Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 parcels - HMP Habitat Managment Plan - 3/10/2008 AV THE WETLAND CORPS 7 Wetland Delineation Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration - Mitigation • Biological Evaluation RIVERHILL PROPERTIES LLC, REIC HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Parcels: 1CD - PLANNING 12321-24-00000 and 12321-24-00020 Mason County, WA Prepared for: Riverhill Properties LLC. PO Box 1119 Belfair, WA 98528 Prepared by: Lee Boad October, 2007 PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421-boad40@peoplepe.com Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation GDG Construction February 6, 2006 c/o Glenn Miller/i�;r}j ; 6-3 w\ it- PO Box 331 Belfair, WA98528 RE: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory Parcels 12321-24-00000 and 12321-24-00020 Dear Glenn, Enclosed is the report requested by GDG Construction for the above referenced ownership. The overall findings of the work conclude that there are no areas within the property that meet the Mason County definition of a Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area. Therefore no special protection or building limitations associated with the FWHCA chapter of the Mason County Resource Ordinance will be required. A small portion of the property(<3%)is regulated by the wetlands chapter due to the nearby presence of a jurisdictional Category 11 Wetland. All wetland related information the county will require is provided in the report. The wetland buffer will be flagged this week. I have provided one bound copy and one unbound copy of the report. If you need additional copies please feel free to call. Thank you for choosing me as your environmental consultant. Lee Boad Senior Ecologist. PO Box 2854 Belfair, Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•boad40@peoplepc.com Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation • Biological Evaluation Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory Parcels: 12321-2 u-00000 and 12321-24-00020 Prepared for: GDG Construction c/o Glenn Miller PO Box 331 Belfair, WA98528 Prepared by: Lee Boad January 2006 DO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•boad40@peoplepc.com Table of Contents Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory 1.0 Introduction......................................................................1 2.0 Methods............................................................................1 2.1 Background Literature Review 2.2 Field Review 2.2a Terrestrial Habitat Inventory 2.2b Wetland Reconnaissance 3.0 Results.............................................................................2 3.1 Background Review 3.2 Field Review 3.2a General Site Description 3.2b Wetlands 3.2c Species Summary 4.0 Conclusion........................................................................9 Appendix A: Vicinity Map Appendix B: National Wetlands Inventory Appendix C: DNR Water Type Map Appendix D: WDFW PHS Map Appendix E: Wetland/Upland Determination Data Recommended Citation: Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services. January 2006. fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory. Belfair, WA. Prepared for GDG Construction c/o Glenn Miller . Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration - Mitigation . Biological Evaluation LBHMP WS279 Page 1 of 14 FWHCA Determination and Wetland Delineation Parcels 12321-2 i-00000 and 12321-24-00020 Mason County, Washington 1.0 Introduction At the request of GDG Construction, Lee Boad Habitat Management Planning and Wetland Services has performed a review of the above referenced properties. The focus of the work has been the following: 1) Determine if Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas (FWHCA's) are present according to the Mason County Resource Ordinance, and 2) Determine the presence, extent, and jurisdictional status of any regulated wetlands or aquatic sites that may affect development potential of the site. The ownership consists of 45 acres located entirely within the Belfair Urban Growth Area (UGA). The site is located within the northwest quarter of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 1 West. All field work and reporting has been completed by Lee Boad. The following is a summary of methodology and findings. 2.0 Methods 2.1 Background and Literature Review Preliminary research of this site included review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the Department of Natural Resources Water Type Map, United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Mason County, and The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database. 2.2 Field Review A detailed field review of the project site was completed throughout January of 2006. Field work was conducted under rainy conditions with an ambient temperature of approximately 50 degrees Fahrenheit. The time of year and recent precipitation were considered in assessing site conditions, and the level of wildlife activity present. 