HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP97-0150 - SEP Determinations - 7/15/1997 CArE
1889 a10
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
P.O. Box 47775 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 (360) 407-6300
'so�cGp 1s,99
9
September 12, 1997c0
FiOl
Mr. Hugo R. Flores
Mason County
Department of Community Development
PO Box 578
Shelton,WA 98584
Dear Mr. Flores:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the
restoration of approximately 4,000 square feet of wetland adjacent to an existing wetland by removing
fill and planting native trees and shrubs, and the placement of a 58 unit RV Park in the northern
portion of the site(Case No. SEP97-0150), located at West 1401 Deegan Road as proposed by Mery
Settle. We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments:
Water Oualitr
Any work in or adjacent to waterways that will adversely affect water quality must receive specific
prior authorization from the Department of Ecology pursuant to WAC 173-201A-110. A short-term
water quality standards modification may be issued if the proponent agrees to a number of specific
construction practices and techniques designed to minimize water quality impacts. The construction
schedule will be tied to the schedule on the Hydraulic Project Approval(HPA).
Water Resources:
Any ground water withdrawals in excess of 5,000 gallons per day or for the irrigation of more than
one-half acre of lawn or noncommercial garden will require a water right permit from Ecology.
The proposed project is located within the Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed. Goldsborough Creek
including tributaries,are closed to consumptive appropriations from May 1 through October 31. In
addition, instream flows have been established the remainder of the year in accordance with Chapter
173-514 WAC.
If the proposed community well is exempt from the state water right permit process,the proponent is
encouraged to complete the depth of the well source to an aquifer that is not hydraulically connected
to the nearby surface water source(s). Active conservation,water use efficiency, and low water
demand vegetation measures are also encouraged.
All water wells shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 173-160 WAC by a
driller licensed in the State of Washington. Well reports must be submitted to Ecology within 30 days
after completion of a well.
Mr. Hugo R.Flores
September 12, 1997
Page 2
All water wells that may be drilled must be a minimum of 100 feet from any known, suspected, or
potential source of contamination. Wells shall not be located within 1,000 feet of solid waste
landfills.
A hydraulic project approval may be required for this project. The applicant should contact the
Department of Fish and Wildlife,Habitat Management Division at(360)902-2534,to obtain
information on this approval.
If you have any questions regarding the Water Quality comments,please call Ms. Loree' Randall at
(360)407-6294. With questions regarding the Water Resources comments, please call Ms. Marie
Peter at(360)407-0279.
Sincerely,
Charles Gale
Assistant to the Regional Director
(360)407-6309
CG:alw(97-5690)
cc: Abbe White, SWRO
Loree' Randall, SWRO
Marie Peter, SWRO
MASON COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL
Mason County Bldg. III 426 W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584
(360)427-9670
CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE INSPECTIONS FIRE INVESTIGATION PUBLIC EDUCATION
August 27, 1997
TO: Hugo Flores
Planning
FROM: Dave Salzer
Fire Marshal
SUBJ: SEP97-0150
Mery settle RV Park
W 1401 Deegan Road
The purpose of this memo is to offer comments regarding the SEPA
Checklist for SEP97-0150.
am somewhat confused by the DNS cover sheet dated 8/25/97 and how it
relates to the SEPA Checklist that follows. My confusion is that the
checklist cover sheet refers to wetland restoration but the SEPA Checklist
appears to refer to a proposed RV park.
have no comments on the wetland restoration, but I have numerous
comments on the data presented in the checklist regarding the proposed RV
park.
do not have enough information to evaluate the RV park proposal.
suggest that we schedule a pre-application meeting to provide comments on
the RV park proposal.
We did have a meeting in 1996 to evaluate a proposal from the applicant.
However, this most recent proposal is different that the original and 1
suggest a new meeting.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
cc: file
SEP97-0150
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning-Landfill-Utilities
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
Description of Proposal :
Restoration of approximately 4, 000 square ft of wetland adjacent to
existing wetland by removing fill and planting native trees and shrubs.
Applicant proposes RV Park including 58 units to be placed in northern
portion of site.
Proponent: MERV SETTLE
Location of Proposal : W 1401 DEEGAN RD SHELTON
PARCEL#:420244300100
S1/2 SE SW SE
W 1401 Deegan Rd E. Range 4W, Township 20N, section 24 .
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 .21C. 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. MITIGATION MEASURES ARE
ATTACHED. SIG
Please contact HURO at ext . y'� with any
questions . �+w
This DNS is issued under 197-11-350 (2) , the Lead Agency will not act on
this proposal for 20 days from the date below. Comments must be
submitted by 09/14/97 .
DATE: 08/25/97
$-a5 �7
Signatur of responsible official Date
Responsible Official : Gary Yando
I��e Director of Community Development
cVn� 426 W. Cedar,
b6 PO BOX 578
(,JpPLAJ _ Shelton, WA 98584
5
( U"Irq T�I�� (360) 427-9670
MI DNS, rev: 08/23/96 W,,yDM C,• rip-p mAns,ttku Q"
/vlhSotJCm. e7". KeA4-11+ - r>R�n1�lnlGwAri �2- C'Arzoty,.>�G►vS�N
Cjf� 0 WbID4 M.asou MAfZKTNauPV INS
A I �I/I r am 'T- AAAe7O&J Cv C-N +4�RLTN - ++A2MZUows wAsT-e-(Si LJy 6-R-AYSO N}
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Q��6 i l U EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
A. BACKGROUND:
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
"Settle Inn RV Park"
2. Name of applicant:
Mery Settle
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
W. 1401 Deegan Road East, Shelton,WA 98584
4. Date checklist prepared:
April 15, 1997
I
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Dept. of Community Development
6. Proposed timing or schedule(including phasing, if applicable):
May-June for installation of restoration plan. RV Park to be established subsequently.
