HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP2003-00011 Geotech Reports, DNR Logging - SEP Determinations - 6/7/2010 SEPA kl�
REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
MCCD _ /�
In accordance with Chapter 197-11 Washington Administrative Code(WAC),State Environmental Policy Act(sEPA�16W N I N Ca
Notice is hereby given of the following:
Description of Proposal:
The Department of Corrections submitted a SEPA and DNS for the expansion of Mission Creek
Correction Center for Women to accommodate an additional 100 minimum security offenders. The
100-bed expansion project identified the construction of a new, single-story, wood frame building,
approximately 12,800 square feet in size, a Large On-site Septic System (LOSS) with a design
capacity of 13,970 gallons per day, the addition of 10 parking spaces, and revised interior vehicular
circulation. The revision is DOC is expanding the parking from 10 up to 40 paved parking spaces
to accommodate visitors for the additional offender population.. The parking area for the expansion
is currently graveled pre-disturbed ground which is used currently for parking and storage of
equipment. There are no additional environmental impacts as a result of this revision.
Proponent and Lead Agency: Washington Department of Corrections
Location of Proposal: Mission Creek Corrections Center for Women
Belfair, Washington
Lead Agency: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
This is a revision to the Declaration of Non-Significance originally submitted in April 2008. 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.020(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a complete environmental checklist and
other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on
request.
® There is no comment period for the Determination of Non-Significance (DNS).
❑ This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). Cor mcn s must be received by.
Responsible official: David B. Jansen, P.E.
Position/Title: Assistant Deputy Secretary
Address: P.O. Box 41112; Olympia, WA 98504-
Date: � :51�olo Si ature-
Eric Heinitz,Environmental Specialist 5
Department of Corrections
Capital Programs
PO Box 41112;
Olympia,WA 98504-1112.
® There is no agency appeal.
W: \\Capital Planning&Development\CPD\Environmental Services\SEPA\WSP\l00-Bed Expansion DNS 23APR08.doc
Date of this action: May 3, 2010
oN-STATF MASON COUNTY
C ° DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
t� M O y
s" u = Planning Division
i N T P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
�o� Y aoti (360)427-9670
1864
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2003-00011
Description of Proposal: DNR
Proponent: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Site Address (If Assigned):
Directions to Site: Former Mission Creek Youth Camp, located approx 1 miles south
of Bear Ck Dewatto Rd, on Sand Hill Rd.
Parcel Number: 123180060000
Legal Description: ENTIRE SECTION
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverser 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 ext 571 at ext. with any questions.
This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2), the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14
days from the date below. Comments must be submitted to Michael MacSems ext 571, C/O
Mason County DCD, Planning Division, PO Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 2/20/2003.
Authorized Local Government Official Date
DNR SEPA Review Army Corps Fish& Wildlife G �c�e.
DNR S Puget Sound ✓ Applicant Squaxin Tribe
Dept of Ecology Contractor 1/Skokomish Tribe 1'tei 0 .
Dept of Transportation School District City of Shelton
Mason County Traiisit
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2003-00011
CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION
�) STORMWATER SITE PLAN
Creation and implementation of a Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) may be required prior to
logging or development of any portion of this conversion. Contact Mason County Engineer
(Alan Tahja) with any questions The Engineer will charge a fee of $36.50 per hour to
review such plans.
X
2) GEO-TECH REPORT
Per Mason County Ordinance 17.01.100, no cutting or development may occur on slopes
greater than 15%, or within 250 feet of a 50 foot buffer (total 300 feet) without a geo-tech
assessment and/or report (Assessment when slopes are 15-40%). A 43 to 45% slope exist
on the north eastern edge of this unit. A geo-technical report, prepared in accordance with
section 17.01.100.E.5, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the
Mason County Engineer prior to the issuance of this SEPA.
X
3) SETBACK FROM TYPE 5 STREAM
A type 5 stream exist at the bottom of the steep slope on the north eastern edge of this
unit. Per the Mason County Mason County Resource Ordinance, section 17.01.110, Table
3, no cutting shall come within 75 feet of this stream (proposed cut has a 100 foot setback).
X
Map Output
FOREST PRACTICE ACTIVITY MAP
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH HALF 0, RANGE 1 WEST (W.M.) HALF 0, SECTION
18
Application #:
9 _f' 4.4 18 ++ 4318 1 '�
of +430¢50 ; f 1` +30e51
i #a q �
✓ /Ir
+ c)3
a c re
S100
I / REEK
�O�tRSCT.ON �%
f-
7L4+29489�/! +29490 + 491 f/
✓ ��� 4283 i\ `'•` 428330 / +28331
19 y
Please use the legend from the FPA Instruction or provide a list of symbols used.
httn-//www';.waclnr anv/cinrann7.//gPrv1Pt/rnm Pcri Pcrimnn }=.criman9CPrvirPNnmP=FnarcA ni in�i�nn�
EVALUATION FOR
R E C E I V E D AGENCY USE ONLY
JAN 2 8 2003 MASON COUNTY
MA"C.0, Rmm Dom.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared
for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist
is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts
from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies
use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of
an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be
able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do
not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write"do not know" or"does not apply." Complete
answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these
questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different
parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The
agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information
reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN
ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project,""applicant,"and "property or site" should be
read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: MC Office Timber Sale.
2. Name of applicant: Department of Natural Resources
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
South Puget Sound Region Contact: Jerry Kvale or Nancy Walters
950 Farman Ave. N
Enumclaw, WA 98022
(360) 825-1631
4. Date checklist prepared: 1/21/03
5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Auction date: March of 2003. Completion of Logging: May of 2003.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this
proposal? If yes, explain.
Yes.
We plan to place two singlewide trailers on this cleared space (2.3 acres) and an associated graveled parking area
(approximately 50'x100'). Our long-term plans are to construct a permanent work center on this site (perhaps
within 10 years).
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this
proposal.
In regards to timber harvest on Department of Natural Resources land:
Forest Resource Plan, July 1993
Environmental Impact Statement, July 1993
DNR Tahuya State Forest Management Plan, June 1993
DNR State Soil Survey
Habitat Conservation Plan, September 1997
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.
Forest Practice Application will be required.
County Building Permit.
County Grading Permit.
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.)
Sale of Timber:
Estimated Volume: 48 MBF
Area in acres: 2.3
Logging system: Ground based
Roads: Maintenance of the existing gravel forest road that leads to the site will be performed as needed.
