _d. Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structure. — e. Provide typical details of gravel cone and standpipe, and/or other filtering devices. — f. Detail stabilization techniques for outlet/inlet. _ g. Detail control/ restrictor device location and details. Mason County Check list 05 Revised 5.20.00 4 Mason County Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Checklist _ h. Specify mulch and/or recommended cover of berms and slopes. i. Provide rock specifications and detail for rock check dams. j. Specify spacing for rock check dams as required. _k. Provide front and side sections of typical rock check dams. _ 1. Indicate the locations and provide details and specifications for silt fabric. _m. Locate the construction entrance and provide a detail. b. Detailed Drawings — a. Any structural practices used that are not referenced in the Ecology Manual should be explained and illustrated with detailed drawings. 7. Other Pollutant BMPs _a. Indicate on the site plan the location of BMPs to be used for the control of pollutants other than sediment, e.g. concrete wash water. S. Monitoring Locations _ a. Indicate on the site plan the water quality sampling locations to be used for monitoring water quality on the construction site, if applicable. I certify that the stormwater plan submitted for this project fulfills the applicable provisions of the 2005 DOE Stormwater Manual. Engineer Date Applicant Date Place signed stamp here Mason County Check list 05 Revised 5.20.09 5 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit SWPPP EXHIBIT 3 Site Inspection Form Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 12323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form Project Name Permit# Inspection Date Time Name of Certified Erosion Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) or qualified inspector if less than one acre Print Name: Approximate rainfall amount since the last inspection (in inches): Approximate rainfall amount in the last 24 hours (in inches): Current Weather Clear ❑ Cloudy ❑ Mist ❑ Rain ❑ Wind ❑ Fog ❑ A.Type of inspection: Weekly ❑ Post Storm Event ❑ Other ❑ B. Phase of Active Construction (check all that apply): Pre Construction/installation of erosion/sediment controls Clearing/Demo/Grading Infrastructure/storm/roads Concrete pours Vertical Construction/buildings Utilities Offsite improvements Site temporary stabilized HFinal stabilization C. Questions: 1. Were all areas of construction and discharge points inspected? Yes No 2. Did you observe the presence of suspended sediment,turbidity, discoloration, or oil sheen Yes _ No 3. Was a water quality sample taken during inspection? (refer to permit conditions S4&S5) Yes No 4. Was there a turbid discharge 250 NTU or greater, or Transparency 6 cm or less?* Yes _ No 5. If yes to#4 was it reported to Ecology? Yes _ No 6. Is pH sampling required? pH range required is 6.5 to 8.5. Yes No If answering yes to a discharge, describe the event. Include when, where,and why it happened;what action was taken, and when. *If answering yes to#4 record NTU/Transparency with continual sampling daily until turbidity is 25 NTU or less/transparency is 33 cm or greater. Sampling Results: Date: Parameter Method(circle one) Result Other/Note NTU cm pH Turbidity tube, meter, laboratory pH Paper, kit, meter Page 1 Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form D. Check the observed status of all items. Provide"Action Required "details and dates. Element # Inspection BMPs BMP needs BMP Action Inspected maintenance failed required yes no n/a (describe in section F) 1 Before beginning land disturbing Clearing activities are all clearing limits, Limits natural resource areas (streams, wetlands, buffers,trees) protected with barriers or similar BMPs?(high visibility recommended) 2 Construction access is stabilized Construction with quarry spalls or equivalent Access BMP to prevent sediment from being tracked onto roads? Sediment tracked onto the road way was cleaned thoroughly at the end of the day or more frequent as necessary. 3 Are flow control measures installed Control Flow to control stormwater volumes and Rates velocity during construction and do they protect downstream properties and waterways from erosion? If permanent infiltration ponds are used for flow control during construction,are they protected from siltation? 4 All perimeter sediment controls Sediment (e.g. silt fence, wattles,compost Controls socks, berms, etc.) installed,and maintained in accordance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Sediment control BMPs (sediment ponds,traps,filters etc.) have been constructed and functional as the first step of grading. Stormwater runoff from disturbed areas is directed to sediment removal BMP. 5 Have exposed un-worked soils Stabilize been stabilized with effective BMP Soils to prevent erosion and sediment deposition? Page 2 Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form Element # Inspection BMPs BMP needs BMP Action Inspected maintenance failed required yes no n/a (describe in section F) 5 Are stockpiles stabilized from erosion, Stabilize Soils protected with sediment trapping Cont. measures and located away from drain inlet,waterways, and drainage channels? Have soils been stabilized at the end of the shift,before a holiday or weekend if needed based on the weather forecast? Has stormwater and ground water 6 been diverted away from slopes and Protect disturbed areas with interceptor dikes, Slopes pipes and or swales? Is off-site storm water managed separately from stormwater generated on the site? Is excavated material placed on uphill side of trenches consistent with safety and space considerations? Have check dams been placed at regular intervals within constructed channels that are cut down a slope? 7 Storm drain inlets made operable Drain Inlets during construction are protected. Are existing storm drains within the influence of the project protected? 8 Have all on-site conveyance channels Stabilize been designed,constructed and Channel and stabilized to prevent erosion from Outlets expected peak flows? Is stabilization, including armoring material,adequate to prevent erosion of outlets, adjacent stream banks, slopes and downstream conveyance systems? 9 Are waste materials and demolition Control debris handled and disposed of to Pollutants prevent contamination of stormwater? Has cover been provided for all chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products,and other material? Has secondary containment been provided capable of containing 110% of the volume? Were contaminated surfaces cleaned immediately after a spill incident? Were BMPs used to prevent contamination of stormwater by a pH modifying sources? Page 3 Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form Element # Inspection BMPs BMP needs BMP Action Inspected maintenance failed required yes no n/a (describe in section F) 9 Wheel wash wastewater is handled Cont. and disposed of properly. 10 Concrete washout in designated areas. Control No washout or excess concrete on the Dewatering ground. Dewatering has been done to an approved source and in compliance with the SWPPP. Were there any clean non turbid dewatering discharges? 11 Are all temporary and permanent Maintain erosion and sediment control BMPs BMP maintained to perform as intended? 12 Has the project been phased to the Manage the maximum degree practicable? Project Has regular inspection, monitoring and maintenance been performed as required by the permit? Has the SWPPP been updated, implemented and records maintained? 13 Is all Bioretention and Rain Garden Protect LID Facilities protected from sedimentation with appropriate BMPs? Is the Bioretention and Rain Garden protected against over compaction of construction equipment and foot traffic to retain its infiltration capabilities? Permeable pavements are clean and free of sediment and sediment laden- water runoff. Muddy construction equipment has not been on the base material or pavement. Have soiled permeable pavements been cleaned of sediments and pass infiltration test as required by stormwater manual methodology? Heavy equipment has been kept off existing soils under LID facilities to retain infiltration rate. E. Check all areas that have been inspected. ✓ All in place BMPs R All disturbed soils ❑ All concrete wash out area All material storage areas All discharge locations All equipment storage areas All construction entrances/exits Page 4 Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form F. Elements checked"Action Required" (section D)describe corrective action to be taken. List the element number; be specific on location and work needed. Document,initial,and date when the corrective action has been completed and inspected. Element Description and Location Action Required Completion Initials # Date Attach additional page if needed Sign the following certification: "I certify that this report is true, accurate, and complete,to the best of my knowledge and belief" Inspected by: (print) (Signature) Date: Title/Qualification of Inspector: Page 5 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX B Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation, 41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma, WA Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 12323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) I Mason County Department of Community Development Submittal Checklist for a Geotechnical Report I 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. ApplicanUOwnetrlI N oir Lvie sl Ro c K Parcel#, I q 3o—y�-� 600 10 Site Address 'T� �( pP fir'�n4�er ,� �w ti WA (1) (a) A discussion of general geologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, Located on page(s) " J� (b) A discussion of specific soil types. Located on page(s) 3 -T (c) A discussion of ground water conditions, Located on pages) (d) A discussion of the upslope geomorphology, Located on page(s) (e) A discussion of the location of upland waterbodies and wetlands, Located on page(s) 9' (f) A discussion of history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in the referenced maps and records. Located on page(s) 4I 5 (2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features. Located on Map(s) IT (3) Locations and fogs of exploratory holes or probes. Located on Map(s)N 1 I""z-a (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) Y.5ti T (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)'^"6—7 1 S—1 / (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), 3_T (7) (a) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, Located on page(s) I " 10 (b) Appropriate restrictions on placement of septic drain fields, Located on page(s) Y+, o .Sei)} +c rrdrose�. Page 1 of 2 / Form Effective June 2008 (c) Appropriate restrictions on placement of compacted fills and footings, Located on page(s), N ►lb i ��rh I�ro po5 e,. (d) Recommended buffers from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s)• (I (e) Recommended setbacks from the landslide hazard areas shoreline bluffs and the tops of other slopes. Located on page(s) ? (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) 9 m 1 6 (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) �—0 (10) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development. Located on page(s) 5—'8 (11) Specifications of flnal development conditions such as,vegetative management,drainage,erosion control,and buffer widths. Located on page(s) of M (12) Recommendations for the preparation of structural mitigation or details of other proposed mitigation. Located on page(s) NA no prOV0 (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) !�- I, Nv e. Rau(,k 4 F. F_. hereby certify under penalty of perjury that I am a civil engineer licensed In the State of Washington with specialized knowledge of geotechnicallgeological 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 Tw\e.. 2`112-6 16 , and entitled UCNA�Ier Pit 6e0t"6-/Cu1 Tnye.,Stf-f ,,' o., 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 recommenda'o and that all hazards are mitigated in such a manner as to prevent harm to property and public health and sa D r c (Signature and Stamp) 9 woe w"Sy�� '2 �o Ar 52959 40 01 1Cl$TC�i �`rSJONAL��G � J(lS �i�l D Disclaimer: Mason County does not certify the quality of the work done in this Geotechnical Report. Page 2 of 2 Form Effective June 2008 MTC Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. �} Geotechnical Engineering•Materials Testing•Special Inspection•Environmental Consulting �R c. June 29,2016 r-i K Kevin Noffsinger Northwest Rock 642 Newsah Rd Aberdeen, WA. 98520 360-533-3050 kevin@u,nwrock.com Subject: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Geotechnical Engineering&Consulting Services MTC Project No.: 16SO84 Dear Mr.Noffsinger: At your request, Materials Testing& Consulting, Inc. (MTC)has completed a limited-scope geotechnical investigation and slope stability assessment of existing site conditions. This report includes site and slope visual reconnaissance, limited subsurface testing, slope stability analysis per Mason County Code, and review of available geologic literature at the above referenced subject property. The project site is located at 41 West Beerbower Road, near Elma, Washington. Services were provided in accordance with our proposal dated May 12`h, 2016. It is our understanding that this study was conducted in support of the westward expansion of gravel mining operations from the current pit to the 25 foot setback along West Benthein Road. MTC understands a site investigation is needed to meet the county code critical area requirements for geohazard assessment. The following report presents the findings and conclusions of our literature review and site investigation, addresses inherent concerns and feasibility of proposed site development, and provides geotechnical recommendations for planning and design. This report is intended to reduce the inherent risks associated with site development within a geologically hazardous area. Site Investigation Methodology: On April 31", 2016, an MTC Staff Geologist and field technician visited the site to perform visual reconnaissance of the surface and topographic features of the subject property and its proximal slope. During this visit, MTC conducted subsurface exploration as needed for a geologic hazard assessment and site characterization. Site dimensions and general slope topography were observed and documented where appropriate for slope considerations at representative intervals using hand survey equipment as access allowed. Conditions were compared to existing topographic maps provided by the client. Corporate • 777 Chrysler Drive • Burlington, WA 98233 • Phone 360.755.1990 • Fax 360.755.1980 SW Region • 2118 Black Lake Blvd. S.W.