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,explain:
Yes. Future enhancement of wetland areas in association with RV Park is proposed.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,or will be prepared directly related to this
proposal.:
Stop work order in effect,March 31, 1996.
Violation-stop work order issued on January 10, 1997
Site visit by Moss Environmental on September 26, 1996
Site visit by Mason County staff on February 21, 1997
Restoration plan prepared by Moss Environmental,April, 1997
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals or other proposals directly affecting the property
covered by your proposal? If yes,explain:
None known.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
n'v aWt PC-V-mr-r-wilt be
Mason County Environmental Permit;Mason County Land Modification Permit re�cc�1iQd
U
11. Give a brief,complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There
are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to
includeadditional s specific information on
m modify this form to
repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may fypec
project description.)
Restore approximately 4 000 square feet of wetland adjacent of the existing wetland in the southern portion by removing fill
PP Y
and planting with native trees and shrubs. Design of RV Park includes 58 units to be placed in the northern portion of the
site,with the southern portion retained for open space and recreational activities.
8271 eval/cmk 1
i
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
12. What is the location of the proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your
proposed project, including street address, if any, 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 application related to this checklist.
W 1401 Deegan Road E.;southern half of the 10 acre parcel. Legal description,site plan,vicinity map and topographic
map available in restoration plan. Bound by Deegan Road E. on the east and by Highway 101 on the west.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. EARTH:
a. General description of the site:
O Flat O Rolling 0 Hilly O Steep slopes O Mountainous O Other
Slopes toward the west in moderate slopes; high elevation of 185 feet in the east with low elevation of 100 feet in
the west.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? approximately 20%
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 not any prime farmland.
Gravelly,sandy loam
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,please describe:
None known. No evidence of slumpage. Some indication of siltation in the creek.
e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Fill that has been placed will be removed from restoration areas.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so, generally describe.
Areas are currently devoid of vegetation. Silt fencing will be used to prevent sediments from entering existing
wetlands during restoration installation.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction(for example,
asphalt or buildings)?
Exact amount unknown;RV pads and access roads will utilize approximately 20% of the site.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth, if any:
See comments under'f'above.
2. AIR:
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e., dust,automobile,odors, industrial wood
smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If any,generally describe and give approximate
quantities, if known.
Some emissions from construction equipment and automobiles; RV emissions once the RV Park is in use.
827 l eval/cmk 2
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
None known.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
None proposed at this time.
3. WATER:
a. Surface
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site(including year round and seasonal
streams,saltwater,lakes,ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type and provide names. If appropriate,state what
stream or river it flows into.
Yes. Wetland swale extends N/S through central portion of site. Several seeps and springs are collected from
the hillslope in the east and directed into this swale. A seasonal creek flows along the west boundary adjacent
to Highway 101;this joins the wetland swale with flow continuing along the west boundary draining into the
Goldsborough Creek Watershed.
2. Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)of the described waters? If yes,
please describe and attach available plans.
Yes. See restoration plan.
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.
Approximately 200 cubic yards of fill will be removed from existing wetland areas.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,purpose and
approximate quantities if known.
Surface water is currently diverted from natural hillslope springs through culverts and directed into the wetland
swale.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on 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.
Future development will include processing road runoff through bioswales prior to release ino the wetland area.
All septic drainfields will be located far from wetland/stream areas.
8271 eval/cmk 3
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
b. Ground
1. Will ground water be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose,and approximate quantities, if known.
One community well.
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 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.
Existing drainfield(septic)in the northern portion.
C. Water runoff,including storm water
1. Describe the source of runoff,including storm water,and method of collection and disposal, if any(include
quantities,if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe:
Storm runoff from roads and parking areas will be directed through bioswales and detention prior to release
into the wetlands.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe:
All waste materials will be treated prior to release.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground,and runoff water impacts, if any:
See comments above,and under If.
4. PLANTS
a. Indicate types of vegetation found on the site?
_✓_ deciduous tree: 0 alder O maple O aspen O other
_✓_ evergreen tree: 0 fir 0 cedar O pine El other spruce
_✓ shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
_✓_ wet soil plants: O cattail O buttercup O bulrush O skunk cabbage 0 other
—✓_ water plants: O water lily O eelgrass O milfoil 0 other
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
None removed; native trees and shrubs will be planted.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site, if known.
None known.
8271 eval/cmk 4
I
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
d. Proposed landscaping,use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
See restoration plan.
5. ANIMALS
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site,or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: 0 hawk O heron O eagle 0 songbirds O other
Mammals: O deer O bear O elk O beaver O other
Fish: O bass O salmon O trout O herring O shellfish O other
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site:
None known.
C. Is the site part of migration route? If so,explain:
Unknown.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
Planting of native trees and shrubs;retaining snags and stumps.
C. ENERGY and NATURAL RESOURCES:
a. What kinds of energy(0 electric O natural gas O oil O wood stove O solar)will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,etc.
Electric will serve for heating,lighting,etc. of RV units.
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 known.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosions,
spill,or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so,describe:
Possibly some toxic materials in landfill material;exact nature of fill unkown.
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
N/A
827 l eval/cmk 5
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Fill will be removed from wetland area.
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example: traffic,equipment operation,
I
other)?
Highway 101 bounds the western site boundary.
2. What types of levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term
basis(for example,traffic,construction operation,other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Typical car, human noise,etc.assocaited with RV Park operations.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
None proposed.
8. LAND and SHORELINE USE
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Site has been historically used as a landfill,and currently is used as a single family residence. Highway 101
extends along the western boundary;surrounding land uses are primarily single family residences.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe:
No.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
One single family residence and shed in the northern portion.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what?