Land Clearing:
The stumps and slash will be removed from the site. The stumps will be taken to a waste area near the
Sand Hill pit located in the NE1/4 NW1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4 of S24, T23N, R2W to be utilized in future
projects. The logging slash will be either piled and burned or chipped and piled.
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.
The harvest unit is adjacent to Mission Creek Youth Camp in the SW '/4, NW %section 18, Township 23, Range 1
West. See attached map.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other:
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 4 3 . �t S
56
15 percent slope on less than one percent of the sale area. ��`�`S N i-
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you
know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Mass
Stability % of Wasting Erosion
Sad-9 Sni�Pe % gnpE (when riiStiirhpd Sale Area Pntentig Potential
7331 Shelton Gray. sandy loam 5-15 stable 100% low low
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No.
2
I
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source
of fill.
No filling is expected, but minor amounts of grading will be required to level ground for foundation and
parking lot. This is expected to be less than 300 yards.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Some erosion may occur. Prudent road maintenance practices will minimize the amount of erosion that
may occur.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
Zero percent after timber harvest. Approximately three percent after the addition of two singlewide trailers
and the parking area.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Timber haul will not be allowed during rain events that will lead to more than minimal erosion.
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.
Smoke from the burning of logging slash. The contracted logger will be required to obtain and follow all
necessary permits to legally burn. No further emissions are anticipated other than minor amounts of
equipment exhaust and road dust created by truck traffic. If
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
None.
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— one type 5 stream is located within one hundred feet of the proposed harvest area. This
stream ultimately flows into Mission Creek, which is approximately one mile away.
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.
Yes. Timber harvest will occur within 100 feet of the described waters (one type 5 stream).
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of
fill material.
None.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan.
No.
3
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type
of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Ground.-
1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No.
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...;
agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the
number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s)
are expected to serve.
Insignificant amounts of oil and other lubricants may be discharged inadvertently as a result of
heavy equipment use. No lubricants or containers will be disposed of on site. The future septic
needs for the two singlewide trailers will be handled with the building permit at the time of
installation
C. Water Runoff(including storm water).-
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 water runoff will be collected by ditches and diverted through cross drain culverts onto the
forest floor where possible.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
Any inadvertent spilling of waste materials including oils and fluids will be treated as hazardous
waste spills and will be handled as required by law.
D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
All lead people working on site are briefed about the particular environmental concerns on the site. They
are strictly governed by our timber sale contracts and are aware of procedures for handling accidents
such as fuel, oil and fluid spills.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, cottonwood, birch, other: willow
evergreen tree: Douglas fir, pine, hemlock, Pacific silver fir, yellow cedar, red cedar, other: Pacific yew
shrubs: huckleberry, salmonberry, other: salal, rose, ocean spray, rhododendron
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, devil's club, other: sedge
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other:
other types of vegetation: sword fern
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
All timber, stumps, slash and the majority of the ground vegetation will be removed to prepare for a
building site and parking area.
C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
4
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:
Native plants will be allowed to re-occupy areas of the cleared site not being utilized for the construction
site and parking areas. The landscaping in the immediate vicinity of the structure is in the planning stage.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near
the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, pigeon, other: osprey
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
amphibian: frog, salamander
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
TRAX shows a bald eagle located in Section 6. The bald eagle is a State and Federally listed Threatened
species. This proposed harvest area is greater than % mile from Section 6.
The Hoodcanal Summer Chum salmon is known to inhabit the watershed in which this project is located.
This species is on the State Candidate Species List and the Federal Threatened Species List. This
project is approximately 700 feet away from the nearest fish bearing stream.
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Yes, Pacific flyway. Migratory waterfowl use wetlands for feeding and resting.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None. There are no wetlands on this site.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)will be used to meet the completed
project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Does not apply.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe.
Does not apply.
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and
explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe.
There are minimal hazards incidental to operating heavy equipment.
1. Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Any logging/construction accidents may require Mason County ambulance services.
2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Does not apply.
5
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Does not apply.
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term
basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise from trucks and logging equipment associated with harvest during daylight hours.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Logging will be done during daylight hours only.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Forest Land surrounds this site with the exception of the 10+ acre Mission Creek Youth Camp Correction
Facility located southwest of this proposed conversion site.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No.
C. Describe any structures on the site.
None.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
N/A
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Mason Coun #as"no zoning. Z��;n
L S
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Long-term commercial forestry.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Does not apply.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Does not apply during timber harvest. Approximately 8-10 people will work at the completed work center
once completed.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
Does not apply.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if
any:
Does not apply.
0
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
Does not apply.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing.
Does not apply.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal
exterior building material(s) proposed?
Approximately 14 feet.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
This project will be seen from Mission Creek Youth Camp. The project is not visible from Sand Hill County
road.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
We limited the clearing to the size needed for the foreseeable future.
11. Lights and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Does not apply.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No.
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
Does not apply.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Does not apply.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity.
None.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
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 identified.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance
known to be on or next to the site.
None.
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street
system. Show on site plans, if any.
See Sale Vicinity Map.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit
stop?
Does not apply.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate?
Approximately 20.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No.
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.
1 to 2 log trucks per day during hauling operations, which may last 2 months. Fifteen to twenty passenger
vehicle trips per day after the completion of the work center.
g. 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, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
None needed for the timber harvest/land clearing. We will need fire protection for two singlewide trailers
upon completion of this project.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
None.
8
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,
sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
None.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed.
We plan on utilizing the existing power, water, and phone available from the Mission Creek Youth Center. The
installation of a septic system and drain field will be addressed by our Mason County Building Permit.
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.
Completed by Alan Mainwaring
Signature:
Date Submitted: -2 $ - y3
9
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
Applicant Information Project Information
Name LA&S4%4sfv, �ce t �•L r.I�zcr�/ �u ,r�1Q�ine Al 66c, .Ce T M6,•r Se/e
Phone_(3 L v ) &.x,T-46 ! Location_/Ve4r a �Lc. r� (yk►rY.s N�rti�
Descriptiono c/�.,r G c c•�s
sr'ft
This worksheet was designed to help project proponents and
government agencies identify when a project needs further
analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species
Act) listed salmonids . Salmonids are salmon, trout and chars,
e.g. bull trout . For our purposes, "ESA listed salmonids" is
defined as fish species listed as endangered, threatened or
being considered for listing.