• Olympia, WA 98512 • Phone 360.534.9777 • Fax 360.534.9779 NW Region 805 Dupont, Suite 5 • Bellingham, WA 98226 • Phone 360.647.6061 • Fax 360.647.8111 Kitsap Region 5451 N.W. Newberry Hill Road, Suite 101 • Silverdale, WA 98383 • Phone/Fax 360.698.6787 Visit our website: www.mtc-inc.net Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Salient slope features and existing vegetation were documented as observed in order to assess general site and slope stability as well as look for signs of local instability of an erosional or subsurface nature currently or in the past. The slope face was heavily vegetated at the time of our site visit. The slope was observed and measured directly from within the site and from the public access road. Surface profile of the slope was interpreted based on approximate in-field measurements and client provided site surveys. MTC advanced three Wildcat Dynamic Cone Penetrometer(DCP)tests to depths up to approximately 6.5 feet maximum below present grade (BPG) at representative locations within the project area to document in-situ soil strength. Penetrometer tests were terminated upon reaching practical refusal depth on very dense or hard conditions. During penetrometer advancement, blow counts were recorded in 10 centimeter increments as a thirty-five-pound weight was dropped a distance of 15 inches. Blow counts were then converted to resistance (kg/cm2), standard penetration blow counts (N-values), and corresponding soil consistency, with complete results shown on the attached logs. Direct observations of soils, where exposed by erosion or local cuts, were used to supplement interpretation of DCP data. To confirm soil conditions, supplemental test pits were performed in four locations within the vicinity of the quarry expansion, and along the slope where site conditions allowed access. Observations and soil field classifications from the test pits were used to correlate blow count data with generalized subsurface conditions. Exploration locations are shown schematically on the attached site map in Figure 2,Appendix A2. A location and vicinity map is provided as Figure 1, Appendix Al. Typical measured or estimated slope conditions are shown schematically on the attached topographic profile in Figure 3, Appendix B. Complete exploration results are presented in Appendix C. Surface and Slope Conditions: The project site consists of the Mason County parcel (61930-40-00010) west of the existing Northwest Rock quarry. The property is accessed from West Beerbower Road and the project site is accessed by following a gravel road running along the southern edge of the property. Excavation of the property is proposed to approach a minimum setback of 25 feet from West Benthein Road on the western edge of the property. Finished slopes are proposed to be graded at a 2H:IV. The property surroundings are generally forested along the slopes, and clear near existing access roads and current mining operations. The project site is generally deforested from the crest of the slope to the existing quarry. Topography in this area varies due to active mining operations, blockades placed along the crest slope and access roads connecting both of the parcels. The prevailing feature of the project site is an open area on the north side, which appeared to have undergone exploratory mining operations. The crest of the slope runs approximately parallel to West Benthein Road, ranging in distance to the road by about 50 feet to 250 2 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 feet. An out of service access road runs from the southwest corner of the parcel to existing access roads above,however both ends of this road have been blocked off with earthen berms and general debris. Subsurface Conditions: Subsurface conditions were assessed by DCP results, and observed directly in the test pits and along the walls of the quarry. Test pits were excavated by the client at four locations as shown in Appendix A2. DCPs reached dense conditions at approximately 1.0 to 6.5 feet below present grade (BPG) and test pits were difficult to excavate from approximately 2 to 8 feet to their respective termination depths. DCP-1 was advanced at a location approximately 4 feet east of the earth and debris berm at the slope crest. Soils encountered were typically dense to refusal depth of about 1.0 foot BPG. The clearing at the slope crest where DCP-1 was advanced may have been consolidated sometime in the past by heavy equipment traffic in the vicinity of the access road. DCP-2 was advanced approximately 250 feet east of the slope toe and 16 feet north of the access road. Soils encountered were typically loose to medium dense to a depth of about 1.5 feet BPG, becoming dense to very dense through refusal at approximately 6.5 feet BPG. DCP-3 was advanced approximately 56 feet east of the slope toe and 8 feet north of the access road. Soils encountered were typically loose to dense to a depth of about 5.5 feet BPG, becoming dense to very dense through refusal at approximately 6.5 feet BPG. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-1 were found to be brown well-graded gravel with sand and trace silt to depths of approximately 12.5 feet BPG, gravel was observed up to 6 inches in diameter. Below, interbedded lenses of sand appeared on the walls of the excavation between approximately 13.0 to 15.0 feet BPG. Soils appeared to become less fine with depth and sand lenses appeared again between approximately 17.0 to 18.0 feet BPG. TP-1 was terminated in brown poorly- graded sand with gravel and trace silt at approximately 20.0 feet BPG. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-2 were found to be orange-brown gravelly topsoil to depths of approximately 6 inches BPG, this topsoil was rich in organics and contained roots up to 2 inches in diameter. Below, soils were found to be orange-brown to brown poorly-graded gravel with sand and trace silt to the termination depth of approximately 15.0 feet BPG. Excavation became more difficult past about 4.0 feet BPG, and shallow lenses of sand and gravel were observed throughout the test pit excavation. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-3 were found to be brown gravelly topsoil to depths of approximately 2.0 feet BPG, this topsoil was rich in organics and generally well vegetated. Below, soils 3 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 were found to be orange-brown to brown poorly-graded gravel with sand and trace silt to the termination depth of approximately 15.0 feet BPG. Excavation was generally more difficult with depth. At about 8.0 feet BPG moisture appeared to increase and silt content decreased. Soils encountered during test pit excavation of TP-4 were similar to identical to those encountered at TP- 3. Excavation became very difficult at about 7.0 feet BPG and the test pit was terminated at approximately 8.0 feet BPG. Soils observed during excavation appeared consistent with glacial outwash soils. Observations of subsurface soil conditions were also noted within the existing exposed quary walls in the active gravel mine. Glacial outwash sediments appeared to exist throughout the entire depth exposed. Surface and Subsurface Water Conditions: Major water features in the vicinity of the project site include an eastern and western tributary branch of the Satsop River. The closest of these being about 40 feet below and approximately 1,000 feet to the west of West Benthein Road. In the active quarry, east of the project site, soils along the excavated walls appeared to be moist where they were freshly exposed and only minor ponding water was observed in the lowest tier of the work area. This ponding water appeared to be the result of the collection of rain water from higher tiers of the quarry transporting silt to the lowest tier. Perched and daylighting water were not observed on site. The DCP rods were retrieved from their maximum depth of 6.5 feet BPG in a dry to slightly damp condition along the profile of the slope. Groundwater conditions are considered to exist outside the depths of consideration for this study. MTC's scope of work did not include determination of seasonal groundwater elevation variations, documentation of wet season site conditions, or conclusive measurement of groundwater elevations at depths past the extent feasible for exploration. Regional groundwater level is assumed to be below the depth of concern for this study, based on topographic conditions and site elevation, vicinity surface water occurrences, and cursory review of available well logs in the subject area. Summary of Geologic Literature Review: MTC reviewed available map publications to assess known geologic conditions and hazards present at the site location. MTC understands a 1:24000 scale map is not available for the site vicinity. The Washington Interactive Geologic Map, maintained by the Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources (DNR DGER) depicts mapped surface geology of 1:100,000-scale detail. MTC reviewed available map publications and online literature sources to assess geologic conditions and 4 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 slope stability present at the site location and vicinity. These available resources map the soils in the quarry and immediate site vicinity as Quaternary Outwash Gravel (Qgo), primarily of the latest Vashon State. These soils commonly consist of sand and gravel mixtures with silt, and can be densely compact below weathered and deleterious cover soils. Quaternary Alluvium(Qa) deposits exist west of the project site, coinciding with the historic path and flood plain of the eastern branch of the Satsop River tributary found there. To the northeast of the project site is a unit of Oligocene-Eocene Marine sedimentary rocks of the Lincoln Creek Formation(OEm(lc)).No recent or historically significant slides were found to have been reported in the vicinity of the quarry. Slone Stability Analysis and Building Setbacks Based on the survey data provided by the client, MTC has determined that the critical areas along Benthein Road are approximately a positive 2:1 slope at two locations east of the roadway. The proposed mining operations along the roadway will result in a negative 2:1 slope for the entire length of Benthein Road adjacent to the quarry. Slope stability was modeled for these two conditions using GeoStudio's Slope/W (2012) program in both static and dynamic loading conditions (ca = 0.15g). Scenarios were based on client provided survey data along with our field measurements, and reflect the worst anticipated conditions as understood by MTC at this time. 5 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Under static loading, the model demonstrates that the slope does not appear susceptible to surficial raveling or significant deep-seated failure. The minimum static factor of safety is equal to 2.585 for existing unmodified critical slopes and 2.598 in the proposed post mining case, as presented in the cross sections below. This exceeds the typically required safety factor of 1.5 for static loading. Existing Critical Slope—Static Conditions 200 190 100 170 1eo r I"s 150 0 1b 190 120 110 100 0 10 20 70 10 50 00 10 00 00 100 110 120 IN 110 150 100 110 100 190 Distance(tt) Proposed Modified Slope—Static Conditions 175 110 1 2M 65 • 100 155 150 145 C 140 a0 135 W IN 125 120 115 10 05 00 0 10 20 V 10 50 6p 10 00 60 100 110 120 130 110 Distance(tt) 6 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 For dynamic loading conditions, the model was subjected to a horizontal and vertical acceleration of 0.15g, per Mason County critical area code. The dynamic model demonstrated that the slopes do not appear to be susceptible to significant surficial or deep-seated failures. The minimum critical slip surface factor of safety is equal to 1.739 for existing unmodified critical slopes and 1.778 in the proposed post mining case, as presented in the cross sections below. This exceeds the typically required safety factor of 1.15 for dynamic loading. Existing Critical Slope—Dynamic Conditions 200 „o 160 C_ IS 03 140 IN 120 110 100 0 ,0 20 30 40 s0 60 70 60 N 100 /10 120 130 1.0 150 IN 170 180 IN Distance(tt) Proposed Modified Slope— Dynamic Conditions 105 fro nz 185 � 100 1s5 150 11s e: 1b 135 W 130 125 120 15 no to IW 0 10 20 30 10 50 so ro 60 N 100 110 120 130 1" Distance(tt) 7 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Presently, the slopes do not exhibit excessive signs of ongoing instability, such as significant leaning trees or tension cracking in the surface of the soil. It is recommended that site preparation activities avoid disturbing the native vegetation until clearing becomes a necessity. The upper slope and face should not be disturbed without proper planning and implementation of protective measures to avoid excessive erosion of the exposed surfaces. Other erosion control measures are present in sections below. Discussion and Recommendations: The findings of MTC's subsurface explorations and slope reconnaissance at the subject site appear generally consistent with available geologic literature and indicate favorable conditions exist for the scale of development. Based on available soil data from MTC's explorations and review of vicinity well reports, regional groundwater level is interpreted to be below the base elevation of the slope and out of the realm of concern for this study. The existing slope face is generally vegetated with trees and common undergrowth. Signs of surface erosion are minimal and no indications of past or active slope instability were seen on the slope directly below the site. The designation of the site as a critical area seems based primarily on slope gradient as opposed to a known or suspected hazardous condition. Based on the information herein, MTC provides the following site analysis, and development-specific, recommendations to be followed to minimize the inherent risks of development in this critical area. Road Setback After our analysis of critical area considerations, and slope stability of post site development, it is MTC's opinion that the proposed activities, setbacks, and slope grades are acceptable. To manage and prevent the potential for onsite and offsite impacts,the following are recommended: • No concentrated water is to be directed towards sloped areas. • Maintain the proposed buffers and setback from the southern slopes beyond existing roads. • No filling or structural development between or along the road or previously mentioned slopes. At that time, allowance may be best considered upon accounting for the scale of improvements, relation to the proposed work, and specific location relative to the adjacent slope, as well as local municipal requirements. Revegetation is typically encouraged within protective slope zones. MTC does not recommend reducing the currently proposed setback, without reevaluation, to ensure slope stability is maintained. It is preferable to increase the setback as much as possible to increase design life in a geologically active environment. In other words, the client should make all reasonable attempts to allow for greatest separation from the slope crest to the majority of the road, such as by shifting or reorienting as possible. 