No.
C. What is the current zoning classification of the site? ,n,t wd ,6k "-A � 2
'YI � 1 o-
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? r / 6rRA
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A
I
8271 eval/cmk 6
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive"area? If so, specify.
Yes;a wetland in the central portion.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
58 units with an average of 2 people per unit= 116 people seasonally,during the summer.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
Zoning allows RV Park use.
9. HOUSING
a. Approximately how many units,if any,would be provided? Indicate whether high,middle,or low-income
housing.
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any,would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low-incoming
housing.
g
None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.
N/A
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?
RVs are approximately 12 feet high.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any.
None proposed to control height;views will be enhanced by native plant installation.
11. LIGHT and GLARE
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Seasonally,in the summer, lights associated with RV Park; mostly during the day. Some safety lighting in the
evenings.
8271 eval/cmk 7
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
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?
Lights from Highway 101 are present but vertically separated(higher)than RV Park.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,if any.
None proposed.
12. RECREATION
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Designated wetland area will be used for educational purposes;other recreational opportunties will be provided,
such as grass play fields.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe.
No.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by
the project or applicant, if any.
Play areas;wetland traits to view ponds and creek.
13. HISTORIC and CULTURAL PRESERVATION
a. Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for, national,state,or local preservation registers known to be
on or next to the site? If so,generally describe.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmark or evidence of historic,archaeological, scientific,or cultural importance known
to be on or next to the site.
None known.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any.
N/A
14. TRANSPORTATION
a. Identify public streets and highways service the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system.
Deegan Road E. See restoration plan.
8271 eval/cmk 8
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the existing street system.
Show on site plans, if any.
No.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
116 parking spaces will be provided(2 per RV unit).
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including
driveways? If so, generally describe(indicate whether public or private).
Yes. Private roads as indicated on site plan.
e. Will the project 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? If known, indicate when peak
volumes would occur.
Approximately two trips per day per unit= 116 trips per day.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any.
None proposed at this time.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service(for example: fire protection,police protection,
health care, schools,other)? If so,generally describe.
Fire protection,police protection,and health care will be necessary in the summer recreational period.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
None known.
16. UTILITIES
a. Indicate utilities currently available at the site:
0 electricity O natural gas 0 water O refuse service 0 telephone O sanitary sewer
0 septic system O 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.
Drainfield area set aside;design for community drainfield not completed; community well,electric.
17. 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 submitted:
827 l evaVcmk 9
r
CONCEPTUAL COMPENSATORY
WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN
SETTLE INN RV PARK
Parcel #42024-43-00100
SE quarter SW quarter SE quarter of
Section 24, Township 20N, Range 4W
This wetland restoration plan report is prepared to meet the requirements of
Mason County's Interim Resource Ordinance (#77-93)
by
Coowe Moss Kidd
of
MOSS ENVIRONMENTAL
P.O. Box 1058 Gig Harbor, Washington 98335 (206) 858-5340
ME#8271
April 23, 1997
OWNER:
Mery Settle
1401 D(,-egan Road E.
Shelton, WA 98584
SURVEYORS:
Sid Bechtolt
Agate Land Surveying
E. 2680 Agate Road
Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 426-4172
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Project Description I
1.1 Location of Project Within Watershed I
1.2 Site History and Background 2
1.3 Discussion of Existing Functions and Values 2
2.0 Existing Conditions of Area Proposed for Wetland Creation 3
2.1 Topography 3
2.2 Vegetation Community Analysis 3
2.3 Hydrologic Analysis 3
2.4 Mason County Soil Survey 4
3.0 Compensatory Mitigation Plan 4
3.1 Introduction 4
3.2 Buffers 4
3.3 Performance Standards 5
3.4 Grading Plan 6
3.5 Hydrology 6
3.6 Planting Plan 6
3.7 Irrigation Requirements 7
3.8 Water Pollution Measures 8
4.0 Implementation 8
4.1 Installation Sequence 8
4.2 Monitoring 8
4.2.1 Monitoring Plan 9
4.3 Maintenance and Permanent Protection 10
5.0 Contingency Plan 10
6.0 Budget Plan for Implementation 11
References
Figure 1: Site Location Within Watershed
Attachment 1: Existing Conditions
Attachment 2: Grading Plan, showing existing topography and hydrology in the
mitigation areas
Attachment 3: Planting Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
Table 1: Goals and Performance Standards
Table 2: Plant Material Characteristics
Table 3: Planting Plan Requirements
Appendix A: Photo Appendix
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located in the south half of the southeast quarter of the southwest
quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 24, Township 20N, Range 4W of the
Willamette Meridian in Mason County, parcel 442024-43-00100. The site consists of
approximately 10 acres in total. The northern four acres have historically been used for
receipt of landfill material; the southern half of the site is lower and contains several
springs and an existing wetland system that drains toward the west flowing off-site and
entering into a seasonal creek that flows north along the west boundary in the easement
for Highway 101.
In 1996, portions of the wetland areas in the southern portion of the site were filled.
Mason Counh' s Department of Community Developm
ent issued a violation on March
P
13, 1996, for violation 0' n f landfill and alteration of wetlands, and
the lack of a Mason
Permit. The coup raised concerns regarding
County Conditional Environmental county g
ty
impacts to the strea
ms and wetland and asked that the owner show the creek, springs, and
wetlands on a site plan. Moss Environmental conducted an initial site review on
September 26, 1996, and identified the springs, creek, and wetland site. The springs are
collected in wood culverts and directed into the main drainage swale which flows west
through the central portion of the site. There are existing wetlands associated with
ponded areas on this main drainage Swale. A site plan was prepared by Agate Land
Surveying on November 1, 1996. The site plan includes existing topography, springs,
creek, and large trees (see Attachment 1, Existing Conditions).