If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project
will be located,your project has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply
with the ESA. The questions in this section will help determine if the ESA listings will
impact your project.
The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW)
regional office can provide information for the following two Questions
1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed
in which your project will be located?
Yes ✓ No
Please describe.
VN4
2 . Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in
this watershed? Yes ✓ No Uncertain
Please describe . /
74 e �-a �Y c �v�a( Sa<<n,�►-r e.- GGrrA
If you answered "yes" to either of the above Questions, you
should complete the remainder of this checklist.
September 1999 1
i
PROJECT SPECIFICS: The Questions in this section are specific to
the project and vicinity.
1. Name of watershed: Sc�r4L4jeyt k"fsc:n.
2 . Name of nearest waterbody: _I
•��iaf Cs.Y++tLfS fi� Mi SS/�D-� Litt/�,
3 . What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of
water? !Ud /-�e e f.
Often a buffer between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a
negative impact to fish.
4. What is the current land use between the project and the
potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland, etc)
5. Is the project above a:
• natural permanent barrier (waterfall) Yes No ✓
• natural temporary barrier (beaver pond) Yes No ✓
• man-made barrier (culvert, dam) Yes No ✓
0 other (explain) :
6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the
blockage? Yes No Don' t know
7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface
(including pavement & roof area) ?
c 4 f 3to
L�
September 1999 2
FISH.HIGRATIONt The following questions will help determine if
this project could interfere with migration of adult and
Juvenile fish.
Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration.
1. Does the project require the withdrawal of:
i . Surface water? Yes No ✓
Amount
Name of surface water body
ii . Ground water? Yes No ✓ 7��^ '�`� l,trvr5 `'''�� �"` r��i,,�
Amount 'd- "se cL C,-v�..-r c✓a r_
From where
Depth of well
2 . Will any water be rerouted? Yes No _y'
If yes, will this require a channel change?
3 . Will there be retention or detention ponds? Yes No ✓
If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface
discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a
surface water body?
If to a surface water discharge, please give the name of the
waterbody.
4 . Will this project require the building of new roads?
YeS No ✓ Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water
reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat.
5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? Yes No
6 . Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of
runoff flows? Yes No ✓ If ves , describe the changes .
7 . Will the project involve any reduction of the floodway or
floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows?
Yes No
If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by
your project?
September 1999 3
WATER QUALITyt The following Questions will help determine if
this project could adversely impact water Quality. Such impacts
can cause problems for listed species.
Water Quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces, altering water
temperature, discharging contaminants, etc.
1. Do you know of any problems with water quality in any of the
streams within this watershed? Yes No ✓
If yes, describe.
2 . Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or
over a waterbody? Yes No ✓
Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or
floats often result in a change in shade.
3 . Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the
potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants
(fertilizers, other waste discharges, or runoff) to the
waterbody? Yes No ✓
4 . Will turbidity be increased because of construction of the
project or during operation of the project? Yes No ✓
In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity.
5. Will your project require long term maintenance, i .e. bridge
cleaning, highway salting, chemical sprays for vegetation
management, aring of parking lots?
Yes No �/ If yes, please describe .
September 1999 4
VEGETATION: The following Questions are designed to determine
if the project will affect riparian vegetation, thereby,
adversely impacting salmon.
1 . Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from
the stream banks? Yes No ✓
If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the
amount and type of vegetation to be removed.
2 . If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant?
Yes No If yes , what types of . plants will you use?
,�
September 1999 5
MASON COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER
Shelton,Washington 98584
DATE: March 251h, 2003
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS
TO: Michael MacSems, DCD - Planner
FROM: Alan A. Tahja, P/W- Co. Hydr. Engr.
SUBJ: Geo-Tech Review NAME: WA State DNR-Mission Creek
SEP2003-00011
Michael,
The geotechnical report and Stormwater Site Plan(SSP)prepared for the proposed State of
Washington Department of Natural Resources improvement at their Mission Creek-Sand Hill
Road facility have been received and reviewed by Public Works.
The geotechnical report appears to satisfactorily address County requirements for geotechnical
reporting. Recommendations contained in the report should be incorporated into the site's
development.
The Stormwater Site Plan prepared for the proposed activities provides for both temporary and
permanent stormwater runoff treatment and control, and may be considered an acceptable
approach to stormwater runoff management.
In summary, the geotechnical report, and Stormwater Site Plan prepared for the proposed
Mission Creek expansion appear to adequately meet and address Mason County requirements.
Contact me at County extension 461 if you have any questions regarding these comments, or if
you feel any features need further discussion or attention.
3.ncerely,
. -Z-- 'T-1z,;:�-
Al n A. Tahja
File: H: \WP\GEO\Reviews\DNR-Mission Crk.doc
Z4/
Eq wok otde� �;,
polff if;777 c 7 —
ed NumbeR' -
ecL� SS�''�euCw 4
W o� i d� 4Ulljlfll 08ie:
Ty&of Wodc
a
U C1�RRGE TO:
z
"I NAME
LLJ `L oC y1 i
AGENCY/COMPANY C,)av C�nw� 061✓I
o ClWNG ADDRESS
PHONE
P2 Works Person In Charge
n....�.;.; .�.;. .;:.:��:��.<:rr•>,'vM�n:.�c��w�:wrs:^v>��».�eF:�:i�ia:s:i�z�:..ww�
(C) Project Time Une: (from-to dat ) e TO
Prefect Start date: Z O 3 Estimated Fk9sh Oats:
APP hours: ESTIMATED TOTAL t5:
COST ESTIMATE
(D) pet Y+s LEA, Hours SM 41 frt OTAL=
TOTAL n
EQUIPMENT USED:
MATERIAL.USED:
(17 /actual Cos! BARS: PROD 9.