8 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16So84 Drainage Controls MTC recommends proper drainage controls for mitigating the increased potential for stormwater runoff is implemented along with project site development to protect conditions of the slope. Where possible, pervious surfaces should be employed to limit the effect of development on existing site conditions (such as for access drives and walkways). MTC does not recommend dispersion or infiltration of collected stormwater between any residence, road or structure and any adjacent slope crest, or on the slope itself. Increased runoff or localized stormwater inundation can be detrimental to long-term erosional and global slope stability. Alternatively, water sources may be tightlined away from the slopes, roads and structures to an existing catch basin, or down the slope to be released past the base using appropriate energy-reducing features at the exit point to limit the potential for point erosion. Allowance of downslope dispersal into pre-existing drainage ditches or channels may be subject to local regulations. Any drainage tightlines shall be composed of appropriately sturdy material (such as rigid PVC), sized adequately according to anticipated volume, and anchored sufficiently. MTC recommends slope tightlines be inspected by the owner periodically to look for signs of damage or displacement that could result in leakage or catastrophic failure and slope erosion or failure, and be re-anchored or replaced if required. Erosion Protection Erosion is one of the most common driving forces leading to slope instability. In addition to the above commentary, the following general recommendations should be implemented in general to reduce long- term erosion potential of the slope below the project site and maintain the present slope stability: 1. The ground surface adjacent to structures or roads should be sloped to drain away and slope at a 5% minimum to prevent adjacent ponding of water. Drains should be incorporated as needed for the building and site design to help maintain a dry building area. 2. Minimize the volume and velocity of water that travels toward and down the slope face (via proper choice of site development features including stormwater controls discussed above). 3. Avoid accelerating slope erosion and mass wasting due to human activity such as: a) Adding side-cast debris to the slopes b) Using heavy construction equipment on or near steep slopes c) Excavating near adjacent steep slopes toe or on slope face d) Placing excavated soil near the steep slope crest 4. Prior to construction, a silt fence and/or a continuous line of straw bales should be placed on the slopeward edge of the construction area. Heavy construction equipment, construction materials, or native and imported soils should not be placed behind the erosion control devices. Suitable temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be implemented at the construction site during and immediately after ground disturbance occurs. Temporary areas bare of vegetation 9 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 should be protected from erosion via a blanket of straw or rolled erosion control product (RECP) during prolonged breaks in site work and prior to reseeding or revegetation. 5. At the end of the project, all disturbed vegetation should be repaired and maintained until it is established. Concentrated surface water should not be allowed to traverse the slope during or after the construction phase of the project. Roof downspouts and footing drains should be routed into closed separate pipes which outfall into appropriate drainages. Outlets for these pipes should be protected from erosion through the use of rip-rap or some other energy dissipating device. Similarly, concentrated drainages should be captured in closed pipe systems and routed down slope to appropriate outfalls. 6. Clearing of existing vegetation outside the proposed building area on and adjacent to the existing slopes should be avoided except as approved by a qualified professional. This provides additional stability to the loose top soil and minimizes the effects of down-slope water movement. This is excepting removal of dead or dying trees if posing a direct hazard to site installations or adjacent roadways. 7. Grading or excavation of soils during construction should be accompanied by grass reseeding and re-vegetation as the project is completed. According to "Vegetation Management: A Guide for Puget Sound Bluff Property Owners" (Manashe, 1993) the following types of vegetation provide good to excellent erosion control. Common Name Botanical Name Deciduous/Evergreen Mature Height(ft) Vine Maple Acer cricinatum Deciduous 10+ Oceanspray Holodiscus discolor Deciduous 10+ Willow Salix spp. Deciduous 10+ Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus Deciduous 3+ Rose Rose spp. Deciduous 2-10 Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Deciduous To 12 Salal Gaultheria shallon Evergreen To 4 Oregon grape Mahonia spp. Evergreen To 6 Red huckleberry Vaccinium parvifolium Deciduous To 12 Evergreen Vaccinium ovatum Evergreen To 8 Serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia Deciduous 12+ Bigleaf maple Acer macrophyllum Deciduous 60 Pacific madrone Arbutus menziesii Evergreen 70 Douglas-fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Evergreen 200+ 10 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington !Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Closing Remarks: The project location is within a designated geologically hazardous slope area. Upon acceptance and use of this report, and its interpretations and recommendations, the owner shall agree to indemnify and hold harmless MTC, including its owners and employees, from any adverse effects resulting from development in a critical area. Ultimately it is the owner's choice to develop and live in a geologically hazardous area, and therefore the future consequences, both anticipated and unknown, are solely the responsibility of the owner. The discussions and interpretations presented herein are not intended to provide a warranty or guarantee of future site conditions. By using this report for development of the subject property, the owner must accept and understand that it is not possible to fully anticipate all inherent risks of development within a geologically hazardous critical area. The recommendations provided above are intended to reduce, but not eliminate, such risks as is practically feasible from the point of view of geotechnical engineering. We trust this report presents the information you require. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully Submitted: �Vq JAsq&cy o� H� y �c52959� A .0 4�srr'•¢' 1a 6129)2016 David Rauch, P.E. Cody Laramie E.I.T. Luke Preston McCann, G.I.T. Engineering Division Manager Engineer-In-Training Project Geologist Attached: Limitations and Use of this Report Appendix A1. Location and Vicinity Map Appendix A2. Aerial Photo Site Plan with Test Locations Appendix B. Slope Topographic Profile Appendix C. Exploration Logs Appendix D. Laboratory Results tt Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Limitations and Use of This Report Recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the proposed development and construction activities, our field observations and exploration and our laboratory test results. It is possible that soil and groundwater conditions could vary and differ between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are encountered during construction that vary or differ from those described herein, MTC shall be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, our recommendations shall also be reviewed. We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by MTC during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. Other standards or documents referenced in any given standard cited in this report, or otherwise relied upon by the author of this report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or"included by reference", as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters of law. This report may be used only by Kevin Noffsinger, Northwest Rock, and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than 18 months from the date of the report. Note that if another firm assumes Geotechnical Engineer of Record responsibilities they need to review this report and either concur with the findings, conclusions, and recommendations or provide alternate findings, conclusions and recommendation under the guidance of a professional engineer registered in the State of Washington. The recommendations of this report are based on the assumption that the Geotechnical Engineer of Record has reviewed and agrees with the findings, conclusion and recommendations of this report. Land or facility use, on- and off-site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the intended use of the report, MTC may recommend that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non- compliance with any of these requirements by Northwest Rock, the property owner or anyone else will release MTC from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and Northwest Rock agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold MTC harmless from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. We recommend that MTC be given the opportunity to review the final project plans and specifications to evaluate if our recommendations have been properly interpreted. We assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. The scope of work for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. 12 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix Al. Location and Vicinity Map Site Vicinity 40.1 loaf I Ra le t r � 4 !�A � ' Site Location - ► •+ , n M s._ _ - Maps Source: ' Google Imagery 2016 Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Site Location and Vicinity Map FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Blvd. 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia, WA 98512 Elma, WA 98541 13 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix A2. Aerial Photo Overview lP#2 .WEYERNAdY/SER 4 y r r tE f: HAEUSER La- • 4P �, `i �:-'_�ti. J'' �:�;i f , •f /r'{••. - .err �� f� S • ,�.Ir TP#1 g• ¢�+ e Si Y .1 ll \ i M . JJ • �1{ r DCPHI P#2 • '!' DCP#3 - � � J SCALE IS APPROXIMATE ' Map Source: LEGEND *Not for Construction* Google Imagery 2016&Client Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Provided Survey Test oit Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. Site Layout with Test Locations FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia, WA 98501 Elma, WA 98541 2 14 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix B1. Topographic Profiles Profile A West East TP-3 i i D(T-1 i DCP-2 i i TP-4 A DCP-3 10° Earth and Debris Bern A' Earthen Berm West Benthein Road 0 75 SCALE IS APPROXIMATE (Based on field measurements) SCALE(FEET) * Not for Construction 1 inch=50 feet Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Topographic Profile FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia, WA 98501 Elma, WA 98541 15 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing& Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix B2. Topographic Profiles Profile B West East B 2° 2'7' B' West Benthein Road 0 75 SCALE IS APPROXIMATE (Based on provided surveys) SCALE(FEET) *Not for Construction feet Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Topographic Profile FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia, WA 98501 Elma, WA 98541 4 16 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix B3. Topographic Profiles Profile C ,'Generalized Post Mining Condition West East 25'Minimum Setback 2 270. �1 C� C West Benthein Road 0 75 SCALE IS APPROXIMATE (Based on Proposed Plans) SCALE(FEET) * Not for Construction 1 inch=50 feet Materials Testing & Consulting, Inc. Topographic Profile FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Boulevard 41 W Beerbower Rd 5 Olympia, WA 98501 Elma, WA 98541 17 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix C. Exploration Logs Unified Soil Classification System Chart Major Divisions Graph usCs Typical Description Sampler Svinbol Description Standard Penetrates Test(SPT) Coarse °P G W Well-graded Ora%els Grave)-Sand Mix- Grained Soon Gravel o :G,•� tutes Clean GaNeh Sheb7 Tube More Than w:o•' GP Poorly-GradedGrsveLs Gravel-Sand 50%of ;` MbMres ® Grab or Bulk Coarse Frac- tion Retained ° 'o GM StltyGrawisgOra%el-Sand-siltMnRares More Ilan 50% OnNo.4 O O• a California(3.0"O.D.) Retained On Sieve Crravels With Fines No.200 Sieve GC clayey Gravels,Gn w�el-sa -clayMix- -�' tnaes ■ Modfied California(2 5"O.D.) SW Well-graded San&O'avelly Sands Sand StratiQrapbie Contact Clean Sands Distinct Stratigraphc Contact Than SP Poorly-Graded Sands. Gravelly Sands 50%of Bem cen Sal Strata CoarseFrar \ Gradual Change Between Soil tionpassing SM SiiltySands,Sand-SiltMixttres Strata No.4 Sieve Approximate locationofSandstL'ithFiues _ -----• strat•gaphicchange SC Clayey Sands,ClayMurhaes tine Grained ML Inorganic Silts,rock Flour,Clayey Silts Groun dw ate,obscnved at time of Soils With Low Plasticity exploration Measured groundwater level in Silts O Clays Liquid Limit Less CL Inorganic Clays of Low To Medium Q Than50 Plasticity exploration,well orpezometer More Than 50°h Perched watr obscived at time PassmgThe OL Organic Silts and OTganic Silty Clays of ♦ of exploration No.200 Sieve Law Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts of Moderate Plasticity Modifiers Sttts 4r Clays Liquldl,tmit CH lwrpntie Clays ofHighPlasticity Description % GreaterThan50 Trace >5 01 nH Organic Clays And Silts ofMedwmto Some 5-12 High Plasticity PT 11'eat,Humus.Soils with Predominantly �'With >12 Highly Organic Soils Organic Content Soil Consistency Grain Size Granular Soils Fine-gralued Soils DFSCR17710N I SIEVE GRAIN SIZE APPROXIMATE SIZE SIZE Dews►y SPT CowsBarwcv SPT Blawcoawr Blowos wl Boulders >12" >12" Larger than a basketball Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0-2 CobbYs 3-12" 3-12" Fiat to basketball Loose 4-10 Soft Coarse 3/4-3" 3/4-3" Thumb to fist Gravel Medium 10.30 Firm 4-8 Fine #4-3/4" 0.19-0.75" Pea to thumb Dense Dense 30-50 Stiff 8-15 Coarse #10-#4 0.079-0.19" Rock salt to pea Very Dense >50 Very Stiff 15.30 Sand Medium #40-#10 0.017-0.079" Sugar to rock salt Hard >30 Fine #200-#40 0.0029-0.017" Fbtr to Sugar Fines Pam <0.0029" Flour and smaller Materials Testing & Consulting,Inc. Exploration Log Key FIGURE 2118 Black Lake Blvd. 41 W Beerbower Rd Olympia, WA 98512 Elma, WA 98541 18 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit TP-1 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started 5/31116 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed :5/31/16 Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location :Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTC Project#16S084 Logged By :LM 75 - t U' a DESCRIPTION a d n U o D ((D in 0— Well-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 6 inch diameter,wet,dense.BROWN. 1 2 3 Finer than No.200:2.6% Moisture Content:6.3 4- 5- 6— GW 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Poorly-Graded SAND with GRAVEL and trace SILT,gravel up to 6 inch diameter,wet,dense.GRAY to GRAY-BROWN. Finer than No.200:3.6% Moisture Content:4.7% 14 15 Interbedded lenses of sand found from approximately 13.0'to 15.0'. 16 SP 17 Cleaner sand lense found from approximately 17.0'to 18.0'. 18 19 20 Total Depth=20.0 feet 21 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 22 23 24 25 19 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit TP-2 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started :5/31/16 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed :5/31/16 Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location :Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTC Project#16S084 Logged By LM m ar m u. U > a v Q DESCRIPTIONof a 0 GW GRAVELLY TOPSOIL,organic rich with roots up to 2 inch diameter,dry,loose to medium dense.ORANGE. 1 Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 2 inch diameter,dry,dense.ORANGE-BROWN to BROWN. 2 3 4 Hard digging starting from approximately 4.0'to termination depth.Interbedded sand and gravel lenses, approximately 6 inches thick,throughout the rest of the excavation. 