On February 21, 1997, Mason County staff visited the site and met with Rick Lefner,
agent for the owner, to discuss restoration of filled wetland and swale areas. There were
two areas identified requiring immediate restoration. These include the southeastern
perimeter of the wetland where approximately five feet of fill has been pushed into the
edge of the existing wetland area, and a wetland seep swale that extends north in the
southwestern portion of the site flowing into the existing wetlands in the central portion.
This swale area is approximately 15 feet wide by 70 feet long (see Attachment 1, Existing
Conditions). Subsequent to the meeting with county staff, the owner, and the owner's
agent, Moss Environmental visited the site to ascertain existing conditions and investigate
soils and hydrology pertaining to development of a restoration plan. The plan that
follows provides restoration for the two areas described above. The northern portion of
the site is proposed to be utilized for a 58-unit RV park; the southern portion will remain
as open space and recreational areas.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 1
1.1 Location of Project Within the Watershed (Figure 1)
The northern five acres contains an existing residence and historic landfill area.
Highway 101 bounds the western site boundary with East Deegan Road extending
along,the eastern site boundary. To the east of East Deegan Road extends a long,
moderately steep slope with a westerly aspect. Water flows laterally above a
hardpan layer below the surface of the slope and through surface sheet flow
toward the site entering the site through a series of seeps and springs along the
eastern boundary. On-site, the seeps and springs are directed into one main
drainage swale that extends through the southern half of the site, flowing west
toward a seasonal creek which flows into Goldsborough Creek off-site to the
north. A high elevation on the eastern side of the site is 185 feet, dropping to a
low elevation of 100 feet at the seasonal creek on the western boundary. The
catchment draining onto the site appears to be approximately 52 acres in size.
Soils on the site are mapped as the Shelton gravelly sandy loam series on 15-30%
slopes for the majority of the site, with a small portion of Grove gravelly sandy
loams mapped in the northwestern corner. Soils associated with the creek drainage
course off-site are mapped as the Bellingham silt loam series, and it is most likely
that.the wetland soils on-site are also of the Bellingham silt loam series.
1.3 Discussion of Existing Wetland Functional Values
The wetland areas have the potential to provide water quality remediate functions
based on the location of the wetlands adjacent to the seasonal creek. Water
flowing down the slopes and entering the wetland system will be slowed by dense
vegetation within the wetlands allowing for bioremediation prior to entering the
creek. Short-term water storage capacity of the wetland areas is moderate, based
on the connection with the surface water system. The wetlands are not large in
size, but will provide some storm water storage, thereby reducing peak flows. The
wetlands will also provide some long-term water storage which will provide base
flow continuation for Goldsborough Creek, which is known to provide habitat for
fish. The wetlands on-site have high value for perched ground water discharge, as
the primary source of hydrology for the wetlands is from springs and seeps
emanating from lateral ground water flow from the hillside to the east. The
wetlands do not appear to have value for recharge to the deeper ground water
system as the majority of water exits the wetlands through surface connection with
the creek or through evapotranspiration. The wetlands have moderate to high
potential for wildlife habitat due to their association with the riparian corridor
connection with the creek. The size of the wetland is the primary limitation to
provision of wildlife habitat as the wetlands are less than one-half acre in total
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 2
size. However, the wetlands do have unique habitat features such as large snags
and dense vegetation which will provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS of AREAS PROPOSED
FOR WETLAND RESTORATION
2.1 Topography
The proposed wetland restoration areas include an area approximately 10-15 feet
wide and 100 feet long along the eastern perimeter of the existing wetland area and
a seep area that is approximately 25 feet wide and 80 feet long that flows into the
southern edge of the existing wetland (see Attachment 1, Existing Conditions).
Both areas designated for restoration have recently been filled with approximately
five feet of gravelly, sandy fill material. Current topography is approximately 115
feet on the eastern perimeter where restoration is proposed, and approximately 110
feet in the southern seep area where restoration is proposed. One to five feet of fill
will be removed from these areas; grading in gentle slopes to the existing
elevations.
2.2 Vegetation Community Analysis (Photo Appendix)
Vegetation along the eastern perimeter where restoration is proposed is sparse.
There is one existing old growth cedar stump located in the center of the perimeter
restoration area. This cedar stump will remain in place with fill being removed
from around it as the stump is unique in its size and provides insect production and
nesting sites for wildlife adjacent to the wetland. Along the seep area proposed for
restoration there is also sparse vegetation, other than a few weedy.species that are
becoming established on the fill. The existing wetland swale that has not been
recently disturbed contains tree canopy, shrub and herbaceous layers. The tree
canopy is dominated by Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western red cedar (Thuja
plicata), and red alder (Alnus rubra). The understory is dominated by salmonberry
(Rubus spectabilis), and vine maple (Acer circinatum). Herbaceous and aquatic
species include smart weed (Polygonum sp), skunk cabbage (Lystichiton
americanum), water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa), American brooklime
(Veronica americanum), horsetails (Equisetum sp), and yellow iris (Iris
pseudocorus). There area also several downed logs located within the open water
areas of the existing wetland.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/5/6/97 3
2.3 Hydrologic Analysis (Attachment 2)
Direction of flow within the existing wetland area is toward the west with
subsequent flow off-site into the seasonal creek. Water within the proposed .
restoration areas flows toward the west and north following the general wetland
patterns.
2.4 Soils Analysis
Soils on the site are mapped as the Shelton gravelly sandy loam and the Grove
gravelly sandy loam series. The Shelton series consists of coarse textured glacial
till underlain by cemented compacted till typically at depths of 30-36 inches. The
Grove gravelly sandy loam series consists of coarse textured glacial till with no
underlying hardpan layer, as in the Shelton series. Therefore, the Grove soils are
naturally more permeable than the Shelton soils. The Bellingham silty clay loam
series is mapped off-site to the west associated with the stream corridor, and it is
most likely that these are the soils that were present in the wetland areas on-site.