DATE Employe
#Ufne Hour: FtInot TOTAL$
EQUIPMENT USED Q1a a at TOTAL I'$
MATERIAL.USED:
TOTAL ALL
(G) BILLED DATE lt11/ PAID DATE REC1 CKa
CJA S TA Tc
3-21-03; 11 : 14AM;NATURAI_ RESOURCES HOOD CANAL/PORT ;36C 825 1672 # 2/
UJi U5/UJ WEE IY:15 PAS JUU4Z764Z5 MASUN C;UUNTY fuU(ji ]
yoN.STA MASON COUNTY r
c DEPARTMENT OF COPAMUN)TY DEVELOPMENT
o N x Planning Division
x y Y P O Sox 279,Shelton, WA 985S4
co rasa (360)427-9670
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2003-00011
Description of Proposal: DNR
Proponent: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Site Address(if Assigned):
Directions to site: Former Mission Creek Youth Camp, located approx 1 miles south
of Bear Ck Dewatto Rd, on Sand Hill Rd.
Parcel Number: 123180060000
Legal Description: ENTIRE SECTION
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverser 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 ext 571 at ext. with any questions.
This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2), the Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14
days from the date below. Comments must be submitted to Michael MaCSems ext 571, C/O
Mason County DCD, Planning Division, PO Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 212012003.
Authorized Local Govemment official Date
VeDNR SEPA Review Army Corps �Fissh&Wildlife G. kcser:!1
DNR S Puget Sound ✓ Applicant Squaxin Tribe_
Dept of Ecology Contractor ySkokornish Tribe
Dept of Transportalion School District. City of Shelton
Mason County Transit
7d
y y� •^ ye' ti
ask E .i., ; set
A
':e..1
0 20 jT` :i t is is
{ ,fY�^t 'r n ,•.t5�: f#��.Vie. y. , '
j �}r� •'r' skS 1 ylr a tR[: .i F x h+,':.
;p0,°d '�F�'- 's`♦ A. lYi•� ;�:'t � `''i ,••�f: .t� _�•�.'. .. i „%r!(,.i,,a ., .. '�. ...
3-21-03; 11 : 14AM;NATURAL RESOURCES HOOD CANAL/PORT ;360 825 1672 # 3/ 3
UJ/U5/U3 Wrl1 1G:2S N'AX 3tiU41"It14G5 HANON CUUI TY
�(ffffL
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-350)
SEP2003-00011
CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION
�) STORMWATER S(TE PLAN
Creation and implementation of a Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) may be required prior to
logging or development of any portion of this conversion. Contact Mason County Engineer
(Alan Tahja) with any questions The Engineer will charge a fee of $36.50 per hour to
review such plans. (� A C
x--z!e-z� i),��
Z) GEO-TECH REPORT , A-*4-c.,4
Per Mason County Ordinance 17.01.100, no cutting or development may occur on slopes
greater than 15%, or within 250 feet of a 50 foot buffer (total 300 feet)without a geo-tech
assessment and/or report (Assessment when slopes are 15-40%). A 43 to 45% slope exist
on the north eastern edge of this unit. A geo-technical report, prepared in accordance with
section 17.01.100.E.5, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the
Mason Coun Engineer priorto the issuance of this SEPA.
X ..tom= c�'�-K / . /7.
3) SETBACK FROM TYPE 5 STREAM -- GFw-44�C(
A hype 5 stream exist at the bottom of the steep slope on the north eastern edge of this
unit. Per the Mason County Mason County Resource Ordinance, section 17.01.110, Table
3, no cutting shall come within 75 feet of this stream (proposed cut has a 100 foot setback).
,
.J:;3.. '/M1i1l�l.w. .� ,.V' v 1'J.•.� , •� _ !� . •T! i{C ! � .. ,
. .'''.ri� `si� _ �♦� '.. '.3��1 _ ✓� ...�;i iwJ.. ,`_h 2=: 'i� ,:s�,.;°y!, '(: r ',:S'' E � ,
•
1+.✓lf' .1,� ��:�ti.�'... ti'fi .���''��tli�!•: _ i 'il 'r'1� is I (�i .tt�.`� •/. ., ,_,.t 1�`. ""� �'.. :5 ... ;1 ..
• ...:l: � }:.i:'��}if:1' ����'i lz .� . �.:'�s. ;�? sue. , '�• i .:� !_,�.�. !it ,.l '�,,"iiE ., :i`
_ ��. .��-'.�. !,1 ,' . . •�� :;r7i? ;ass •;i'.•,. .;'{5a'"�-..ai�.aU .. .. s, ,•s�;,
' rl; •. _•,!r'," •is ,. '!�. '•I�;' .. ,� , .. ,r r �.
i
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
for the
PROPOSED MISSION CREEK OFFICE TIMBER SALE
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Prepared for:
Mason County Department of Community Development
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584
Prepared by:
Ana Pierson, L.G., L.E.G.
Land Management Division
Department of Natural Resources
950 Farman Avenue North
Enumclaw, Washington 98022
March 14, 2003
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
March 14, 2003
Mason County
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584
Attn: Mr. Alan Tagiah
Re: Geotechnical Report for the proposed Mission Creek Office Timber Sale
Mason County,Washington(Section 18, T23N, RO 1 W)
Dear Mr.Tagiah:
As requested,I have prepared this Geotechnical Report for the Mission Creek Office Timber Sale
to meet the requirements for conversion of the property under the conditions for the Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance(WAC 197-11-350)and per Mason County Ordinance
17.01.100, Section E.S. Based on my investigation performed for the proposed Mission Creek
Office Timber Sale, including literature,map,and air photo reviews and a field reconnaissance of
the subject area,no areas of instability were identified,with the exception of two surficial slumps.
The project appears feasible from a geological engineering perspective, and it is my opinion that
neither the timber harvest activities nor the construction activities will adversely impact slope
stability nor increase sediment delivery,contingent on implementation of recommendations
provided herein. If any further information is needed,please do not hesitate to contact me at 360-
802-7014.
Sincerely,
Ana Pierson,L.G.,L.E.G.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Distribution: Doug Sund,DNR
Darlena Heglund,DNR
Nancy Walter,DNR
Alan Mainwaring,DNR
2
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Mission Creek Office Timber Sale(MC Office) is located adjacent to the northern
end of the existing Washington State Department of Corrections Mission Creek Youth Camp
(MCYC). The existing facility and the proposed MC Office are located in northeastern Mason
County off Sand Hill Road northeast of Belfair,Washington,approximately three miles north of
Hood Canal. Washington State Department of Natural Resources(DNR)plans to build a new
employee work center north of MCYC, independent of the MCYC facility.