5- 6- 7- 8 GP 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Depth=15.0 feet 16 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29.2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log of Test Pit TP-3 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started :5/31/16 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location :Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTC Project#163084 Logged By LM 75 m LL U > a v Q DESCRIPTION E m 0 D 0 in 0 GRAVELLY TOPSOIL,organic rich,twigs,moss,roots,dry,loose to medium dense.BROWN. 1 GW 2 Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 2 inch diameter,dry,dense.ORANGE-BROWN 3 to BROWN. Finer than No.200:2.3% Moisture Content:7.9% 4 Hard digging starting from approximately 2.0'to termination depth.Interbedded sand lenses throughout the rest 5 of the excavation. 6- 7- 8— Apparent moisture increase and decrease in silt content at approximately 8.0'. GP 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Depth=15.0 feet 16 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Materials Testing&Consulting, Inc. Log Of Test Pit TP-4 Olympia,WA (Page 1 of 1) Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Started :5/31/16 41 W Beerbower Road Date Completed :5/31/16 Elma,WA 98541 Sampling Method Grab Sample Geotechnical Investigation Location :Please Reference Appendix A2 for Test Locations MTCProject#16S084 Logged By LM - a v ¢ DESCRIPTION m o D 0 inn 0 GRAVELLY TOPSOIL,organic rich,twigs,moss,roots,dry,loose to medium dense.BROWN. 1 GW 2 Poorly-Graded GRAVEL with SAND and trace SILT,gravel up to 2 inch diameter,dry,dense.ORANGE-BROWN 3 to BROWN. 4— Hard digging starting from approximately 2.0'.Interbedded sand lenses throughout the rest of the excavation. 5 GP 6 7 Very hard digging starting from approximately 7.0'. 8- - Total Depth=8.0 feet 9 Test Pit Terminated at Desired Depth No Groundwater Encountered 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 22 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of I Materials Testing and Consulting 2118 Black Lake Blvd.,NW PROJECT NUMBER: 16SO84 Olympia,WA 98512 DATE STARTED: 01-14-2016 DATE COMPLETED: 0144-2016 HOLE#: DCP-1 CREW: CL/LM SURFACE ELEVATION: EXistingGrade PROJECT: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation WATER ON COMPLETION: None Encountered ADDRESS: 41 W Beerbower Rd,Ehm,WA 98541 HAMMER WEIGHT: 35lbs. LOCATION: 4'Upslope from Berm at Slope Crest CONE AREA: 10 sq.cm BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm' 0 50 100 150 N SAND&SILT CLAY 13 57.7 •^............• 16 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 49 217.6 ..........................................••• - VERY DENSE HARD 1 ft 50 222.0 .............................................. VERYDENSE HARD 2ft 3 ti - lm 4ft 5ft 6ft - 2m 7ft 8ft 9ft 3m loft lift 12ft - 4m 13ft WILMAT.XLS 23 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Materials Testing and Consulting 2118 Black Lake Blvd.,NW PROJECT NUMBER 16SO84 Olympia,WA 98512 DATE STARTED: 05-31-2016 DATE COMPLETED: 05-31-2016 HOLE#: DCP-2 CREW: CL/LM SURFACE ELEVATION: Existing Grade PROJECT: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation WATER ON COMPLETION: None Encountered ADDRESS: 41 W Beerbower Rd,Elms,WA 98541 HAMMER WEIGHT: 35lbs. LOCATION: Approx 250'Upslope from Slope Toe, 16'N of Access Road CONEAREA: 10 sq.cm BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm Kg/cm? 0 50 100 150 N SAND&SILT CLAY 3 13.3 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF I ft 10 44.4 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 16 71.0 ..................•• 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 18 79.9 ..................••••• 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 2 ft 27 119.9 .................................• - DENSE HARD 31 137.6 ....................................... DENSE HARD 35 155.4 ............................................. DENSE HARD 3 ft 38 168.7 ............................................. DENSE HARD 1 m 41 182.0 ..........................................••• VERYDENSE HARD 24 92.6 ........................•• MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 4 ft 14 54.0 ............••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 20 77.2 ..................•••• 22 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 24 92.6 ........................•• - MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 5 ft 24 92.6 ........................•• MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 28 108.1 ..............................• MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 31 119.7 ........................•^......• DENSE HARD 6 ft 35 135.1 ....................................... DENSE HARD 50 193.0 ..........................................••• VERY DENSE HARD - 2m 7ft 8ft 9ft - 3m ]Oft 12ft - 4m 13ft WILDCATALS 24 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 1 Materials Testing and Consulting 2118 Black Lake Blvd.,NW PROJECT NUMBER: 16SO84 Olympia,WA 98512 DATE STARTED: 05-31-2016 DATE COMPLETED: 05-31-2016 HOLE#: DCP-3 CREW: CULM SURFACE ELEVATION: E,dsting Grade PROJECT: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation WATER ON COM PLEI'ION: None Encountered ADDRESS: 41 W Beerbower Rd,Ehm,WA 98541 HAMMER W EIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Approx 56 Upslope from Slope Toe,8'N of Access Road CONEAREA: 10 sq.cm BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY DEPTH PER 10 cm K /cnn' 0 50 100 150 N SAND&SILT CLAY 3 13.3 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 7 31.1 ••••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 1 ft 22 97.7 ••••••......••••••......•••• - MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 19 84.4 •••••••••••••••••••••••• 24 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 22 97.7 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 2 ft 17 75.5 ••••••......••••••••• 21 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 12 53.3 ••••••......••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 8 35.5 •••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF 3 ft 4 17.8 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF I m 5 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 4 ft 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 9 34.7 •••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF 5 ft 8 30.9 •••••••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 11 42.5 •••••••••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 17 65.6 ••••••••••••••••••• 18 MEDIUM DENSE VERYSTIFF 6 ft 38 146.7 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - DENSE HARD 50 193.0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• VERYDENSE HARD 2m 7Q 8 ti 9ft 3m loft 12 ft 4m 13ft %MWCAT.XLS 25 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elms,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Appendix D. Laboratory Results Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to better identify the soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depths on the individual boring logs. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent in situ soil conditions. All of our recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgment. MTC cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. Soil samples for this project will be retained for a period of 3 months following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil samples were visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they were obtained. They were subsequently packaged and returned to our laboratory where they were reexamined and the original description checked and verified or modified. With the help of information obtained from the other classification tests, described below, the samples were described in general accordance with ASTM Standard D2487. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate locations on the individual exploration logs, located in Appendix C,and are qualitative only. GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION Grain-size distribution analyses were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Standard D422 on representative soil samples to determine the grain-size distribution of the on-site soil. The information gained from these analyses allows us to provide a description and classification of the in-place materials. In turn, this information helps us to understand engineering properties of the soil and thus how the in- place materials will react to conditions such as heavy seepage, traffic action, loading, potential liquefaction, and so forth. The results are presented in this Appendix. 26 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Sieve Report Project: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Received: 31-May-16 AS"IM D-2497 Unified Soils Classification System Project#: 16SO84 Sampled By:CL GW,Well-graded Gravel with Sand Client: NW Rock Date Tested:2-Jun-16 Sample Color: Source: TP-1 @3' Tested By: JE Brown "ACCREDiTO ..� Sam le#: S16-196 ASTM D-2216 ASTM D-2419 ASTM D-4318 AS1M D-5821 D,s=0.300 Gave!=67.5% Coeff of Curvature,C,=2.07 Specifications Dnot=0696 mm %Sand=29.9a/o Coeff.of Uniformity,Cry=18.15 No Specs D1„r=1.421 mm %Sih&Clay=2.6% Fineness Modulus=5.92 Sample Meets Specs?N/A D,.,=4.266 min Liquid Limit n/a Plastic Limit=n/a Drror=8.860 min Plasticity Index=n/a Moisture%,as sampled=6.3% Dt.,=12.625 mm Sand Equivalent=n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent=c D,,=36.524 mm Fracture%,I Face=n/a Reid Fracture%,1 Face=r Dust Rath= 3/8 Fracture%,2+Faces=n/a Re'd Fracture%,2+Faces=r ASTM C-136 ASTM D-6913 Actual Interpolated c,.m s;::a:nemioa Cumulative Cumulative Sieve Size Percent i Percent Specs ISpecs g mm " k x= E c&il I&VIE+S US Metric Passing ! Passinli Max i Min , .::TT.sso,a-h •rT.r-,tr,rt��--r ,mow 12.00" 300.00 i0oa/o 100.0'/6 1o.oai nil!! l j!!i ! ! Ill!!II I :!ll 111 l ili!II I I allllll I 10,00" 250.00 100% 100.0"1 0.0ai 'i i i ! llllll I I 'llllll! I i!Il�i l l I IIII I I I I I 11111!I I I 8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0a/o o.oai .�. "; i_iilli _ VlU1 i L if1llli� 1U111 LLJ1W�J ,ate iil:{I : :I!IIIIII :llllll I ill III I i:ll:ll. I jlllllll I 6.00^ 150.00 boar loo.oar i o.oai •lll!I i i 'iN1! I l�!IIII I I I!II�II i I !llllll! I !!III!!I ! 4.00" 100.00 100% 100.0ai 1 o.oai !!i!{i ! ai!lii 1 'I!I!il! ! Ii111III I Hill II 1 Illlljl I 3.00" 75.00 boar loo.oai o.oai "I((i7t ! !!!!!! lllii 1 :llllll 1 11111!I! I ii111!i1 I illi!III ! :!llllll 1 2.50" 63.00 100% 100.0% 0.0% 'lrl;!!!:{: :Inl::: I:IIIII I 11111;;1 I llllll ! : III zoo" 50.00 boar loo.oar 1 0.0% 7f. I- : I i{}tttt ;f it-t- Hii I I H t 1.75" 45.00 100% l00% 100.0% j 0.0% •i1!! '!!+III II' ,!i :� nu 1 u ;;; ; ...Ii ;.:I:II: i � IIIIf :.II1.. I ::I: IIII nll:il ! 1.50" 37.50 91% 91% 10oo'/0 ' 0.Oa/o °!11'!I ! 'III�IIi i ul Ili i ... :.:ti; ::•I ui i : ; 1.25" 31.50 83% 83% 100.0% ! 0.0% . +-i-i-I----liiir++l�' -I-'4--jrul�i-i-I--✓--�'i-r�- -rl-i-- ea.a llllll 1 :1!li!11 ! glllill I :!llllll ! l!Iil ii !Il!I111 ! 1.00" 25.00 75% 75% loo.oai 0.10% g ;I`II dilllll l llllll l 'IIIlI!I I Milli! I !!llllll ! 3/a" 19.00 72% 72a/o 100.0% I 0.0% 5/8" 16.00 68% 68% l000a/o I o.0% { s ':!!!I ;,�i� ! li -�� I� �� 1/2" 12.50 60% 60% 100.0s/o 1 0.0a/o i;•:: ! I•i il; i : i i ; ; Mill i :llllll; I it III I ipl111 � IIIIIII i :III! ! +lull l 'III III I 'I!Iliil { !llllll ! 3/8" 9.50 53% 53% 100.0% I 0.0a/o +- . t-'R!Ii'?TIC -?iilli-!'!-i •aa I/4" 6.30 40% 40a/o 100.0% 0.0% #a 4.75 33% 33% loo.oar o.oar ill!! ! llllll l ',ifi i i I !11II!!i :lull l i I Hill I1 I i #8 2.36 20% IOO.Oa/o ' 0.0% s .:rr�-!----4ii�Fi'FI-+-"--riir1-<-+----:putt:rr-- •rr-. -r san ill .;I ; I!!llll ; #10 200 I8% IS% 100.0% I 0.0% !!(! ':!1!M I ! Ill ! ! !!IHi !! ! 920 0.850 12°/ % 100.0°0 ! 0.0% iiiiltt ::;!!l 12 l!Iiit� I--!Ii_i_'__iii 11r �}r,t #30 0.600 9a/o 100.0a/o 0.oar :I:iII . :;;:,II: : �IIIIi l iii111I1 i 'IIIIIII I lulllll I a .11llll i 'I!!lil! I III!III 1 III I i111ii1 1 IIII II I #40 0.425 Tar Tar loo.oai o.ar 'l i!1tt1 aa`'i-tt-'titttti-t�-`httt!-I #50 0.300 5% 100.0% 0.00/0 :i! i !!II!11!. ! llllll) 'Ii!'•I 1 IIII!II I Ilfllll ! •fil l I :m;ll: ! :�il;l:l "ill 1 ;1!11111 1 #60 0.250 4% 4% 100.0% i 0.0% ii:!I: an:l l: : :I: !w'i"�%f:! #80 0.180 4% 4% 100.0% 0.0% ;"oso.mo ,mom ,nmo ,am o,m o.ma o.om #100 0.150 3a/o 3% 100.0% ! 0.0% 0140 0.106 3% 100.0a/o 0.01 °ipc"s`•c"'" #I70 0.090 3% 100.01/0 i 0.0% #200 0.075 2.6% 2.61% 100.0% j 0.0% Ccpy,,gN Sp-En ire n g&Tec-1 Sa-Pa,111]69a 27 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd, Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Sieve Report Project: Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Received: 31-May-16 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project#: 16SO84 Sampled By-CL SP,Poorly graded Sand with Gravel Client:NW Rock Date Tested:2-Jun-16 Sample Color: Source:TP-1 @ 13' Tested By:JE Gray/Brown ACCREDITED . Sam le#: S16-197 ASTM D-2216 ASTM D-2419,ASTM D-43 t8 ASTM D-5821 I) 0 I s`) min %Gavel-32.5% Coeff of Curvature,C,=0.92 Specifications D�ir,�-0.320 min %Sand=63.9% Coeff_of Urdornuty,C,=11.78 \0 Specs Dp„=0.472 min %Sift&Clay=3.5% Fineness Modulus=4.42 Sample\Iccts Specs^. \;:� D1.q,=1.073 min Liquid Limit=n/a Plastic Limit=n/a Dt,1,=2.634 min Plasticity Index=n/a Mosture%,as sampled=4.A/ Dt.,=3.845 min Sand Equivalent=n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent=r D(.,=12.905 mm Fracture%,I Face=n/a Req'd Fracture%,1 Face=r Dust Rath=23/88 Fracture%,2+Faces=rila Re'd Fracture%,2+Faces=� ASTM C-136 ASTM D-6913 Scuu:d 'lnte,pulated c-sue aapema" Cumulative'Cumulative Sieve Size Percent Percent Specs I Specs US Metric Passing Passine Mm I Min 12.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% 0.10% liiil .!IIIII i Illil i I :I'll/.!I I :IIIIII { i.H I I I 10.00" 250.00 loop/. 100.0% 0.0er IIIII. i 'IIII 1 1 1 'II!I!11 I ill IIII I 1 1lll11 11 IIIIIII I I 8.00" 200.00 100% 100.0% o.0p/o IIr!!!!!iI Ii/.l!i�;I!i;!!!„IIilIIii lIIt II;,III !IIIIIII IIIIlIlI IIIIIlItI IIIII IIIIIIl IIIIi IIIII !iiII(f!JIiiIIl!iIiIIIlI l'IIIlI lI!IllI I!IilI IlIIIII IIIfIII lIIIII!IIIIII -I}l!lIIII+It IlIIIII--.I}IIfIIIlII-::IIIIIIIIII IIIIIlIIIII IIII III !;:jaiEi:I IIl!ll,IlII!!lti!Il lIIIllllI IIlIIIIlIiIII IIIIllIIII III!lI(II ! 6.00" 150.00 1000/o 100.0% 0.0r 4.00" 100.00 1000/o 100.01% 0.0r I i i I I 3.00" 75.00 100% 100.0% 0.01/o II I iz.50" 63.00 10% 100.0% 0.0i 2.00" 50.00 1001/6 100.0% 1 0.0"/6 1.75" 45.00 loop/. 100% 100.0% 0.op/ I 1 i!III 1.50" 37.50 1001/o 100.01% 0.op/ :Jill 1 l L25" 31.50 loop/ 100.0% 0.01/ 1.00^ 25.00 Ilor looy 100.0% o.o% 0.0%3/4" 19.00 95% 95% 100.O/ 5/9" 16.00 94% 94% 100.01% 0.0/ 1/2" 12.50 891/0 89% 100.0% 0.0i 3/8" 9.50 93% 83% 100.0% 0.0% IIIIlIIIIII wwR 1/4" 630 74% 7a/ 100.M. 0.0% #4 4.75 67% 67% 100.01/p 0.0% I ill I i !I „ i I i IIII I IIII !II I I I I I I I !il!I/.I I I 48 236 48% 100.0% 1o.or �05 !/.!iii IiIi Iiii I I III ill I!II I! :I!IIIIIIII II !'IIII II I ,IIIII II I ':i!lIi Iikilill #10 2.00 45% 45% 100.0% 0.0% #16 1.18 32/o 100.0% O.N. #20 0.850 26% 269/6 100.0% 00/6 : - h #30 0.600 190/o 10o.01/o 0.0pr i;ii:l I I ;IIIIIII :IIIII ( ;•;IIIIII :IIIIIII :IIIIII I #40 0.425 14% 14% 100.01/6 l 0.0% ..,i #50 0.300 9p/p 100.0% 0.0% ! I ! I l f I I I !I III I I I I I i:I ll l l I I #60 0.250 7p/o 7% 100.01% ! 0.0pi0% all iil i i II IIf I I :IIII/.!/. I :IIIIIII IIIIII �iii!il l #80 0.180 6% 60/6 100.01% 0.01/6 ,mpmo ,m.pm ,pmp tpm p,m 0110 poo 1% #100 0.150 5% 5% 100.0% ! 0.0% #140 0.106 4% 100.10% 1 0.01/6 #170 0.090 41/o 100.0% i 0.0% 0200 0.075 3.5% 3.51/6 100.0% i O.Op/o °•"•°"_ -� �..s,.a -«- w�"s�.