The Bellingham silty clay loam series consists of poorly drained silty soils that
formed in upland depressions in glacial lake basins. Soils on the site have been
altered by historic fill, as well as more recent fill, along the eastern perimeter of
the existing wetland swale, and fill within the seep in the southern portion of the
site. This restoration plan includes removal of this fill from these two areas.
3.0 RESTORATION PLAN
3.1 Introduction
Mason County's Interim Resource Ordinance requires that unauthorized impacts to
regulated wetlands be restored. As mentioned previously, a site visit was
conducted by Mason County staff at which time it was determined that fill should
be removed from the eastern perimeter of the existing wetland, as well as from the
seep area on the southern side of the wetland. We anticipate a high level of
success in restoring the wetlands as the underlying soil and hydrologic conditions
are suitable for the re-establishment of wetland vegetation.
3.2 Buffers
Mason County's Interim Resource Ordinance requires that management areas be
maintained perpendicular to a wetland edge. These management areas include a
50-foot vegetated setback and a 65-foot building setback. This plan does not
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 4
include restoration of the existing wetland buffers, however, this activity maybe
pursued in the future.
3.3 Performance Standards
The overall goal of this restoration project is to provide functionally restored
wetlands to compensate for recent impacts to these areas. The restoration plan
includes removal of fill that was placed in these areas and the planting of native
trees and shrubs in order to reestablish the wetland vegetation community. The
specific goals and performance standards are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1: Goals and Performance Standards
Overall Goal: to restore approximately 2,000 square feet of wetland perimeter along the eastern edge of the
existing wetland,and to restore approximately 2,000 square feet of seep wetlands along the southern portion of the
wetland. The desired restored vegetation community is a facultative/forested wetland.
GOAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD
1. At least 4,000 square feet of wetlands will be Hydric soils,hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland
restored on this site. hydrology will be present throughout the designated
restoration areas.
2. To restore a multi-layered forested wetland with At least one species of native evergreen trees and
native plant species similar to those present prior to three species of native shrubs will be established in
the disturbance. the restored wetland.
3. To restore water quality remediation within the Native herb vegetation should attain at least 80%
wetland area. cover.
Native shrub vegetation should attain at least 45%
cover.
Native trees should attain at least 45%cover.
Soils should be saturated within the restored
wetlands for at least two weeks with the rate of flow
slow enough to prevent erosion and provide
opportunity for nutrient uptake.
4. To avoid invasion of non-native species into the Less than 10%of the mitigation area should be
restored wetland. covered with undesirable invasive or weedy species.
Invasive species that are potential problems on this
site include reed canarygrass (Phalaris
arundinacae). Weeds on the 1994 Washington
State Noxious Weed List should be removed from
the mitigation area.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 5
3.4 Grading Plan (Attachment 2)
Grading(removal of fill)will occur on the eastern perimeter of the wetland and
within the seep area in the southern portion of the wetland. The fill that has been
placed within both of these areas will be removed, lowering existing topography
by one to five feet. Grading will include over-excavation of approximately 12
inches to allow for topsoil placement to augment the soil conditions. The side
slopes of the perimeter and in the seep area will not exceed a 3:1 horizontal to
vertical ratio. We recommend the use of a topsoil mix(such as Nutramulch®) to
provide a suitable substrate for the native species, since the nature of the soil
below the fill is unknown. Should the removal of fill reveal intact hydric soils, it
may be eliminated, depending on the judgment of the overseeing biologist.
3.5 Hydrology (Attachment 2)
Hydrology will be restored to the wetland perimeter and.the seep by removal of the
fill. Hydrology current flows on top of the compacted surface of the fill in both
the perimeter and seep areas. Removal of the fill will allow hydrology to enter the
restored areas from lateral perched ground water flow from the hillside, as well as
from surface flow. The direction of flow within the restored areas will be the same
as the current direction of flow; toward the west in the perimeter wetland, and
toward the north in the seep wetland. Water will exit the restored areas by flowing
into the existing wetland with subsequent flow off-site to the west, associated with
the seasonal creek. The restored wetland areas are expected to have seasonal
hydrology associated with the winter rainy season. Successful restoration of
wetland hydrology is anticipated based on the presence of the existing wetland and
the large volumes of water moving downslope. To avoid direct pollutant inputs
into the restored wetland perimeter, we recommend directing road surface runoff
to the east side of the road and filtering this runoff through a bioswale prior to
release into the creek.
3.6 Planting Plan (Attachment 3)
The intent of the proposed restoration project is to restore facultative forested
wetland community, including both trees and shrubs, to disturbed areas. These
plantings will restore wildlife habitat adjacent to the existing wetland area and will
facilitate flood water storage and water quality remediation by slowing water flow.
The planting plan specifies native tree and shrub species that are either currently
present in the existing adjacent wetland, and/or typically present in riparian
wetland communities in the Puget Lowland areas. All recommended species are
8271 mit/cmk/smh/5/6/97 6
available from local native plant nurseries. Plantings include western red cedar
(Thuja plicata), salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis), red currant (gibes sanguineum),
and red osier dogwood (Corpus stolonifera). Planting instructions are shown on
Attachment 3. Tables 2 and 3 details the number, size, and spacing requirements
for the plantings. The existing cedar stump should be retained in the restored
wetland perimeter. There does not appear to be a high risk of erosion in the soils
adjacent to the wetland area; therefore, we are not recommending hydroseeding at
this time as the development of dense herbaceous vegetation may limit the
recruitment of native trees, shrubs, and herbs from the surrounding seed source.