Construction of the new work center will involve clearing the 2.3-acre site of the existing timber
and underlying vegetation; stripping the duff,topsoil,and organic material from the proposed
building footprints and parking area; and minor grading activity. At the time of my
reconnaissance,the clearing limits had been identified in the field. Timber harvest is scheduled
to begin spring 2003. According to information provided by Doug Sund,DNR Assistant Region
Manager,short-term plans for the work center include installation of two, 12-foot by 56-foot
temporary,modular trailers with an adjacent gravel-covered parking area. In the future, fixed,
lightly loaded structures, such as manufactured buildings,may replace the trailers,contingent on
the appropriation of funding.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to evaluate the geologic and geomorphic
conditions of the site,as required for the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(WAC 197-
11-350)and Section E.5 of Mason County Ordinance 17.01.100. The scope of work included the
following:
• A review of published geologic,soils,precipitation,and mass wasting information
covering the site location and vicinity;
• Interpretation of vertical aerial photography(dated September 7, 1989; series SP-89;
flight line 30-31; photos 111 through 112; scale 1:12,000);
• A field reconnaissance of the site conducted on March 11,2003 which included logging
of eight,hand-dug test holes,designated TH-1 through TH-8; and
• Generation of a Site and Exploration Plan and a Geologic Cross-Section through a
representative portion of the site and adjacent slope.
The observations,conclusions,and recommendations presented in this report are based on the
above-referenced scope of work. No sampling,testing,mechanical drilling, or detailed geologic
mapping was conducted for this site investigation. Quantitative slope stability modeling was also
excluded from the scope in order to meet the imposed schedule.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
The following text sections describe the site conditions, including surface, geologic, soils,
groundwater,and slope stability.
3
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
3.1 Surface Conditions
The project site is situated on an upland area and is bisected by an existing gravel access road.
(See the Site and Exploration Plan,Figure 1.) The surface of the site is undulating to gently
sloping to the west/northwest and is covered primarily with approximately 50-year-old Douglas
Fir. Dense undergrowth is dominated by salal,huckleberry, and rhododendron. (See Site
Photograph 1.)
The site is bordered on its eastern margin by a slope ranging from approximately 40 to 50
percent. The slope too is forested primarily with Douglas Fir,and moderately dense undergrowth
is dominated by salal. At the time of the field reconnaissance, isolated areas of ponded water
were observed at the bottom of the drainage, but no surface flow was apparent. The surface of
the drainage bottom is undulatory and gently slopes southward. (See Site Photograph 2.)
3.2 Regional Geology
The Puget Sound Lowland area has experienced multiple advances and retreats of the Puget Lobe
of the continental Cordilleran glacial ice sheet. The last episode occurred approximately 15,000
years ago and is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation(Booth and Goldstein,
1994). The Cordilleran ice sheet covered most of northern North America west of the Rocky
Mountains. During the Vashon Stade,the Puget Lobe advanced from Canada to its southernmost
extent south of Olympia,Washington.
During the separate advances and retreats of the ice sheet, immense volumes of glacial and non-
glacial sediments were deposited onto the preexisting landscape. As the ice sheet advanced,
meltwater emanating from its terminus area deposited pro-glacial sediments known as advance
outwash. Advance outwash deposits are generally characterized by moderately well-to well-
sorted,well-stratified sand and gravel. Also during advance,a heterogeneous mixture of clay,
silt, sand,gravel,cobbles,and boulders became entrained in the lower portions of the glacial ice
and was subsequently deposited, atop the advance outwash,onto the pre-existing landscape
(known as lodgment till). Consequently,the lodgment till and all stratigraphically lower units
were overridden and compressed by the weight of the overlying ice. The compressive effects of
thousands of feet of glacial ice resulted in the generally high shear strength and low
compressibility characteristics of unweathered lodgment till.
During melting and retreat of the ice,the sediments entrained within were draped across the
landscape but were not overridden. These sediments are known as ablation till and do not exhibit
the same characteristics of high shear strength and low compressibility found in the lodgment till.
Similarly, outwash sediments deposited during retreat of the ice were not overridden. These
sediments are similar in texture to advance outwash and are referred to as recessional outwash.
3.3 Site-Specific Geologic Conditions
According to Yount et al(1993),the site and adjacent slope are underlain by lodgment till(glacial
till). Outwash deposits are mapped in drainages located less than a mile to the east and west of
the site but not in the immediate site vicinity.
Observations made during the field reconnaissance confirmed the above-referenced subsurface
conditions. Shallow test holes revealed approximately 3 to 4 inches of duff and topsoil overlying
brown to red-brown weathered till that generally consists of gravelly,silty sand to silty, gravelly
sand with trace clay, cobbles, and small boulders. The weathered till is generally loose to a depth
4
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
of approximately 1 to 1'/2 feet at which point it grades downward to medium-dense. The hand-
dug test holes were terminated in the medium-dense weathered till. The attached test hole logs
describe the specific conditions encountered in each test hole.
Weathered till is exposed along the entire length of the ditch on the southern margin of the
existing road that bisects the site. (See Site Photograph 3.) It is also exposed in the upper portion
of the cut along the northern and eastern sides of the pole building southwest of the site. The
weathered till in this exposure ranges in thickness from approximately 2 to 4 feet and mantles the
underlying unweathered till. (See Site Photograph 4.) As described above,the weathered till
observed in the cut is loose grading to medium-dense,while the gray,unweathered till below is
very dense and is of similar texture. (See Figure 1 and the Geologic Cross-Section,Figure 2.)
3.4 Soil Conditions
According to information obtained using Planning and Tracking(P&T),one soil unit covers the
entire site and its vicinity. The unit is Shelton, described as a gravelly, sandy loam. The parent
material for this soil type is glacial till. The soil forms in thicknesses on the order of 23 to 40
inches. The soils are designated as having a low potential for erosion and an insignificant mass
wasting potential.
3.5 Groundwater Conditions
Information obtained from Miller et al, (1973) indicates the site will experience approximately
3.5 inches of precipitation over a 24-hour period during a 2-year storm event,and 7.0 inches over
the same duration during a 100-year event. The field reconnaissance was performed duringa
period of wet weather. At that time, groundwater was encountered only in test hole TH-1, located
in the base of the drainage. I did not encounter groundwater in any of the remaining seven test
holes nor were any areas of seepage observed along the slope. Additionally,vegetation indicative
of pervasive shallow groundwater or springs(i.e. sedges,devils club,horsetails)was encountered
only in and around the areas of ponded water in the drainage bottom well-outside of the project
area. (See Site Photograph 2.) No `water-loving' vegetation was observed concentrated along
the slope.