= s.»mW,. C r M s a,E ire fl Tech-Services PS.19 98 28 Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation,41 W Beerbower Rd,Elma,Washington Materials Testing&Consulting,Inc. June 29,2016 16SO84 Sieve Report Project:Chandler Pit Geotechnical Investigation Date Received:31-May-16 ASTM D-2487 Unified Soils Classification System Project#: I6SO84 Sampled By:CL GP,Poorly graded Gravel with Sand Client:NW Rock Date Tested:2-ltm-16 Sample Color: Source:TP-3 @ 3' Tested By:JE Brown ACCREDITED y Sam le#: S16-198 ASTM D-2216 ASTM D-2419 ASTM D-4318 ASTM D-5821 D,,,=0,207 mm %Gavel=54.4% Coeff of Curvature,C,=0.49 Specifications D„a,=0.327 mm %Sand=43.2% Coeff.of Uniformity,C, =30.22 No Specs D,,,,=0.436 nun %Sift&Clay=2.3% Fineness Modulus=5.10 Sample Meets Specs"VA D,b,=1.263 mint Liquid Lint=n/a Plastic I"=n1a D„r,=6.280 min Plasticity Index=n/a Moisture%,as sampled=7.9r/e D,ro,=9.891 min Sand Equivalent=n/a Req'd Sand Equivalent=r D„r,=21.079 nun Fracture%.1 Face=o/a Req'd Fracture%,I Face=r Dust Ratio= 4/25 Fracture%,2+Faces=n/a Re'd Fractw!%,2+Faces=r ASTM C-136 ASTM D-6913 Actual Interpolated Goin Size Oil,iOuron Cumulative Cumulative _ Sieve Sine Percent Percent Specs i Speca a `e`�ti.x• �Xa ��isiii� US Metric Passing Passing Max i Min 1z.00" 300.00 100% 100.0% o.o°r ro. I•!I I! n!!I I ! iliil III iilll I! 1 i1111 I III tl I! 10.00" 250.00 l00% 100.0^r a.o^r ! ill il I I I ull I I! I 'iilll I i I i1 111 I I ! 8.00" 200.00 lo0% 100.0"/6 0.0% ; !-';• :;• r"r` "" I!11 Ihll I I I IIII i t :!ill I I I i.11 I I I 6.00" 150.00 1a0% 100.0% 0.0^i III II ill! I !IIII iilll I I illlll I I !illlll a.00" 100.00 Ioo^r 100.0rr 0.0^i ilil l i IfIII I I IIIII I I I !IIIII I I I i!illl I i l !!!IIII i 3.00" 75.00 1000/0 100.0"/o 0.01/0 son iu ii; I; 150" 63.00 100% 100.0% 1 0.0% !lI!! 1 1 ;,dl 1l11 i I !L I ! ! All! ! !il I! i 2.00" 50.00 1W"/o 100.0% I 0.0^r lilil I I NtNI!�f�Ii 4tt t- 1.75" 45.00 l>o^r 100.aPr i 0.0^i is,. I0. ISO.. 37.50 1000/ 100.o^r 0.o Mill -i:Ii--iiil4ItiiIi4IlIl;!IIl•1II��III -IIi;- 1:li1i1Il1II IIIIIIII II iIl!!i Il IIII III!I! III I!I'II II III 1.25" 31.50 1wr 1oo^r 10o.or o.o^r 4__1 i44- I 'I 1.00" 25.00 94% 94% IWO/. o.o^i 0 a + - III eon a r 00.03/4" 19.00 88% 88% 00. % '/0 5/8" 16.00 72% 72% 0.0% y 1/2" 12.50 67% 679r 100.0^i 0.0^r 'III I l I! I I 'III I I!l i l I ill I I !iiI 1 1 i!!II11 I IIII I 3/8" 9.50 59^i 59'r 100.10^r ; o.o°r Its :; .a,. 114" 6.30 50^r 50% 1a0.0% o.o^r :i! II !!illlll illlllll IIIIII i! il-s~I :IIIII I #4 4.75 469/6 461/6 100.0% + 0.o^r ill I 9 I!I I#8 2.36 37% 100.0% i •" 4-4 - 4I 4iI-4i 4 -I :!i!iIlIl I 4l 4 -1i!^ I lllll ! #10 2.00 35% 35% 100.0% ! 0.0% i 29% 100.#16 Lt8#20 0.950 27% 27% 100.0% i0.0"/o r 1 II� #30 0.600 20% 100.0^i o.0^r I I I I ,III ! 1111 I I I I #ao 0.425 15% 15% loo.o^i 1 0.0% f il a ao« #50 0.300 9rr 100.0% 0.0% I I I I I ll I I f ! :IIII ! ;IIIII I IIII I I I i11 I I I #60 0.250 6% 6% 100.01/ o.o^r LiI I I .LI I I LI I III II II I !Ill , 1 #so 0.180 4% a% 100.t)P/0 i 0.0'/0 tropro,1 t00.Oro 10M ,Oro .1. 0.010 000, #100 0.150 3% 3% 100.01% I 0.0% #140 0.106 3% 100.01/0 ; 0.0% #170 0.090 3°0 100.01% 1 0.0% #200 0.075 2.3% 2.3% 100.01% 0.0% M S E a!e aTe .Si, i PS.19" 29 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX C Site Plans Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 1 2323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) 19 20 30 9 OWNER. CHANDLER PIT -;77 JOHN J. STAG:z��//leor,�z OWNER: WEYERHAEUSER "41 lo 4c ��C OWNER: E 677 87 %� '� Z KELLY E. STEIGVA� S 87'13'56" E 1.315.6400 RECLAMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY *"4 29 LEGAL DESCRIPTION REFER TO ADDITIONAL %f l 1 2�2 SITE PLAN NOTES ON PAGE 3 OF 3 00 30 / � r ��E�� 1� � 1 � `YOWNER: OWNER. 62.22 WEYERHAEUSER HOLLATZ FAMILY TRUST N 26*16'30" E OWNER: s, WEYERHALIUSER,, LESEE: A r NORTH WEST ROCK) INC. >_ Qf 1 -2W I - f 7 OWNER: .17 DAMES & LJUJAN HET? z Z_ D -100 0 LEGEND a) co PROPERTY STEVEN G. TILLMAN LLJ LL, BOUNDARY OWNER. X IK3 z r -♦ Z' Tor • -CLEARING OWNER: v LIMITS V V WILLIAM LEE SMITH V� II OWNER: 0 , /v w KA THLEEN HAKES OWNER. I GEORGIA A. WATSON \X OKjqER. XRRIE & SALLY EATON 1"=200 FEET 0 It ill rr7 0 100 200 400 0 1 �! ' "' A _ . r ;r C" 1\' OWNER: Q 0 '!� I/ \ /� } ! r��4 O DONALD J. KIAiZLE I OqO ^/%l�\ '' �- �\` \\ ` / �` i r�J r'%%'cl), TO MATLOCK sk OWNER- S RiVER HAVEN Op/ /-6L)" CA RT ■ OWNER: CURRENT f \ KA THLEEN HAKES PIT SITE OWNER 2r 3. RIVER HAVEN RECRE.,,,. s 19 I 473.39 4c S 87*19'31" E * RECLAMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY 1315.6292 OWNER: i J oc no-1 l,n 7p RIVER HAVEN RECREA �� ._ %��\ � %� `Lf ., ....... OWNER. SLATE OF WASHINGTON 0 OWNER.j = 120 ELAINE ZEIGLER V) TO SATSOP 1 :::3 OWNER.- OWNER. TO BRADY JEFFRY NELSON STETSON a LINDA PALMER \RO ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN .- 9-19-16 NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. VICINITY MAP NOTES ON PAGE DDIWNER. DA 7EE HEDLUND NOT TO SCALE PAGE 3 OF 3 WICHAEL KAREN SINCLAIR E IDWN: c T ISCA Q 1"=300' _TL4_NDfjER Pf ff -SHEET 1 OF .-3 CHANDLER PIT OWNER: SECTION 30, T. 19N, R. 6 W, W.M. JOHN J. STADLER ��° < �04 OOLLATZ FAMILY TRUST CURRENT RECLAMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY 1 •' — �_ — X 2s' — _ - — - - - OWNER: I 202 — — -- --�C KELLY E. STEIGMAN 230 LEGEND 25 z ----'—DIRECTION OF RUNOFF LLHASE 4 + I PG PHASE 2 ,�--- -_ '� o OWNER: _`- JAMES & LILLIAN HET7 „- �� 131 V w NORTHWEST ROCKPG WMENMOVAMM OWNER: ci � � STEVEN G. TILLMAN Ld A oTA7VA OWNER: V PHASE 3 t- V V WILLIAM LEE SMITH cr- LEEN HAKES LEGEND OWNER: I W GEORGIA A. WA TSON —Property Boundar y OWNER: Z _ JERRIE & SALLY EATON D OWNER: —Clearing \ I WEYERHAEUSER i r�- Limits t • . a � OWNER. DONALD J. KINZLE T -52 OMER: z �:r�j,;� ;;` . � ,� �� l '� sor uL Rr OWNER: RIVER HAVEN RECREATION f tj __ 82 =" \`\ KATHLEEN HAKES f - OWNER: 25'-- --• '�• x'Aae .x aa� i RIVER HAVEN RE;^,REA Tt=;; ISO CURRENT RECLAMATION PERMIT BOUNDARY OWNER: MW --- RIVER HAVEN RECREATION \ �.� --- _ �-,_.. _..e/ •.�_ `' - - OWNER: t20 STATE OF WASHINGTON SCALE: 1"=200' ElNE ZEiGLER OWNER: OWNER: 0 100 200 400 I JEFFRY NELSON STETSON & LlNDa PALMEt? _ OWNER: DATE: 9-19-16 NORTHWEST ROCK INC. T OWNER. EDDIE HEDLUND --- - - -- , -_ MICHAEL & KAREN SINCLAIR DWN: APR: PROPOSED PLAN SCALE: 1"=200, FINAL CONTOURS SHEET 2 OF 3 NOTES SECTION A—AA 1. ALL FINAL RECLAIMED SLOPES SHALL BE AT A MINIMUM 2H:1 V. 2. 25' PERMANENT SETBACK AND UNDISTURBED BUFFER AROUND PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY TO BE UTILIZED AS AN ACCOUSTICAL BARRIER / NOISE ATTENUATION BUFFER. 25' PERMANENT SETBACK 3. PIT FLOORS WILL BE SLOPED TO KEEP STORMWATER ONSITE AND COLLECTED IN THE NORTH- WEST FLOOR AREA OF THE PROPERTY. EDGE OF ROAD R/W 4. PRIOR TO ANY GRAVEL EXTRACTION ACTIVITY IN A NEW AREA; HIGH VISIBILITY FENCES WILL & PERMIT BOUNDARY CURRENT PERMIT BOUNDARY BE INSTALLED TO MARK CLEARING LIMITS. SILT FENCES WILL FOLLOW TO PREVENT ANY SILT 400.00 ___ __1_.__. __ __ .__..__ 400.00 LADEN RUNOFF FROM LEAVING THE CLEARED AREA. TREE HARVEST BOUNDARY 5. TOP SOIL WILL BE REMOVED AND STOCKPILED FOR FUTURE SITE RECLAMATION WORK. STOCK BENTHEIN RO C/L PILED SOILS WILL BE HYDROSEEDED TO STABILIZE AND PREVENT EROSION. RECLAMATION SETBACK 6. GRASS LINED DITCHES WILL CONVEY SURFACE RUNOFF TO THE GRAVEL PIT FLOOR. 00 O O O O O 0' 0 O 00 O O O O O OI O 0 o I I o m rn m 0) o of C) ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN NOTES 200.00 Lod; , r EXISTING GROUND `" �I 200.00 1. SUBSEQUENT USE OF THE SITE WILL BE FORESTRY. ! 2. NO AREAS OF POTENTIAL EROSION PROBLEMS ON THIS SITE. FlNISHED GRADE 3. TREES WILL BE CLEARED TO THE 25' SETBACK ON THE NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF j o ' THE PERMITTED AREA. STUMPS AND VEGETATION WILL NOT BE CLEARED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WATER rAeiE o o o �; wArER TABLE THAT PHASE OF MINING IS READY TO PROCEED. of ( M 0% -0_a _ ____________}_ 0.00 -2+00 0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=200 FEET " VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=200 FEET i SECTION B—BB LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 25' PERMANENT SETBACK 25' PERMANENT SETBACK NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 19 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, W.M. ALSO KNOWN AS 400.00 TREE HARVEST BOUNDARY TREE HARVEST BOUNDARY 400.00 MASON COUNTY, WA. TAX PARCEL #619304000010 P RECLAMATION SETBACK RECLAMATION SETBACK o o 00o O o0 o O O o 00o O o R O O 00 0 O O O ODO O of I000 o'` o c co co - co co rn C v N o co ao 0 0 0 200.00 f.. �� N � � � � � EXISTING GROUN � � �� I �CD Ct?(o 200.00 �L FlN/SHED GRADE . . . . �J O o SA_Ic' TABLE Q 0 r- r��WATER TABLE N CM c 0.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.00 -2+00 0+00 2+00 4+00 6+00 8+00 10+00 12+00 14+00 16+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=200 FEET VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=200 FEET DATE: 9-19-16 H NORTWEST ROCK, INC. I _ T IDWN: APR: 8 PROFILE VIEWS - 1" 200 SHEET 3 OF 3 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX D National Wetland Inventory MAP Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 1 2323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Wetland in the vicinity of Chandler Pit ,jot A s �+ Aff State Park s. s � L /• Y • d � 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi M 0 0.1 0.2 0.4 km August 2, 2016 This map is for general reference only.The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland base data shown on this map.All wetlands related data should 0 Other be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine 0 Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper rmiiwaZ'i ut U.S. Fish 1 Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory Wetland in the vicinity of Chandler Pit Ile AL t f • 1 ' j f 1:7,396 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 mi " August 2, 2016 This map is for general reference only.The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map.All wetlands related data should Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine El Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX E IPAC Trust Resources Report Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 1 2323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chandler Pit IPaC Trust Resources Report Generated August 02, 2016 12:20 PM MDT, IPaC v3.0.8 This report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts. For project reviews that require U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service review or concurrence, please return to the FaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents page. JI y • i E � IPaC-Information for Planning and Conservation(https://`ecos.fws.aov/ipac/):A project planning tool to help streamline the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service environmental review process. Table of Contents IPaC Trust Resources Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 MigratoryBirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Refuges & Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resources Report NAME Chandler Pit LOCATION Mason County, Washington DESCRIPTION Section 30, T 19 N, R 6 WWM, IPAC LINK https://ecos.fws.aov/i a�c/prQject/ LXFVA-DL06J-GHNBR-DNQ6A-U4212U - s Pa o-" U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Contact Information Trust resources in this location are managed by: Washington Fish And Wildlife Office 510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503-1263 (360) 753-9440 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species Endangered Species Proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species are managed by the Endangered Species Program of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This USFWS trust resource report is for informational purposes only and should not be used for planning or analyzing project level impacts. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list from the Regulatory Documents section. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list either from the Regulatory Documents section in IPaC or from the local field office directly. The list of species below are those that may occur or could potentially be affected by activities in this location: Birds Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B08C Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.goy/tess 1 u� blic/ rofile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=BOB3 Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is proposed critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess ub i roR file/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B06R 8/2/2016 12:20 PM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 2 IPaC Trust Resources Report Endangered Species Fishes Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened CRITICAL HABITAT There is final critical habitat designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.aov/tes$public rofile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=E065 Critical Habitats There are no critical habitats in this location 8/2/2016 12:20 PM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 3 IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds Migratory Birds Birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Any activity that results in the take of migratory birds or eagles is prohibited unless authorized by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.111 There are no provisions for allowing the take of migratory birds that are unintentionally killed or injured. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in the take of migratory birds is responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations and implementing appropriate conservation measures. 1. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) Additional information can be found using the following links: • Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/manaaement/manaaed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php • Conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.aov/birds/manaaement/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php • Year-round bird occurrence data http://www.birdscanada.org/birdmon/default/datasummaries.