Table 2: Plant Characteristics
Common Name ScientificName USFWS Mature Height Spacing
(Region 9) and Spread
Ind. Status
Western red cedar Thu id plicata FAC 60-130' h x 40' dia 10 feet
Salmonberry Rubus s ectabilis FAC 5-10' h x 5-8' dia 1 4 feet
Red-flowerin currant gibes sapguineum NR 5' h x 4 dia 4 feet
Red osier do ood Cornus stoloni era FACW 10' h x 10' dia 4 feet
Table 3: Planting Plan Requirements
Species Size&Cost per plant Number Cost
Trees
Western red cedar 2 al/$5.50 40 220.00
Shrubs !'
Salmonberry 2 gaU$5.50 84 462.00
Red flowering currant 2 gaU$5.50 84 462.00
Red osier dogwood 2 gaU$5.50 84 462.00
Total $1496.00;
Plantings should be installed in a clump/gap mosaic pattern. This pattern includes
clumping individuals of one species together, then placing individuals of that same
species farther from the first group, and repeating this process with different
species, forming a mosaic pattern.
3.7 Irrigation Requirements
Irrigation may be necessary during the first one or two growing season summers
after the restoration plantings have been installed. There is a water source
available at the existing residence on the site, and the small size of the restoration
areas will make it possible to utilize this source for watering. A specific irrigation
design is not included with this plan. The plantings should be established by the
end of June in order to allow some root development prior to droughty conditions.
8271 miUcmk/smh/4/24/97 7
3.8 Water Pollution Mitigation Measures During Construction
Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs), specifically siltation control,
should be used during excavation of the fill from the restored areas. The grading
plan indicates recommended locations for silt fence placement around the
perimeter of the existing wetland that will not be disturbed (Attachment 2).
Grading should be completed outside of the silt fences with the silt fences
removed at the completion of planting.
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Installation sequence
It is anticipated that the mitigation project will be installed in May or June of
1997. Ideally, plants would be installed in the early fall or early spring in order to
give them an opportunity to establish root systems prior to the summer dry season.
However, it is important that the restoration occur as soon as possible; therefore,
we are recommending installation in early June.
June 1, 1997 Stake restoration area. Install silt fencing around perimeter of
existing wetland to be undisturbed as shown on the grading
plan.
June 2-5, 1997 Grading plan as indicated on Attachment 2, will be
completed. The grades will be overexcavated by 12 inches to
allow for the placement of purchased topsoil.
June 6-8, 1997 Purchased topsoil will be placed to a depth of at least 12
inches throughout the restored wetland areas.
June 9-10, 1997 Native plant materials will be installed according to the
planting plan as shown on Attachment 3.
June 30, 1997 Silt fencing will be removed from the perimeter of the
existing wetland.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 8
4.2 Monitoring
Monitoring of sites provides necessary information to determine if the goals of the
project have met the performance standards. Mason County may request that this
project be monitored. Monitoring should begin with an as-built report
documenting the conditions of the mitigation project upon completion of
installation, and should continue (at least biannually) once in the growing season
in order to identify potential problems such as winter kill that may require
replacement, and once late in the growing season in order to ascertain the vigor of
the restoration area prior to the dormant season.
4.2.1 Monitoring plan
The monitoring program, to evaluate the success of the mitigation project,
should use scientific procedures. Permanent sampling points would be
established to determine success of the vegetative cover in the restored
areas. Fixed photo monitoring points to illustrateAhe progress of the
restoration plan should also be established. Permanent sampling plots
should be approximately 40 feet in diameter and the location of these plots
should be representative of the restored vegetation community.
Quantitative Assessments
Vegetation Diversity
One of the four performance standards (number 2 ) is related to plant
species diversity. To assess diversity, the number of native trees, shrubs,
and herbs should be counted in each sample plot. This documented number
should be compared with the performance standard. Note: It is not
necessary for each sample plot to meet the performance standard. The
sample plots in the restored wetland may be combined to determine if the
standard has been met.
Vegetation Density
Performance standard three pertains to vegetation density. To determine if
this standard is met, the survival of planted species, as well as approximate
areal coverage for each strata, should be documented. Desirable volunteer
species may be counted toward the density standards.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 9
Hydrology
Performance standards one and three relate to the establishment of wetland
hydrology. The spring monitoring visits should occur between the second
and third weeks of March for each year to determine if wetland hydrology
is present early in the growing season. An assumption may be made that
hydrology has been continuous through the winter rainy season. The rate of
flow should be visually estimated. Signs of gullying or other types of
erosion may indicate flow rates greater than desired.
Qualitative Assessments
Soils
At each quantitative monitoring point, the texture and color of soils (using
the Munsell color chart) within 18 inches of the surface should be recorded.
Photographs
Photographic documentation should be used to establish a baseline and
track project success. Photos should be taken from the same vantage at
each monitoring period, with the location of the photo station marked on
the site plan. Photos should be submitted with the monitoring reports.
Overall Site Review
In addition to the quantitative sample transects, qualitative assessments of
the entire mitigation area should be made to determine if areas outside the
sample plots meet density standards and invasive exotic cover goals.
4.3 Maintenance and Permanent Protection
1. The selected plant species are native to Western Washington and should
require minimal maintenance, which includes the potential need for
watering during the first two years of growth.
2. Invasive exotic species should be mechanically removed by hand. Due to
the proximity to the intermittent swale/wetland area, herbicide applications
are recommended only during the summer dry season.
3. Plant materials which do not survive should be replaced with like species or
an alternate species. The reason for plant failure should be assessed. If a
problem with the species requirements is determined to be present, and/or if
specified plant species are not locally available, alternative species may be
recommended.
8271 mit/cmk/smh/4/24/97 10
5.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN
Maintenance of the restored wetland areas will be essential to the success of the project.