3.6 Slope Stability Conditions
According to Smith and Carson(1977),the MC Office area appears to span the border between
relative slope stability classes,Class 1 and Class 2. Classes range from 1 through 5. Areas
mapped as Class 1 are characterized as being the most stable areas, and Class 2 areas are
characterized as being stable"under normal conditions"unless being subjected to human activity,
oversteepening by wave action or erosion,or intense seismic activity. The MC Office site is
located outside the area mapped in the Coastal Zone Atlas(Washington Department of Ecology,
1980).
Across the project site,the slope morphology model(SMORPH)designates a low expected
probability of slope instability. Scattered areas of medium to high probability are shown on the
SMORPH model along the slope on the eastern margin.
A review of air photos revealed two,possible deep-seated landslides approximately '/4 and '/2 mile
south of the site. (These were not field-verified.) No features suggestive of past slope instability
were identified on the air photos at or in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
5
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
Based on observations made during the field reconnaissance,the slope below the project site
appears fairly uniform. The only indications of past instability observed were two surficial
slumps(not visible in the air photos)whose locations are shown approximately on Figure 1. Both
slumps appear to have experienced vertical displacement of less than about 10 feet. The northern
slump measures approximately 30 feet wide, flank to flank, and the southern slump 15 to 20 feet
wide. A large, old stump with a relatively horizontal cut surface remains on the main body of the
southern slump, evidence suggesting that the southern slump has not experienced subsequent
movement and that it pre-dates the last episode of logging,which according to Nancy Walter
most likely took place in the 1940's. No tension cracking was observed on or around the
features, and both slumps also support approximately 50-year-old Douglas Fir trees growing
straight and true(i.e. no pistol-butting or jack-strawed trees).
Similarly, across the remainder of the slope within and below the project site, no evidence of past
or potential future slope instability was observed, despite the information obtained using
SMORPH and the Class 2 designation per Smith and Carson(1977). For example, I identified no
tension cracking, seepage, or pistol-butted or jack-strawed trees across the remainder of the slope.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above-referenced scope,the MC Office project appears feasible from a geological
engineering perspective, and it is my opinion that neither the timber harvest activities nor the
construction activities will adversely impact slope stability nor increase sediment delivery,
contingent on implementation of recommendations provided herein. The following conclusions
and recommendations are provided for the project regarding slope stability, clearing and grading,
erosion and sediment control, building setbacks, site drainage, on-and off-site impacts, and final
development conditions.
4.1 Slope Stability
Due to imposed time constraints, detailed slope stability modeling was not performed as a part of
this investigation. However, despite moderate to high mass wasting probability indicated on the
SMORPH model and a partial `Class 2' designation per Smith and Carson(1977),office study
and field observations indicate that the adjacent slope will not be adversely impacted by proposed
clearing and construction activities, nor will the activities have an adverse effect on the stability
of the slope.
Additionally,the field reconnaissance revealed only two surficial failures on the slope below the
project site,which appear to pre-date the last logging episode. No evidence was identified to
suggest ongoing or potential future slope instability on the slope below the project site.
4.2 Clearing and Grading
Clearing is to involve harvest of all site timber by ground-based methods, and upon completion of
construction activity,the site will not be re-forested. During timber harvest, efforts should be
made to prevent channeling of surface water toward and onto the slope from yarding line and
access road runoff. In addition to removal of timber,I recommend that all undergrowth, stumps,
residual wood debris,duff, and topsoil be removed from the proposed building footprints,
driveways, and parking areas. At no time should spoils generated during clearing,grading, or
other construction activity be disposed of on or near the top of the slope or down onto the slope.
6
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
4.3 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control
According to information provided in DNR's Temporary Erosion and Sediment(E&S) Plan,
runoff during construction activities will be diverted to suitable detention and settlement areas
and a 100-foot-wide, natural vegetation buffer will remain along the downslope property
boundary. I further recommend that no runoff from the construction area be allowed to discharge
onto the slope. It is my opinion that water infiltrating into the ground across the flatter, vegetated
portions of the site,away from the slope, will not affect the stability of the slope.
4.4 Building Setbacks
I recommend that all temporary and permanent structures be set back from the top of the slope a
minimum of 50 feet. This is a distance determined by projecting aline at 3H:1 V slope upward
from the base of the slope.
4.5 Site Drainage
Per DNR's Permanent Water Quality Protection Plan(PWQPP),runoff from driveways and the
parking area will be diverted away from the adjacent slope to grass- or rock-lined ditches or
swales. No runoff will be discharged within 100 feet of any property lines. I concur with these
mitigation measures and further recommend that roof runoff and discharge from footing drains(if
applicable) should be tight-lined (routed through solid pipes)away from the slope to suitable, on-
site locations,as discussed in section 4.3 above.
4.6 On-Site and Off-Site Impacts
With implementation of proposed drainage,erosion,and sediment control measures, it is my
opinion that neither the proposed development nor related construction activities will adversely
impact slope stability or surrounding properties.
4.7 Final Development Conditions
According to Doug Sund,the site is not scheduled to be re-forested. Permanent drainage and
erosion control recommendations are provided in section 5.5 above, and suggested buffer widths
are provided in section 5.4.
5.0 REFERENCES
Booth, Derek B.; Goldstein, Barry S., 1994, Patterns and Processes of Landscape Development
by the Puget Lobe Ice Sheet.In Lasmanis, Raymond; Cheney, E.S.,convenors, Regional
Geology of Washington State: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources,
Bulletin 80, p. 207-218.
Information Technology Division,2002, Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Proprietary Planning and Tracking: Spatial and Tabular Data for DNR State Soil Survey,
SMORPH(Slope Morphology Model), and Mass Wasting Potential.
Miller, J.F. et al, 1973,Precipitation Frequency Atlas of the Western United States.Volume IX,
Washington. U.S. Department of Commerce,N.O.A.A.
7
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
Smith,Mackey; Carson,R.J., 1977,Relative Slope Stability of the Southern Hood Canal Area,
Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-853-F, 1
sheet, scale 1:62,500.
Walter,Nancy; Sund,Doug,2003,Personal communication, Washington State Department of
Natural Resources.