= The following species of migratory birds could potentially be affected by activities in this location: Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round hht p://ecos.fws.aov/tess public/profile/speciesProfi le,action?spcode=BOO 8 Black Swift Cypseloides niger Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.aov/tess—public/ rop file/speciesProfile.action?spcode=BOFW Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Bird of conservation concern Season: Wintering Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http7//ecos fws aov/tess public/ rop file/speciesProfile action?spcode=BOAN 8/2/2016 12:20 PM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 4 IPaC Trust Resources Report Migratory Birds Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.aov/tess ublic/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=BOFU Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws.gov/tess public/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=BOE1 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Bird of conservation concern Season: Year-round http://ecos.fws.aov/tess ublic/ rop file/speciesProfile.action?spcode=BOHD Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding gip://ecos.fws.aov/tess public/ rop file/speciesProfile.action?spcode=BOEA Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Bird of conservation concern Season: Breeding http://ecos.fws,aoy/test public/ ro�peciesProfile.action?spcode=BOF6 8/2/2016 12:20 PM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 5 IPaC Trust Resources Report Refuges&Hatcheries Wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries There are no refuges or fish hatcheries in this location 8/2/2016 12:20 PM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 6 IPaC Trust Resources Report Wetlands Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. DATA LIMITATIONS The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources.The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation,visible hydrology and geography.A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery;thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery,the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. DATA EXCLUSIONS Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands.These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities(coral or tuberficid worm reefs)have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth,go undetected by aerial imagery. DATA PRECAUTIONS Federal,state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory.There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory,to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state,or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,state,or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. This location overlaps all or part of the following wetlands: Freshwater Forested/shrub Wetland PSS1 C Riverine R5UBH 8/2/2016 12:20 PM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 7 IPaC Trust Resources Report Wetlands A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website: http://107.20.228.18/decoders/wetlands.aspx 8/2/2016 12:20 PM IPaC v3.0.8 Page 8 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX F NRCS Soil Survey Information for Mason County, WA, Chandler Pit Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 1 2323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for NRCSStates Department of Agriculture and other Mason County, Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Resources Agricultural Experiment Washington Conservation Stations,and local Service participants Chandler Pit r _.i 0 8,{30U ft August 2, 2016 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses.The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning,onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/main/soils/health/)and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http:// offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres)or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads.Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status,familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation,genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal,or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)Persons with disabilities who require alternative means 2 for communication of program information (Braille, large print,audiotape,etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination,write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice)or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface....................................................................................................................2 HowSoil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap..................................................................................................................7 SoilMap................................................................................................................8 Legend..................................................................................................................9 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................10 MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................10 Mason County, Washington............................................................................13 Ca—Carstairs gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes....................................13 Gh—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes..............................13 Gk—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes............................14 Gm—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes.........................15 Ho—Hoquiam silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes............................................16 Hp—Hoquiam silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes..........................................17 Ja—Juno gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.................................17 Jb—Juno loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.........................................................18 Jd—Juno sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes..............................................19 La—Le Bar silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes.................................................20 Rb—Rough broken land..............................................................................21 Ss—Solduc gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes........................................21 Su—Solduc gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes.............................22 References............................................................................................................24 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area.They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock.They observed and described many soil profiles.A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock.The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently,soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform,a soil scientist develops a concept,or model,of how they were formed.Thus, during mapping,this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture,size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the 5 Custom Soil Resource Report individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping,design of map units,complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil- landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt,and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests.Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and identified each as a specific map unit.Aerial photographs show trees,buildings,fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 6 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 7 Custom Soil Resource Report 3 Soil Map N 463300 463400 463500 463600 463700 463800 463900 464000 464100 464200 4(i4300 464400 464500 464600 464700 4r 6'23-N 8 g 47-6-23"N N N N [� � N s { N IN d TA r ��y OP& Fa j,/AN& �' - . Sul Gm Gh �f Sul ja N N 3 - G � 47"5'53"N 47"5 53"N 463300 463400 463500 463600 4637C10 463800 463900 464000 464100 464200 464300 464400 464500 464600 464700 3 ; Map sole:1:6,620 if prited on A landscape(11"x 8.51)sheet Metals NN 0 50 100 200 300 /V 0 300 600 1200 1800 MaP Pro)ection:Web MenAx Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 1ON WGS84 8 Custom Soil Resource Report MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:31,700. -71 Area of Interest(AOI) Stony Spot Soils Very Stony Spot Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. J Soil Map Unit Polygons Wet Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause .v Soil Map unit Lines misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line Other g pp g y Soil Map Unit Points placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting .- Special Line Features soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Special Point Features V Blowout Water Features Streams and Canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Borrow Pit measurements. Transportation Clay Spot Rails �44 Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Closed Depression ti Interstate Highways Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov Gravel Pit US Routes Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Gravelly Spot Major Roads Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Landfill Local Roads projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Lava Flow Background Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more accurate Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography calculations of distance or area are required. Mine or Quarry This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of Miscellaneous Water the version date(s)listed below. ® Perennial Water Soil Survey Area: Mason County,Washington Rock Outcrop Survey Area Data: Version 11,Sep 15,2015 .i.. Saline Spot Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 Sandy Spot or larger. 4. Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Date(s)aerial images were photographed: Data not available. Slide or Slip The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Sodic Spot imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 9 Custom Soil Resource Report 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 12.1 5.8% percent slopes Gh Grove gravelly sandy loam,0 to 92.4 44.1%1 5 percent slopes Gk Grove gravelly sandy loam,5 to 7.5 3.6% 15 percent slopes Gm Grove gravelly sandy loam,15 to 5.5 2.6% 30 percent slopes Ho Hoquiam silt loam,0 to 5 percent 3.1 1.5% slopes Hp Hoquiam silt loam,5 to 15 0.3 0.1% percent slopes Ja Juno gravelly sandy loam,0 to 3 9.1 4.4% percent slopes Jb Juno loam,0 to 3 percent slopes 2.81 1.3% i Jd Juno sandy loam,0 to 3 percent 11.9 5.7% slopes La Le Bar silt loam,0 to 5 percent 10.1 4.8% slopes Rb Rough broken land 21.0 10.0% Ss Solduc gravelly loam,0 to 5 23.7 11.3% I percent slopes Su Solduc gravelly sandy loam,0 to 9.8 4.7% 5 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 209.51 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area.The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils.On the landscape, however,the soils are natural phenomena,and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes.Consequently,every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas 10 Custom Soil Resource Report for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management.These are called contrasting,or dissimilar,components.They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha- Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of 11 Custom Soil Resource Report the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 12 Custom Soil Resource Report Mason County, Washington Ca—Carstairs gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hjl Mean annual precipitation: 65 to 100 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 200 to 240 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Carstairs and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Carstairs Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material: Glacial outwash with volcanic ash Typical profile H1 -0 to 15 inches: gravelly medial loam H2- 15 to 25 inches: very gravelly sandy loam, extremely gravelly sandy loam H2- 15 to 25 inches: extremely gravelly sand H3-25 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low(about 4.0 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Droughty Soils (G002XN402WA) Gh—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hkm Mean annual precipitation: 90 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 180 days 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Grove and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Grove Setting Landform: Outwash plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 -0 to 13 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2- 13 to 28 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3-28 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low(about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Soils with Moderate Limitations (G002XF603WA) Gk—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hkn Mean annual precipitation: 90 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Grove and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Grove Setting Landform: Outwash plains Parent material: Glacial outwash 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile H1 -0 to 9 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2-9 to 24 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3-24 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 2.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Sloping to Steep Soils (G002XN702WA) Gm—Grove gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hkp Mean annual precipitation: 90 inches Mean annual air temperature: 48 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 180 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Grove and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Grove Setting Landform: Outwash plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 -0 to 13 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2- 13 to 28 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3-28 to 60 inches: very gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 15 to 30 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low(about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Sloping to Steep Soils (G002XN702WA) Ho—Hoquiam silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hl5 Mean annual precipitation: 80 to 130 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 200 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Hoquiam and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hoquiam Setting Landform: Moraines Parent material: Volcanic ash and alluvium over dense glacial till Typical profile H1 -0 to 15 inches: gravelly medial silt loam H2- 15 to 52 inches: medial silt loam H3-52 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 48 to 60 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Very low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Other vegetative classification: Soils with Few Limitations (G002XF503WA) 16 Custom Soil Resource Report Hp—Hoquiam silt loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hl6 Mean annual precipitation: 80 to 130 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 160 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Hoquiam and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Hoquiam Setting Landform: Moraines Parent material: Volcanic ash and alluvium over dense glacial till Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: gravelly medial silt loam H2- 15 to 52 inches: medial silt loam H3- 52 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 48 to 60 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Very low to moderately low(0.00 to 0.06 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Other vegetative classification: Soils with Moderate Limitations (G002XF603WA) Ja—Juno gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2h1h Mean annual precipitation: 70 to 100 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F 17 Custom Soil Resource Report Frost-free period: 130 to 170 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Juno and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Juno Setting Landform: Flood plains Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile H1 -0 to 17 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2- 17 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand, very gravelly sand H2- 17 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low(about 4.4 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Seasonally Wet Soils (G002XN202WA) Jb—Juno loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hlj Mean annual precipitation: 70 to 100 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 170 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Juno and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Juno Setting Landform: Flood plains 18 Custom Soil Resource Report Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile H1 -0 to 17 inches: loam H2- 17 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand, very gravelly sand H2- 17 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 14 to 20 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 1.