Monitoring during construction will determine if erosion or settling is occurring. If it
appears that erosion potentially threatens to introduce sediments into the wetland/swale
area, silt fencing may remain in place until an herbaceous cover becomes established.
Invasive exotic species should be removed by hand, or with spot treatments of approved
herbicides applied only during the summer dry season. Invasive exotics are not
anticipated to be a significant problem on this site. Due to the known hydrology of the
area, the minimal grading required to restore the wetland areas, and the presence of
existing wetland plants within the wetland soil to serve as a seed source, the project has a
high likelihood of successfully attaining the stated goals.
6.0 BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A cost estimate for installation of this restoration project follows.
Construction Bond
Excavation/Grading (8 hours @ $70/hour) $ 560.00
Nutramulch® (74 cubic yds @ $10/cu.yd.) 740.00
Topsoil placement (4 hours @ $70/hour) 280.00
Plant materials 1,496.00
Plant Installation (1.5x plant cost) 997.34
Subtotal $ 4,073.34
+25% inflation/administrative costs 1,018.34
Total $ 5,091.68
8271 mir/cmk/smh/4/24/97 11
MITIGATION SITE MONITORING FORM: SETTLE INN RV PARK RESTORATION PROJECT
Sample plot#: Date: Completed by:
O As-built O Yr I March O Yr 2 March O Yr 3 March O Yr 4 March
O 30 days O Yr I September O Yr 2 September O Yr 5 March
TREES NO. N0. NO. N0. %"SURVIVAL
PLANTED ALIVE STRESSED DEAD
SHRUBS
HE
DESIRABLE VOLUNTEERS
OVERALL AREAL COVER: TREES SHRUBS HERBS
INVASIVE EXOTICS %COVER METHOD OF CONTROL
SOILS 0 HORIZON A HORIZON B HORIZON
Hydrology:
Wildlife Observed:
Comments:
8271 mit
REFERENCES and LITERATURE CITED
Brown, E. R. ed. 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and
Washington. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region.
Corlery,W.G. Soil Amendments at Planting. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 2(1): 27-30.
EPA 190/r-9-006, A Citizen's Guide to Wetland Restoration, 1994.
Garbisch, E.W., 1995. The Do's and Don'ts of Wetland Planning. Wetland Journal,Vol. 7,No. 2.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of WA Press, Seattle
and London.
Kentula, M.E., R. P. Brooks, S. E. Gwin, C. C. Holland,A.D. Sherman,and J.C. Sifneus. 1992. An
Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. EPA/600/R-92/150.
Kusler, J.A. 1986. Wetland Assessment: The Regulator's Perspective. Page 2-3 in J.A. Kusler and P.
Riexinger(ed.)proceedings: National Wetlands Assessment Symposium. Assocation of State Wetland
Managers, Chester, Vermont, USA. Technical Report 1.
Kusler,J.A. and M.E. Kentula(eds.) 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration;The Status of The Science.
Island Press. Washington, D.C. and Cove Co. CA.
Kusler,J.A. 1987. Scientific Issues Relating to the Restoration and Creation of Wetlands. National
Wetlands Policy Forum.
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audobon Society.
Mason County Department of Community Development, August 16, 1996. Letter addressed to Mery
Settle regarding violation.
Mason County Department of Community Development, January 26, 1997. Letter addressed to Mery
Settle regarding continued violation.
Mason County Soil Survey. 1960.
Martin, A.C.,H.S. Zim and A.L. Nelson, 1951. American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food
Habits. Dover Publications, Inc.,New York.
Moll,G.M. and P. Rodbell. The Best Way to Plant Trees. The Virginia Gardener, VA Cooperative
Extension Service.
Moss Environmental, January 24, 1996. Letter addressed to Mery Settle regarding wetland review.
Quammen, M.L. 1986. Measuring the Success of Wetlands Mitigation. National Wetlands Newsletter,
8:6-8.
Resource Management Group, Inc. 1993. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands -Region 9-
Northwest B.J. Sabine ed. Grand Haven, MI.
Ricklefs, R. E. 1979. Ecology. 2nd ed. Chiron Press Inc. New York.
Whitcomb, C. E. et al. What is a$5 Planting Hole? American Nurseryman 144 (5):16, 111-115.
Wildlife Society,Washington, D.C., 1980. Wildlife Management Techniques Manual, Fourth Edition,
Revised. Ed. Sanford D. Schemnitz. `
NIASCN COUNTY, NASHINGTON SHEET NUMBER i9
Ghr '_. II i -: ` - ii _Gk
►»r 7 c it u1� ', \- Mg _��y' _(jo1ftS sheet 14)
. ,
k 19
Gh
\\ t.i Ca Sf Me r\t ,
1 4
• , `- f '..'R' - ' 1. •� r :. .'v' 11 Ca \�. \• \, /r Mc
NA wAL
��. �\ " tea.\:�� - w7 \ \. Gn �/ s
; F. 3f '\ ng Gh i / ` Sf ✓ ri.•i �q �'
ZQ \ ° 1 %�iiQ \ 12 �r ' RESE ATION N
Gh' \`. nI 11 SHELTON ^� 5
.7 Sf
�` •Jll 'AIRPORT r �5\ Gk �M /i / I / ' - ----�------------ Mg
1
Gh
L-0 _ t I o h n P r a
Ne , eft' '' - dltiMe Ca.