Washington Department of Ecology, 1980,Coastal Zone Atlas of Washington;volume 9,Mason
County: Washington Department of Ecology, 1 volume,maps, scale 1:24,000.
Yount,James C.;Minard,James P.; Dembroff,Glenn R., 1993, Geologic Map of surficial
deposits in the Seattle 30' x 60' quadrangle, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 93-233,one plate, 1:100,000 scale.
6.0 CLOSURE
Conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on the above-referenced
scope of work,and on the proposed project information described above. If development plans
change significantly,a re-evaluation may be necessary. If additional information is required,
please contact me at(360)802-7014.
f o `}
11213
Ana L!
Ana L. Pierson,LG,LEG
State Lands Geologist
DNR, South Puget Sound and Olympic Regions
8
h1cOffice Conversion: A itigated Determination of Nonsi;-nificance"y
(AAVAC 197-11-350)- Conditions of this Determination w
rt �rurrr irmusts
r The Stormivater Site Plan(SSP)proposed to mitigate potential
storrmvater runoff impacts fiom'Washington State
°" * ' Department of Natural Resources'proposed improvements
will consist of the folly%wing actions and features:
1. Temporary Erosion and Sediment(E&S)Plan; During
construction,mud and silt will be contained within the
immediate development area.Runoff from bane surfaces will
he directed to settling areas~where silt and sediments can be
settled out ofr-urwffbefore its discharge away from the
` - construction area.Natur-al undisturbed vegetation(100'
minimum tr-avel length)%%r llbe preservedbetween the active
' } construction area and property boundaries.
F 2. Permanent Water Quality Protection Plan(PWQPP);
Dr-hreway,parking,and roof runoffx% llbe directed awayftom
steep slopes.Parking area runofftivillbe collected in grass
lined,or quarry rock lined ditches,and discharged in lory
slope areas to dissipate in natutollyvegetated areas.No
concentrations ofstorxmvater rwwffwMbe delivered any
1 closer than 100 feet from any proper o,boundaries.
[Vows: wcray Ste)
Soot ' -bJ +�Z►�W cv0lyt,�cr, s-,o �.slas
a�yvlxe;1� c!c•�d -Z�t39N(►N H-L.
NC)IX—Jac SSOd� ''1�C�"103� ��cvadSStiac'NNM��
C-13 W fovea '11 w)-?lvw
cla d �. s N�dZIL W CX d CLS N
SC�01..1.-�dl��S�}o Q'13� UN�1 4s�'16� :y.�L CMQ'l�'dHs Q(�►-b C"U I f�2j
aoz Qb/ off/ 4f71 ozi Oc/ Oq 0 Oz C
r
r
d
L
( s ,5)
\-tU- ♦ _
5J Mrs
—17I v-L h N us X.9
f
. �� C'7"1LL cL�1sN.i�9M 7 5�mno9 �
�-
dal wa*y -A-,VejasI't Ni Me� \ /^^ Drays / �►a � !v'-,is
o � � is
+dos AO msar �vVOJ%i 0-*y Man �/
G
kzWOt�n� 1�NY1
ors -2�99ry LL 4-160404}
1 1 hNlySlx� ��i os •trIbv/(S t ti
-A-MI-Las
-
her�4-11 C\%
�t`t3wwo�3�
lsv3 ��� .^Z139w� 3�4-��p �21� NOtSs►W ys3M
w e-,-<Trtev2e,D Ti LL.F-KPO SE-0 IN
v�
LoCAM oN o�P
OIT(_tt
OL
O D SLµMPS
C2
�ti
ft"ft Lot
• X ass
Temporary Construction Trailers
$ 12 x 56 1tr 2 = 1344 SF
01
Po,. , = NOTE :
3493 SF i
TEMP RARY TRAILER BUILDING SITE IS
` LooSG+o vine fluvo-dtr
TED GREATER THAN 1000' FROM
w t tM THE R❑PERTY LINE IN ALL DIRECTI❑NS.
ma v<ti t" vcv
Gla6 at T i 1 eo[fxo(,ed
LCC EN t�
A 4�
t--T -se -noQ A-A ' I
71A- 9NUM6E� �,ao x. t .�cR?ro
w (.);7- -ottALLOW, t1AN)A3-D v(a lli
SF T�S-f fhx.E i
" = 50
NcsfE : Loc,R'�I 0 r`f o� Ttsr t`10L�� FE�O
P6W_17 -1 Pk
MvsSt ON Cf_EE_K_ OK7-AC C TiNBE1Z
SITi A�J Ex�uDr�- T��rJ f'LAt-3
M Pz.�tt �4 2_003
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
TEST HOLE LOGS
Test Hole No. Description Depth (feet)
TH-1 Approximately 4 inches of duff and topsoil over loose, 0-1.5
wet becoming saturated (by 10 inches), red-brown,
silty, gravelly SAND (Weathered Till)
TH-2 Approximately 3 inches of duff and topsoil over 0-1.5
medium-dense, moist, red-brown, gravelly, silty SAND
with trace cobbles (Weathered Till)
TH-3 Approximately3 inches of duff and topsoil over loose 0-2
to medium-dense, moist,red-brown, gravelly, silty
SAND with trace cobbles (Weathered Till)
TH-4 Approximately 2 inches of duff and topsoil over 0-1
medium-dense, moist, brown, gravelly, silty SAND
with trace cobbles (Weathered Till)
TH-5 Approximately 4 inches of duff and topsoil over loose 0-2
grading to medium-dense (by approx. 1 foot), brown
becoming mottled gray-brown, gravelly, silty SAND
with trace cobbles and one small boulder(Weathered
Till)
TH-6 Approximately 4 inches of duff and topsoil over loose 0-2
grading to medium-dense (by approx. 1 foot), wet, red-
brown becoming brown, gravelly, silty SAND with
some cobbles (Weathered Till)
TH-7 Approximately 4 inches of duff and topsoil over loose 0-2
grading to medium-dense (by approx. 1 foot), red-
brown, moist to wet, silty SAND with some gravel to
gravelly and trace cobbles (Weathered Till)
TH-8 Approximately 4 inches of duff and topsoil over loose 0-2
grading to medium-dense (by approx. 1 foot), red-
brown, gravelly, silty SAND with trace cobbles
(Weathered Till)
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale GeotechnicalReport
March 11
Site Photograph
View southwest toward existing
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
Site Photograph 2
� Y
+ f .