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Seasonally Wet Soils (G002XF203WA) Jd—Juno sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hll Mean annual precipitation: 70 to 100 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 130 to 170 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season Map Unit Composition Juno and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Juno Setting Landform: Flood plains Parent material: Alluvium Typical profile H1 -0 to 17 inches: sandy loam H2- 17 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand, very gravelly sand H2- 17 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 14 to 20 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification 19 Custom Soil Resource Report Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: Frequent Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 1.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4w Hydrologic Soil Group: A Other vegetative classification: Seasonally Wet Soils (G002XN202WA) La—Le Bar silt loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hiw Mean annual precipitation: 80 to 120 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 120 to 160 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Le bar and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Le Bar Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material: Old alluvium and/or loess Typical profile H1 -0 to 11 inches: medial silt loam H2- 11 to 22 inches: medial silt loam H3-22 to 43 inches: medial silt loam H4-43 to 60 inches: gravelly medial sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: B 20 Custom Soil Resource Report Other vegetative classification: Soils with Few Limitations (G002XF503WA) Rb—Rough broken land Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hmr Mean annual precipitation: 50 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period. 180 days Farmland classification: Not prime farmland Map Unit Composition Rough broken land and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Rough Broken Land Typical profile H1 -0 to 4 inches: gravelly loam H2-4 to 43 inches: very gravelly loam H3-43 to 60 inches: very gravelly sandy loam Properties and qualities Slope: 45 to 90 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 72 inches to densic material Natural drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low(about 3.2 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: B Ss—Solduc gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hnb Mean annual precipitation: 105 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 190 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated 21 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Composition Solduc and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Solduc Setting Landform: Terraces, plains Parent material: Glacial outwash Typical profile H1 -0 to 4 inches: gravelly medial loam H2-4 to 33 inches: very gravelly medial loam H3-33 to 60 inches: extremely cobbly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 2.3 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Other vegetative classification: Soils with Moderate Limitations (G002XF603WA) Su—Solduc gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2hnd Mean annual precipitation: 105 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 190 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Solduc and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Solduc Setting Landform: Plains, terraces Parent material: Glacial outwash 22 Custom Soil Resource Report Typical profile H1 -0 to 4 inches: gravelly medial sandy loam H2-4 to 33 inches: very gravelly medial loam H3-33 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand, extremely cobbly sand H3-33 to 60 inches: Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to strongly contrasting textural stratification Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 2.1 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: B Other vegetative classification: Soils with Moderate Limitations (G002XF603WA) 23 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. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt,G.W.,and L.M.Vasilas,editors.Version 6.0,2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual.Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999.Soil taxonomy:A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985.Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres 142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepastu re/?cid=stelprdb1043084 24 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 43041. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres 142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres 142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nresl42p2_052290.pdf 25 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX G Mining Reclamation Plan Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 12323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) 30 9 � owNER: OWNER: JOHN J. STAIa WEYERHAEUSER Oao 0 � 00' f 'O i OWNER. LEGAL DESCRIPTION KELLY E. STEICMAN REFER TO ADDITIONAL T BOUNDARY 29 SITE PLAN NOTES ON ' 30 PAGE 3 OF 3 ' OWNER: 62.22 N 26'16�30" E toHOLLATZ FAMILY TRUST \t J l Q OWNER: Z JAMES & LILLIAN HETT zp° m Ai LEGEND—PROPERTY OWNER: Q S \\'� � STEVEN G. TILLMAN N W BOUNDARY O \ —CLEARING ~ f` \ LIMITS X a - . OWNER: V V` rf. WILLIAM LEE SMITH ,9° U OWNER: % X KATHLEEN HAKES OWNER: GEORGlA A. WATSON OWNER: 1"=200 FEET JERRfE ae SALLY EATON _�L }� /O V 0 100 200 400 OWNER: DONALD J. KINZLE IOWNER: TO MATLOCK 0�2 RIVER HAVEN RIP 60' C' L RT _ OWNER: CURRENT o3 �p ' KATHLEEN HAKES PIT 4,2m / N SITE �'� OWNER: 7 0 3 RIVER `T \,' VI 2} SCNP�EFt PK RO m — _ Y Ow�/ "P R1 VE✓ I _ _. _ 760 OWNER: zO ST"47E OF WASHINGTON S N TO SATSOP TO BRADY c L NDA PAiMER �y VICINITY MAP ��NORTHWEST ROCK), INC. r� NOT1_I -0 �IcJ ,! /TI i SHEET 1 OF 3 OWNER: / JOHN J. STADLJl`R �1` _ OWNER: HOLLAT7 FAMILY TR()ST OWNER: f KELLY E. STEIGMAN < LEGEND —DIRECTION OF RUNOFF ` O OWNER: c m JAMES & LILLIAN HETT d / Z .. IowNER: C3 STEVEN a TILLMAN h g U Ld TA- T ` OWNER: V °' Z OWNER: WILLIAM LEE SMITH \ LU K;T}ILEEN HAKES LEGENDOf 0 WNER. —Property GEORGIA A. WATSON 0 Boundary OWNER: JERRIE & SALLY EA TON —Clearing \\ Limits \ OWNER: DONALD J. KiNZLE rULVERT OWNER: r OWNER: RIVER HAVEN RECREATION / KATHLEEN HAKES OWNER: RIVER HAVEN RECREATION' PC OWNER: RIVER HAVEN RECREATION �. OWNER: STATE OF WASHINGTON OWNER. SCALE. 1"=200' ELAINE ZEIG' ��FR 0 100 200 400 NORTHWEST ROCK, INC. PROPOSED PLAN FINAL CONTOURS SHEET 2 of 3 SECTION A-AA MINIMUM 2H:1V. SUFFER AROUND PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY / NOISE ATTENUATION BUFFER. ss' PERMANENT SEWATER ONSITE AND COLLECTED IN THE NORTH— EDGE OF ROAD R/W A NEW AREA; HIGH VISIBILITY FENCES WILL & PERMIT BOUNDARY FENCES WILL FOLLOW TO PREVENT ANY SILT 400.00 REA. rnEt_HARVEST FOR FUTURE SITE RECLAMATION WORK. STOCK aENTHEiN RD c/L IZE AND PREVENT EROSION. RECLAMATION Si RUNOFF TO THE GRAVEL PIT FLOOR. CD o 0 0 200.00 00l o� r` �°O C° � TRY. �� ON THIS SITE. O oy'� ON THE NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF // 0 )N WILL NOT BE CLEARED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WATER TABLE) LOCO) co s0_aod I - I -2+00 0+00 2+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=200 FEET VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=200 FEET SECTION B-BB _SCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ! 25• PERMANOF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP H, RANGE 6 WEST, W.M. ALSO KNOWN AS 400.00 TREE HARVOUNTY, WA. TAX PARCEL #619304000010 RECLAb T 0 200.00 WATER TABLE— O pj i 6 CN 0.00 I - I -2+00 0+00 2+00 HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=200 FEET ! VERTICAL SCALE: V=200 FEET ! NORTHWEST ROCK INC. 'ROFILE VIEWS — — SHEET 3 OF 3 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX H Engineering Calculations Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 1 2323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Chandler Pit- Northwest Rock Site Name: Chandler Pit Site Address: 41 W. Beerbower Road City : Satsop Report Date: 8/25/2016 Gage : Olympia Data Start : 1955/10/01 Data End : 2008/09/30 Precip Scale: 1.33 Version Date: 2016/02/25 Version : 4.2.12 Low Flow Threshold for POC 1 : 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC 1: 50 year PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 25.12 Pervious Total 25.12 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 25.12 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater MITIGATED LAND USE Name : Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 25 Impervious Total 25 Basin Total 25 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Trapezoidal Pond 1 Trapezoidal Pond 1 Name : Trapezoidal Pond 1 Bottom Length: 215.57 ft. Bottom Width: 215.57 ft. Depth: 7 ft. Volume at riser head: 7.6266 acre-feet. Infiltration On Infiltration rate: 1.98 Infiltration safety factor: 2 Wetted surface area On Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.) : 6459.716 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.) : 103.097 Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.) : 6562.813 Percent Infiltrated: 98.43 Total Precip Applied to Facility: 0 Total Evap From Facility: 0 Side slope 1: 3 To 1 Side slope 2: 3 To 1 Side slope 3: 3 To 1 Side slope 4: 3 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 6 ft. Riser Diameter: 54 in. Notch Type: Rectangular Notch Width: 0.075 ft. Notch Height: 2.466 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 2.465 in. Elevation: 0 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Pond Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 1.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 9L£'S TZ9'0 L££'S 9b£'T £££�'b SS£'S 6WO Z£Z'S TbUT 999£'6 b££'S 9Lb'0 8ZT'S 9££'T 8LLZ'b bT£'S SS�'0 SZO'S 0££'T OOOZ'6 £6Z'S ££b'0 TZ6'b SZ£'T ZZZT't £LZ'S £Tt'0 8T8'b OZ£'T btbo*b ZSZ'S £6£'0 9TL'b ST£'T L996'£ Z£Z'S VL£'0 bT9'b OT£'T 6888'£ TTZ'S 99£'0 ZTS'b SO£'T TTT8'£ T6T'S 6££'0 TTb'b 00£'T £££L'£ OLT'S SZ£'0 OT£'b 96Z'T 9999'£ OST'S bT£'0 60Z'� 68Z'T 8LL9'£ 0£T'S 80£'0 60T'b V8Z'T OOOS'£ OTT'S 9O£'0 600'b 6LZ'T ZZZb'£ 680'9 TO£'0 OT6'£ bLZ'T bib£'£ 690'9 86Z'0 TT8'£ 69Z'T L99Z'£ 660'9 66Z'0 ZTL'£ 69Z'T 688T'£ 6Z0'S 06Z'0 VT9'£ 69Z'T TTTT'£ 600'9 L8Z'O LTS'£ bSZ'T £££0'£ 686'b £8Z'0 6T6'£ 66Z'T 9996'Z 696'b 6LZ'0 ZZ£'£ bbZ'T 8LL8'Z 666'b 9LZ'0 9ZZ'£ 6£Z'T 0008'Z 6Z6'b ZLZ'0 6ZT'£ b£Z'T ZZZL'Z OT6'b 89Z'0 b£0'£ 6Z2:'T 6669'Z 068'b 69Z'0 8£6'Z bZZ'T L999'Z OL8'b 09Z'0 £68'Z 61Z'T 6886'Z 098'b 99Z'0 86L'Z bTZ'T TTTb'Z T£8'b TSZ'0 V99'Z 60Z'T ££££'Z TT8'b LbZ'0 099'Z SOZ'T 999Z'Z Z6L'b £bZ'0 L96'Z OOZ'T 8LLT'Z ZLL'b 8£Z'0 £L£'Z 96T'T OOOT'Z ZSL'b b£Z'0 T8Z'Z 06T'T ZZZO'Z ££L'b 6ZZ'0 88T'Z 98T'T 6666'T bTL'b SZZ'0 960'Z 08T'T L998'T 669'b OZZ'O 900'Z SLT'T 688L'T 9L9'b 9TZ'0 £T6'T OLT'T TTTL'T 999'b OTZ'O ZZ8'T 99T'T £££9'T 9£9'b SOZ'0 Z£L'T T9T'T 9999'T LT9'b OOZ'0 Z69'T 99T'T 8LL6'T 869'b 96T'0 ZSS'T TST'T OOOb'T 6L9'b 68T'O £96'T 96T'T ZZZ£'T 099'b £8T'0 bL£'T ZbT'T bbbZ'T TbS'b 8LT'0 98Z'T L£T'T L99T'T ZZS'b ZLT'0 L6T'T Z£T'T 6880'T £OS'b 99T'O 60T'T LZT'T TTTO'T 686'b 69T'0 TZO'T £ZT'T £££6'0 996'b ZST'0 b£6'0 8TT'T 9998'0 966'b 9bT'0 L68'0 £TT'T 8LLL'0 LZb'b 8£T'0 T9L'O 80T'T OOOL'0 806'b 0£T'0 SL9'0 bOT'T ZZZ9'0 06£'b TZT'0 689'0 660'T bbbS'0 TL£'b ZTT'0 b09*0 660'T L996'0 ZS£'b ZOT'O 6T6'O 060'T 688£'0 b££'b Z60'0 b££'0 980'T TTT£'0 ST£'b 6L0'0 OSZ'0 080'T £££Z'0 96Z'b 99010 99T'0 9L0'T 999T'O 8LZ'b 960'0 £80'0 TLO'T 8LL0'0 4.5111 1.351 5.442 0.543 5.396 4.5889 1.356 5.547 0.568 5.417 4.6667 1.362 5.653 0.596 5.438 4.7444 1.367 5.759 0.624 5.459 4.8222 1.372 5.865 0.653 5.480 4.9000 1.377 5.972 0.682 5.501 4.9778 1.382 6.080 0.823 5.522 5.0556 1.388 6.188 0.864 5.543 5.1333 1.393 6.296 0.905 5.564 5.2111 1.398 6.404 0.947 5.585 5.2889 1.404 6.513 0.990 5.606 5.3667 1.409 6.623 1.033 5.627 5.4444 1.414 6.733 1.078 5.648 5.5222 1.420 6.843 1.124 5.670 5.6000 1.425 6.953 1.170 5.691 5.6778 1.430 7.065 1.217 5.712 5.7556 1.436 7.176 1.265 5.734 5.8333 1.441 7.288 1.314 5.755 5.9111 1.446 7.400 1.363 5.776 5.9889 1.452 7.513 1.414 5.798 6.0667 1.457 7.626 2.245 5.820 6.1444 1.462 7.740 4.046 5.841 6.2222 1.468 7.854 6.424 5.863 6.3000 1.473 7.968 9.259 5.884 6.3778 1.479 8.083 12.47 5.906 6.4556 1.484 8.198 16.02 5.928 6.5333 1.490 8.314 19.85 5.950 6.6111 1.495 8.430 23.92 5.971 6.6889 1.501 8.547 28.19 5.993 6.7667 1.506 8.663 32.62 6.015 6.8444 1.512 8.781 37.15 6.037 6.9222 1.517 8.899 41.76 6.059 7.0000 1.523 9.017 46.38 6.081 7.0778 1.528 9.136 50.99 6.103 ANALYSIS RESULTS Stream Protection Duration Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:25.12 Total Impervious Area:O Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:O Total Impervious Area:25 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.620352 5 year 1. 66398 10 year 2.50526 25 year 3.603022 50 year 4.391622 100 year 5.129437 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.191546 5 year 0.308383 10 year 0.412401 25 year 0.581124 50 year 0.738878 100 year 0.928802 Stream Protection Duration Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1956 0. 