' V�✓ �� (rY^,\rr+1 1'�t �� l i' S� Sf
�2 i� - � a r rrri @ \\ �r
.. , i IP r .. / i, �2. •i Jl� r =a Gh
Ne !: -I J VCa
al
Gh ! "� a �`\ �\J( '�' / z.�' Ce �' '' G�V �: �'��' •h !/
a• .+' ' •.�. _ k v' _____ ==w --G, =-ao`Gh t� `. _ •y / Sg
Y � - 11• S �r - _
--- _ •rak
a .Glr• 1 '� y 1 ? . �'� G. �� drr dF \� zi_±\ \�.\ ` Gk
1� r t„t k�c`q ; 7µ t -- ,t ;Gh :� ✓ )i
1 " ra r �alc!� I,r ../ r \i l` / 7
+ 1• -t,w+•. .y„�1Y .`..,, '/L`1r.�.�/.e i •sf;[ ! II M� 4M Gm r;l Ca �C`Li�\i" C j' /.� / Sf x-
. > •'y Z.
r% 'r ':- , .,_ r -�/i/ _g :II `^. I II•• �� g / I
!`i t . •e". ° , �'� -'s Q_%��� IL.'� \�.. 1\\\ ,i:.�.��\ d r Sh ��'�'.S` % 'O
gQGf G •CS.._ r• � �Qi � �,: '� _ i2b .:� \� -; �, .\ �\ /• '' • F � ' .-' ' - .6 -f •C Vl
r'
Sf Gn -_= Sg• '` .� Y
..':-: ! ,r Sd.( •.�i _.i:�- U • '-+Spy Y _p _ o ;J ! �i �.�'\ /.:��„-Gh�: , ,-��...• --_ - `t' It .- .C_ Q' M
./� / 5 's ,I '-- 1 J,. ll;' ' �L=7y-- Sd• - .r.- Si' i1 i. u 0
f • F2� / ) ya �� P -I i ( I L'- i�U U Sh. �' " a x ✓ C
Gh ��CI O �p M
,�• / Y C s 'i.4Jr7P %.-r -y+ IJV .r'� 4 4• , ry /r.�q r fir„ U� '�J�•II4J� ,'� - Sf:�... C O
Munson KSS
n
9t[t, "5-ram ; ,•� o " Sg V- . Pt
/ /� f •f 7 /yl `\` ���` ��t y /y t, i Jb �J c— „—� I A'� .. �
Lb / >l i�''.Jf - ,- .1- -lhl.• rn• _i�s. // . Gd�. V �! :__LCI \\` •a J3 :�, 'da21
Is
.� - 'Y •��•• 1�r�•i\_• {'. �•C iG G• C d
d - vx i 4"t•. •` �22; ,� .dr< v'Uc g u_,< �g ,_Gh cs��'> �r �1 ql r�C`.L:[� I�� \ •v � ewer` - �r G ;,-`�` ,'idr„ � �M ... ,
t�� Mg -�� .Y.- 7j!. ''�! _ k ir--_Jl...il....� \.. MILL M - _ r•�'- .,r;� �
s „t•• =I;X�' a Mg-
Cc � - 5; s^ e'`r .r• Gk Ge / ' I�rab / -- -- w iqr,
,g'� �'•' J. c. t ► �� f �.� �,+`7 Z 5� 5� .lii• i ��I rC gg� .s I uiNniu,Sf„Y • >
Ae �OT,1 i1 C olf-Nf
�QQ -�I•` a q � '�
y' �$8 �• yI YS' �r J Ge Eb �•, \ Bd Sg �! / r, ec �_�iQ��,� )I.. .�- - _'> s• �1 Y c�C
.' r _ r "• 'r' Bd ti s a�0��^ 1�%1 ;'• ri •u S' F p nU �_
s' S$-. ''`' •/�: ' t$- r. 8d SY r•E:,. i`.!" '�` f f i'- ,•5Mf II Q �'� -�L'1Lb�� i �lJ�._JI' y�`� _ •�` .i (>
IFIF
L7C=r C \n I' , •�•. -�\ Sg .i r A. '. ' 'I•.; f O U rV
- �` U rti �'t; '! t 4~r 11 - ay. . ` r � O f! •I�1 � Q� U � � U
+ ri 27 R r. a�1 tz s ,Y•' ._4 6 "- - - q'r `� _ r ` Or C/! C/� U
M N "'� .'_' ' ,~5 1 - / !\`�•,_ 25 - •30 • Cc .7. Vlld J - �;.1 a .
C'0.�.�°e`: • , ASH \ ! - -- Bd ..: -
is ' r ` Gk ^b j/. IIAe �' MC �w' Cc ® Wd J sI• v7
z _
Sf _
j - Mg , �1 Z Z Mb
Y O O
i( •Cb
-a. alMh ! Ja Mb %y� �-- O O
/ Sf C< Sf I c"3 b II
Gh r'L *=;�A ��C �a 0 • ' � l ..�1�, Sf 'p ` ..
k SfSg
I \ '�, i .�� / �'•^ 1 ci
Gk Be� C Sg I — }• g}
cc cc
sa. 4. ,sf Gm�3. Gk ��36 d'1 % 1 / 3 w
33 - / 131�; �' Bd sr ;•, Bd 33
�. i Mc / Mq \ - ' rU I r7 Mf Gk".
Rd / Sg I \.. i •e.. s Ce
�Mh '— --- j -;' �s-� /' 1 �I Mg Bd Mg �\ Cc c
Gh
/k Rd -z3d' % "� y ,. a.���Q, „ Sd Sfrar -At
_=`� co
1S • .
'4;les
(Joins sheet 23)
Scale 1:31580
1
APPENDIX A
Photo Appendix
T
I
r4"s•
� .yp yy.,�> ,1 f 'k�. f•�.. ��� `..i• r.£'"'a• +ttr Si
/ - AFT �• � _ � `�Y< - ` tf
.,�� �'s�iT".;�w.h.�.• � . .'.s, stpp�Y`. <,fy��`'�,3�w,y ��'t.. .1 ` �ro