'`�. •` /,� c "�.){� .per�,,.
.. ... •.. r 1. .. IS T71� 8t s�, f,J L4 Y r�
.+.,�` "` 4i�.�i��) ♦��� �?6^ g.
yyam�_.,,.. ��� S.4�•� +�I I� r^{ d' �� i.M a„� M '
rj..x'Yy. , `a ..r y ..R �• A�`� y J��S s��`�4J��iS�.
� t �,� ": �� -7_SFr � r ♦ A., i <
4 Y j a ! .i �. C k�fv
' sw
�
1 ,7 fir. Y.� x I�'�t �; f1w,
'�
tr w � r
rI ! x
t w*
ASK40
ofe
View northward up drainage east of site. Ponded water visible in foreground.
(Glove and shovel included for scale.)
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
Site Photograph 3
1 y. tj
"yam, • �
4,t..
lC tl,,v yr^i «• �.
w
pz
ti
View southwest along existing access road. Weathered till exposed in ditch left of road.
Mission Creek Office Timber Sale Geotechnical Report
March 14,2003
Site Photograph 4
View of cut at northeastern corner of existing pole bulding. Weathered till (red-brown)
mantling unweathered till(gray/gray-brown).
46,
a
t
st
a•'
assessment and shall submit a statement of qualifications with the assessment or
report, unless they have been previously determined to be qualified by Mason County.
The Geotechnical Report shall be prepared at the discretion of the Director by a
licensed civil engineer with specialized knowledge of geotechnical/geological
engineering. The Geotechnical Report may also be prepared by a practicing engineering
geologist with special knowledge of the local conditions, provided the work is
performed under the supervision of a licensed civil engineer who will stamp the report
and attest to the competency of the engineering geologist to perform landslide
evaluations in accordance with the prevailing standard of practice.
4. Content of the Geological Assessment
A Geological Assessment shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) A discussion of geologic conditions in the general vicinity of the proposed
development, with geologic unit designation consistent with terminology used
in the Coastal Zone Atlas (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1980)
or in applicable U.S. Geologic Survey maps (e.g. Geological Map of North
Central Mason County, by R.J. Carson, 1976, U.S. Geologic Survey OFR 76-2).
Use of Soil Conservation Service soil layer terminology is considered
inappropriate for this assessment.
(2) A discussion of the ground water conditions at the site, including the depth to
water and the quantity of surface seepage.
(3) The approximate depth to hard or dense competent soil, e.g. glacial till or
outwash sand.
(4) A discussion of any geomorphic expression of past slope instability (presence
of hummocky ground or ground cracks, terraced topography indicative of
landslide block movement, bowed or arched trees indicating downslope
movement, etc.).
(5) A discussion of the history of landslide activity in the vicinity, as available in
the Coastal Zone Atlas, the map of "Relative Slope Stability of the Southern
Hood Canal Area, Washington" by M. Smith and R.J. Carson, 1977; and the
landslide records on file with the Mason County Department of Community
Development.
(6) An opinion on the potential for landslide activity at the site in light of the
proposed development.
(7) A recommendation by the preparer whether a Geotechnical Report should be
required to further evaluate site conditions and the proposed development of
the subject property.
5. Content of.a Geotechnical Report
A Geotechnical Report shall include but not be limited to the following:
(1) A discussion of general geologic conditions, specific soil types, ground water )/
conditions and history of landslide activity in the vicinity as required for the
Geologic Assessment described above.
(2) A site plan which identifies the important development and geologic features.
(3) Locations and logs of exploratory holes or probes. r/
(4) A minimum of one cross section at a scale which adequately depicts the
subsurface profile, and which incorporates the details of proposed grade
changes.
(5) A description and results of slope stability analyses performed for both static
and seismic loading conditions. `
Mason County Resource Ordinance 47 Revised 3105102
(6) Appropriate restrictions on placement of drainage features, septic drain fields and t��
compacted fills and footings, including recommended setbacks from shoreline bluffs
and the tops of other slopes on the property.
(7) 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.
(8) 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.
(9) An analysis of both on-site and off-site impacts of the proposed development.
(10) Specifications of final development conditions such as, vegetative management,
drainage, erosion control, and buffer widths.
6. Applicable Standards
Geological Assessments and Geotechnical Reports shall be prepared using terminology,
descriptions, evaluation methods and mitigation approaches that reflect the current standard of
care for practitioners in the field of geologic hazards. The standard of care shall be considered
to be represented by , but not limited to, Turner, A.K. and Schuster, R.L. (1996; "Landslides,
Investigation and Mitigation", Transportation Research Board Special Report 247, National
Academy Press, Washington DC.) for classification, analysis and conceptual mitigation of
landslides; Washington Department of Ecology (1993; "Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control
Using Vegetation, A Manual of Practice For Coastal Property Owners", Publication No. 93-30,
Olympia, WA; and "Vegetation Management: A Guide For Puget Sound Bluff Property
Owners", Publication No. 93-31, Olympia, WA) for vegetation management and it use in slope
stabilization and erosion protection; and Washington Department of Ecology (1995; "Surface
Water and Groundwater on Coastal Bluffs", Publication No. 95-107, Olympia, WA) for water
and drainage management and its use in slope stabilization and erosion protection.
7. Administrative Determination
Any area in which the Geotechnical report or geological assessment indicates the presence of
landslide hazards shall not be subjected to development unless the report demonstrates
conclusively that the hazards can be overcome, and that the development meets all standards
in Section 17.01.100.D. Hazards must be overcome in such a manner as to prevent harm to
property and public health and safety, and to assure no significant adverse environmental
impact. Impacts to anadromous fish or their habitat or to fish and wildlife habitat
conservations areas shall be avoided or mitigated as detailed in an approved Habitat
Management Plan, as described in Section 17.01.110. The Director may submit either the
Geologic Assessment or the Geo- technical Report to an outside agency with geotechnical
expertise or to a geotechnical consultant for third party peer review prior to issuing a ruling on
the project.
F. APPLICANT HOLD HARMLESS STATEMENT
The property owner shall be required to acknowledge in writing the risks inherent in developing in a
geologic hazard area, to accept the responsibility of any adverse affects which may occur to the
subject property or other properties as a result of the development, and to agree to convey the
knowledge of this risk to persons purchasing the site by filing the notice on the property title.
Mason County Resource Ordinance 48 Revised 3105102