698 0.181 1957 1.538 0.298 1958 0.545 0.135 1959 0.309 0.176 1960 1.506 0.238 1961 1.313 0.137 1962 0.024 0.122 1963 2.468 0.307 1964 1.214 0.187 1965 1.683 0.203 1966 0.590 0.117 1967 0.405 0.217 1968 0.327 0.170 1969 0.131 0.106 1970 0.703 0.151 1971 0.386 0.201 1972 0.979 0.245 1973 0.138 0.172 1974 0.668 0.170 1975 0.997 0.132 1976 0.722 0.167 1977 0.020 0.161 1978 0.745 0.228 1979 2.206 0.186 1980 0.313 0.189 1981 2.463 0.223 1982 0.323 0.212 1983 0.473 0.283 1984 1.247 0.192 1985 0.020 0.165 1986 0.874 0.284 1987 4.165 0.262 1988 0.039 0.135 1989 0.062 0.149 1990 2.727 0.409 1991 2.429 0.839 1992 0.125 0.176 1993 0.502 0.109 1994 0.031 0.121 1995 0.325 0.274 1996 1.212 0.233 1997 1.391 0.163 1998 1.174 0.230 1999 0.434 0.226 2000 0.718 0.228 2001 0.020 0.137 2002 1.187 0.362 2003 0.284 0.095 2004 0.678 0.266 2005 0.437 0.155 2006 0.592 0.214 2007 4.553 0.310 2008 1.907 2.643 Stream Protection Duration Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 4.5532 2.6430 2 4.1646 0.8385 3 2.7269 0.4094 4 2.4680 0.3619 5 2.4633 0.3102 6 2.4292 0.3075 7 2.2062 0.2983 8 1.9073 0.2836 9 1.6827 0.2828 10 1.5383 0.2736 11 1.5055 0.2663 12 1.3914 0.2618 13 1.3127 0.2453 14 1.2471 0.2383 15 1.2137 0.2335 16 1.2121 0.2303 17 1.1875 0.2284 18 1.1743 0.2278 19 0.9970 0.2263 20 0.9792 0.2228 21 0.8741 0.2167 22 0.7454 0.2136 23 0.7223 0.2117 24 0.7183 0.2028 25 0.7026 0.2011 26 0.6980 0.1922 27 0.6778 0.1888 28 0.6677 0.1870 29 0.5918 0.1860 30 0.5898 0.1811 31 0.5454 0.1764 32 0.5016 0.1756 33 0.4733 0.1722 34 0.4366 0.1698 35 0.4343 0.1696 36 0.4048 0.1667 37 0.3860 0.1653 I--' F- F- I--' I--' F- F- F- F- F- F- F- F- I--` I--' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o h] y F3 to (D cn cn Ln cn .p a s .a la a s Ja a a w w • V-' :3 �:r O Ct W N F� O W OD J m Cn aA W N I-, O W M Cn Cn Cn W N N O O O l0 l0 OD OD OO J J Ol Ol On Cn Cn :P .P W W W O (D (D n Fl 00 -P O M N M kA CD Cn F- J W W Cn I-' M N 00 JP O M N M .P W Cn F- J W lD Cn F-' £ (D M J Cn -A W N O W W J Cn .p W N F-' CO OD J Ol A W N I-- O W J a) Cn W N FJ CD 7k w N O N Cn W F� OO M aP N CO J Cn W O 00 (:y) .P F- Cfl J P N O OD Cn W Co Ol It, N M n n rn r r ro r r O N N N N N N N w w w w w al aA Cn Ol J J OD Cfl F-- Ct Ct Ct 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn Cn OO OD OD CD CO O O W J OD OD W O at, Cn J 00 W 4, W N Fl P F� O O F-' W Cn J (D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N J �P O Cn (D n O O O O O O O I--' FJ F--' N W W W W W A. ro ro Ct F- F- N N W W 0) N W W OD O F' N N N (D > ,b H. CD W O .A O W N 0- O J W OD W W a M C In In O J 0o F' P CD W Cn W co CD co Ol AA Cn Oo m In (n �j t� t� F� F� N N N N N W W W W W WJ�- a a Cn Cn M aN J OD 00 F- N C7 C7 C7 O O F-' N N W Cn 00 O W Cn J W F-- NWt� a) J CO Cn J OO F- M O CO Cn F- W O N Cn r G CD P kD Ct H a ro cr (D r Fi 0 a) m m a) Ol Ol J W F- W CO F� F� F- F- F- F- F� F- lD 00 J 00 OD OD J J J W l0 O .7 M Ol CO OD O O O N M O O O O O O O O O O N W F- Cn W W M .P N O O O O W Ol m O N O N 4�- m ,7 Ct w LQ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m rorororororororororororororororororororororororororororororororo oF' F, F, - F, F- r- F- F, F, F-• F-, F, r-• F- 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 w w a a a a to lO O O F- N N W W W w W p Cn Cn M Ol U1 CA fA fA N CA Ul CA CA (A V1 V1 U) U1 Ul CA U1 Ul CA U1 W CA Ul CA U1 Ul Ul Ul Cn w a Cn W J O N F- JP .A M J CD F- Cn F- N U) U1 U1 Ul U1 U1 CA (A [n N CA (A (A CO CA Ul CA fA Ul U1 CA U1 (A U7 U7 Ul Ul (A (� N J lD N W w O Cn Cn W Cn O O O O "A m Ul a r F- seed 0 0 Z T8£6'£ seed 0 0 Z 6968'£ seed 0 0 Z L998'£ Seed 0 0 Z �bT8'£ ssed 0 0 Z Z£LL'£ ssed 0 0 Z OZ£L'£ Seed 0 0 Z 8069'£ seed 0 0 Z 9669'£ ssed 0 0 Z £809'£ Seed 0 0 Z TL99'£ seed 0 0 Z 6SZ9'£ seed 0 0 Z 9�8b'£ seed 0 0 Z v£bb'£ Seed 0 0 Z ZZOb'£ seed 0 0 Z OT9£'£ seed 0 0 Z L6T£'£ seed 0 0 Z S8LZ'£ Seed 0 0 Z £L£Z'£ ssed 0 0 Z 0961'£ seed 0 0 Z 8�ST'£ ssed 0 0 Z 9£TT'£ ssed 0 0 Z VZLO'£ ssed 0 0 Z TT£0'£ Seed 0 0 Z 6686'Z seed 0 0 Z L8b6'Z Seed 0 0 Z 9L06'Z seed 0 0 Z Z998'Z seed 0 0 Z OSZ8'Z ssed 0 0 Z 8£8L'Z ssed 0 0 Z 9ZbL'Z seed 0 0 £ £TOL'Z seed 0 0 £ T099'Z ssed ££ T £ 68T9'Z seed ££ T £ 9LLS'Z seed OS Z b b9£S'Z Seed OS Z 6 ZS6b'Z seed 99 b 9 O�ST7'Z Seed LS L LZTb'Z seed 98 9 L STL£'Z ssed L8 L 8 £0££'Z seed L8 L 8 T68Z'Z seed LL L 6 8LbZ'Z ssed OL L OT 990Z'Z seed OL L OT b99T'Z seed OL L OT ZbZT'Z ssed OL L OT 6Z80'Z ssed £9 L TT LTbO'Z ssed ZL 8 TT 9000'Z Seed ZL 8 TT Z696'T ssed ZL 8 TT 08T6'T seed SL 6 ZT 89L8'T ssed SL 6 ZT 9S£8'T seed 69 6 £T £66L'T seed 9L OT £T T£SL'T ssed TL OT �T 6TTL'T ssed 99 OT ST LOL9'T seed 99 OT ST �6Z9'T 3.9794 2 0 0 Pass 4.0206 2 0 0 Pass 4.0618 2 0 0 Pass 4.1030 2 0 0 Pass 4.1443 2 0 0 Pass 4.1855 1 0 0 Pass 4.2267 1 0 0 Pass 4.2679 1 0 0 Pass 4.3092 1 0 0 Pass 4.3504 1 0 0 Pass 4.3916 1 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volumn Volumn Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volumn Volumn Volumn Water Quality Treatment Facility (ac-ft.) Infiltration Infiltrated Treated (ac-ft) (ac-ft) Credit Trapezoidal Pond 1 POC N 5972.81 N 98.42 Total Volume Infiltrated 5972.81 0.00 0.00 98.42 0.00 0% No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID Standard 8 Duration Analysis Result = Passed Perind and Impind Changes No changes have been made. This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim 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 Inc. 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 Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2016; All Rights Reserved. 16.108 Northwest Rock, Inc. Chandler Pit CSPPP APPENDIX I 0&M Declaration of Covenants Form Recorded with the Mason County Auditor's Office Berglund,Schmidt&Associates,Inc. 1 2323 Bay Avenue,Hoquiam,WA 98550 1 (360)532 7630;(877)419-9683(fax) 2064123 MASON CO WA 10/18/2016 11:49 AM COV NORTHWEST ROCK INC 197444 Rea Fee $74 00 Pages. 2 RETURN ADDRESS IIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIII{IIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII DECLARATION OF COVENANTS ASSOCIA'I'ED WITH PRIVATELY MAINTAINED STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES GRANTOR(S) (Last, First and Middle Initial) � 10f)-�wes, - GRANTEE;MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS In consideration of approval of the development known as C�r.O V,.,A a T..k ,relating to real property legally described as follows: tJ t/y 1 S1EI: Vy r 5e_ck,sv_. 301"T ko1 t� . ) 9 t�o W, r V,�X /K . County Assessor's Property Tax Parcel Number: (p k I�U -- 40 o0c)1 0 The undersigned, as owner(s), covenant and agree that: 1. 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. 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 Counly 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 atthe 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 safety and operations of a public way, due to failure, damage or non-maintenance of the existing on-site storm 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. 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 described 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. S nature 5e,,%, r A4A.Covk( fy•.'aftfSSignature eAjin art t'f�4C�KS�iQ N d 41-yk jtn� t)c,� +�►�C. Owner -owner Lesz� 22 0 nc c lie.6621 Ave 5. (4L1 2- r\)P.'.a s kgV" Address Address -se74 44F- , w,4 Nbe.zr eea , LA LI �I�S City, State, Zip City, State,Zip Phone: ;y1j&-4�j�ry�2� Phone: STATE OF WASHINGTON, ss. (INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT) County of h4k961!V KI n I, I Notary Public in and for �the _State of Washington, residing at a ,do hereby certify that on this I`f d y of&410DPl , 20A-(,o,personally appeared before me Gr an-� I`.JQ--��1/�� to me known to be the individual_described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that he_ signed and sealed the same as n_J_ free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OF CIAL SEAL this � r d y oP� ,20� • �� ' tart'Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at v; . NOTARY in said County. •..� `., - My Commission expires 'J as -7 ,PUBLIC..* off;, OF wW4�` 00 GEO . Ac, Mason County Review Checklist For a Stormwater Plan L��S Instructions: This checklist is intended to assist Staff in the review of a Stormwater Plan. The Stormwater Plan is reviewed for completeness with respect to the 2005 Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual. If an item is found to be not applicable, the Plan should explain the basis for the conclusion. The Plan is also reviewed for clarity and consistency. If the drawings, discussion, or recommendations are not understandable, they should be clarified. If they do not appear internally consistent or consistent with the application or observations on site, this needs to be corrected or explained. If resolution is not achieved with the author, staff should refer the case to the Planning Manager or Director. Applicant's Name: /U 00,// Permit# r�'Nq 6 — O Parcel# 6 Gj SO c,G-/c Date(s) of the Document(s) reviewed: SECTION I—Construction SWPPP Narrative (1) Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Elements: (a) Describe how each of the Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Element has been addressed through the Construction SWPPP. OK? ,, Comment: (b) Identify the type and location of BMP's used to satisfy the required element. OK? Comment: (c) Written justification identifying the reason an element is not applicable to the proposal. OK? Comment: (d) 12 Required Elements—Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (1) Mark Clearing Limits. OK? Comment: (2) Establish Construction Access. OK? Comment: (3) Control Flow Rates. OK? ' Comment: `Z (4) Install Sediment Controls. OK? Comment: Z. (5) Stabilize Soils. Z r ) OK? Comment: (6) Protect Slopes. OK? Comment: 2 . (7) Protect Drain Inlets. OK? Comment: Z 1 (8) Stabilize Channels and Outlets. OK? 1, Comment: Z - (9) Control Pollutants. t OK? Comment: (10)Control De-Watering. OK? Comment: (11)Maintain BMP's. 00 Comment: (12)Manage the Project. OK? Comment: Page 1 Form Effective May 2009 (2) Project Description. (a)Total project area (acres/square feet). OK?_;Comment: k` Z. (b) Total Proposed impervious area (acres/square feet). OK? V Comment: )I (c)Total proposed area to be disturbed, included off-site borrow and fill areas (acres/square feet): OK? ✓ Comment: I I (d)Total volumes of proposed cut and fill (cubic yards). OK?_y Comment: i (3) Existing Site Conditions. (a) Description of the existing topography. OK?_ 1 Comment: 0' C- (b) Description of the existing vegetation. Szc 3. 3 pcn,J- OK?_V Comment: Ghee e (c) Description of the existing drainage. OK? ✓ Comment: (4)Adjacent Areas. (1) Description of adjacent areas which may be affected by the site disturbance (a) Streams OK? Comment: (b) Lakes OK? v Comment: S 4 (c)Wetlands OK? �V Comment: 5 y (d) Residential Areas S OK? Comment: (e) Roads S 4 OK? V' Comment: (f) Other OK? Comment: /V (II) Description of the downstream drainage path leading from the site to the receiving body of water (minimum distance of 400 yards). OK? " Comment: S (5) Critical Areas: (a) Descripti n of critical areas that are on or adja ent to the site. OK? V Comment: N/A p �- (b) Description of special requirements for wprkipg in or near critical areas. OK? Comment: ✓V /1� (6) Soils: Description of on-site soils. (a) Soil name OK? ✓ Comment: (b) Soil mapping unit OK? V Comment: 3 (c) Erodibility OK? ✓ Comment: S (d) Settleabi)ity OK? " Comment: a (e) Permeability OK? V Comment: (f) Depth OK? ✓ Comment: A h 13 (g) Texture OK? Comment: rP D Page 2 Form Effective May 2009 (h) Soil Structure OK? V Comment: ,r1 (7) Erosion Problem Areas. (a) Description of potential erosion problems on site OK? Comment: s (8) Construction Phasing. (a) Construction sequence. OK? ✓ Comment: (b) Construction phasing (if proposed). OK? v Comment: (a r (9) Construction Schedule. I. Provide a proposed construction schedule �dulle OK?_jz Comment: II. Wet Season Construction Activities (a) Proposed wet season construction activities. OK? -v "Comment: -r4o-q--1 (b) Proposed wet season construction restraints for environmentally sensitive/critical areas. OK? Comment: ' (10)Engineering Calculations. Provide design calculations. (a) Sediment Ponds/Traps. OK? Comment: (b) Diversions. OK? Comment: :1/ (a) Waterways. OK? Comment: - (b) Runoff/Stormwater Detention Calculations. 7 OK? Comment: 42(' (11)Operations and Maintenance (a). An operation and maintenance schedule shall be provided for all proposed stormwater facilities and BMPs, and the party (or parties) responsible for maintenance and operation shall be identified. An operation and maintenance (O & M) Declaration of Covenant will be required to cover all privately owned and maintained stormwater facilities. O& M Declaration of Covenant forms are available at the Mason County Permit Assistance Center, 426 W. Cedar Street, Shelton,WA 98584. The proponent shall record a copy of the completed Declaration with the Mason County Auditors' office. A copy of the recorded document must be submitted to the Permit Assistance Center together with this completed Checklist. OK? ` Comment: i)a, I SECTION II-Erosion and Sediment Control Plans (1) General. (a) Vicinity Map. n OK?.Comment: yp C (b) Clearing and Grading Approval Block. OK? Comment: �" A (c) Erosion and Sediment Control Notes. OK? Comment: �- (2) Site Plan. (a) Legal description of subject property. 4 C OK? : _Comment: (b) North Arrow. OK? Comment: Page 3 Form Effective May 2009 (c) Indicate boundaries of existing vegetation, e.g. tree lines, pasture areas, etc. OK? Comment: (d) Identify and label areas of potential erosion problems. OK? Comment: " (e) Identify any on-site or adjacent surface waters, critical areas and associated buffers. OK? , Comment: I t 4 (f) Identify FEMA base flood boundaries and Shoreline Management boundaries (if applicable).,- OK?.Comment: (g) Show existing and proposed contours. OK? 4 Comment: �') ' ~ (h) Indicate drainage basins and direction of flow for individual drainage areas. OK? Comment: (i) Label final grade contours and identify developed condition drainage basins. OK? Comment: (j) Delineate areas that are to be cleared and graded. OK? Comment: (k) Show all cut and fill slopes indicating top and bottom of slope catch lines. OK? Comment: (3) Conveyance Systems. (a) Designate locations for swales, interceptor trenches, or ditches. r'.cw 4 OK? Comment: i (b) Show all temporary and permanent drainage pipes, ditches, or cut-off trenches. OK? Comment: , t (c) Provide minimum slope and cover for all temporary pipes or call out pipe inverts. ' OK? Comment: (d) Show grades, dimensions, and direction of flow in all ditches, swales, culverts, and pipes. OK? Comment: (e) Provide details for bypassing off-site runoff around disturbed areas. OK? Comment: (f) Indicate locations and outlets of any dewatering systems. OK? Comment: (4) Location of Detention BMP's. (a) Identify location of detention BMP's. n�cw t OK? Comment: - (5) Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities. (a) Show the locations of sediment trap(s), pond(s), and pipe structures. OK? Comment: 1A, E (b) Dimension pond berm widths and inside and outside pond slopes. OK? Comment: (c) Indicate the trap/pond storage required and the depth, length, and width dimensions. OK? Comment: (d) Provide typical section views through pond and outlet structure. OK? Comment: I (e) Provide typical details of gravel cone and standpipe, and/or other filtering devices. OK? Comment: (f) Detail stabilization techniques for outlet/inlet. OK? Comment: (g) Detail control/restrictor device location and details. OK? Comment: (h) Specify mulch and/or recommended cover of berms and slopes. OK? V Comment: ,4s." y > . _1 (i) Provide rock specifications and detail for rock check dams. OK? Comment: 1 1 /J- 1 Q) Specify spacing for rock check dams as required. OK? Comment: Page 4 Form Effective May 2009 (k) Provide front and side sections of typical rock check dams. OK? 1 Comment: } j ? . , ,t r; f�: (1) Indicate the locations and provide details and specifications for silt fabric. OK? Comment: , 1h 1, ), ;.t t 0 11. 4 )I- y 'I .IZ � -- (m) Locate the construction entrance and provide detail. OK? Comment: - �' ~i < yt}zl �(o�c.t bL44- C.QC J-� 0' , (6) Detailed Drawings. (a) Any structural practices used that are not referenced in the Ecology Manual should be explained and illustrated with detailed drawings. OK? Comment: (7) Other Pollutant BMP's. (a) Indicated on the site plan the location of BMP's to be used for the control of pollutants other than sediment, e.g. concrete wash water. OK? Comment: ;s (8) Monitoring Locations. (a) Indicate on the site plan the water quality sampling locations to be used for monitoring water quality on the construction site, if applicable. OK? 1 Comment: Are the Documents signed and stamped? 1 Type and#of License: `�� 4 Z r s If not approved, what is the next action/recommendation for further action? Reviewed by a Y1 ��.5 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 5 Form Effective May 2009