2.2a Terrestrial Habitat Inventory Forested areas within the project site were walked at 50-meter linear transects in an effort to identify terrestrial features important to state or federally listed species. Emphasis was placed on identification of trees with dead or broken tops, trees with exposed lateral limbs, and standing dead trees with nesting cavities or signs of foraging. The entire ownership was inspected for wetland conditions or the presence of aquatic sites PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad4O@peoplepc.com LBHMP W 51/9 January 29,2006 Page No.2 2.2b Wetland Reconnaissance Wetland reconnaissance followed a routine methodology based upon the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) requiring positive indicators of wetland soil, hydrology, and plants. Hydrology was assessed through observation of field indicators and conditions dug in pits within the study area. Selected pits were monitored over the course of 10-15 days to determine the extent of water table fluctuation. Presence or absence of hydric soil was determined by soil conditions in several pits dug around and .son with the Munsell Color Charts within suspected wetlands. Soil inspection included compan ion contained within the Soil Survey of Mason) General soil characteristics were derived from informs County, Washington(1960). estimation Presence or absence of wetland vegetation was determined throuIndicator species sta s i was ascs tion,gnedbased on the of dominance and then assignment of wetland indicator status National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (1996). Procedures set forth in the Washington State Wetlands Rating System —identified wetlands. Western Washington Second Edition were used to establish category ratings f or 3.0 Results 3.1 Background Review IISFWS National Wetlands Inventor_(NWI) The NWI does not show any wetlands-within or the ownership. The NWI map for the study site is shown in Appendix A. Washington Department of Natural Resources Water Type Map The DNR Water Type Map shows no streams or drainages within the ownership. The DNR Water Type Map is shown in Appendix B. USDA Soil Survey of Mason Count_ shows the entire site to be underlain by Indianola loamy sand. The USDA Soil Survey of Mason County land areas throughout Mason County and other parts This soil is excessively drained and common in up of Western Washington. No hydric soils are mapped within the study site. WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Database (PHSD The WDFW PHSD does not show any priority habitats or documentation of species use within or in proximity to the site. The WDFW PHS map is shown in Appendix C. PO Box 2854,Belfair,WA 98528 ce11:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 a-mail:boad40@peoplepc.com FWHCAD/WR LBHMP WS279 January 29,2006 Page No.3 3.2 Field Review 3.2a General Site Description The majority of the site consists of an interim second growth coniferous forest with interspersed deciduous patches. The overall age of the forested stands appear to range from 25-35 years with no remaining old growth components. Dominant plant species identified include an over-story of Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii), western hemlock(Tsuga heierophylla), western red cedar ('Thuja plicata), and red alder(Alnus rubra)with an understory of evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum), Oregon grape(Mahonia nervosus), sword fern(Polystichum munitum), and salal (Gautheria shallop). Much of the eastern portion of the ownership has been managed for Christmas tree production; however it does not appear that the tree farm area has been re-planted for several years. Landscape topography consists of moderate slopes that trend downward from east to west. Soils identified within the parcel are consistent with Indianola loamy sand which is the mapped soil type. t Figure 1. The majority of the ownership is comprised of an interim second growth coniferous forest. PO Box 2854,Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:boad40@peoplepc.com • • Ilt t �l`�� �- fit r � ' 3 �rUO'S: •,; � � � � �: r ,,v r y� �� ,�, �!7 j ii{i 7 +� Y �� �t t• J s��''�.. � SS t�xs-tr;-.+�;��c1'�T�-Q j. "jr i '1 �� .ti a .` •'" � ����� �..�Jj�t�.w _`f.*••Q � :,t✓, �' k �f f tit? v :/ ��,',•� 'k` _ i � ti f�k"'. `t' } 1ST r f � '\��♦ - fA 7 Ct `-4I -.�Chi t ,� - a111111FFFFFF�i ' p mn�.Tt4 k L 1P cc t� i"<�• W, twit' it 1 1 1 Y t a }} J a S( S`+ .= e^4 ,4f�F�� Zr:,.t,a� +f �. .. ti ��; tiu t$Z�3.x'��� �• � �ryas. f �'..( ''.2 '� ¢� ..-+ '� -. <.; � '�\ � • 'Wtb/s rIS FWHCAD/WR LBHMPWS279 January 29,2006 Page No.5 A wetland area was identified on the adjacent ownership to the northwest. Although the wetland is not within the subject property, the regulated buffers associated with the wetland extend onto a small portion of the site. These buffers have been flagged in the field with pink ribbons labeled "WETLAND DELINEATION". The wetland occurs in the lowest point of general landscape topography and is supported by high water tables and surface runoff. The wetland was fully inundated at the time of the survey while standing water was also observed landward of the wetland edge due to recent rain events. Soil observed within central portions of the suspected wetland is Mukilteo peat, which is very poorly drained and often ponded throughout many months of the year. This soil qualifies as hydric soil according the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (1997)and is therefore a wetland indicator. A dark loamy sand(10YR2/1) was identified within peripheral portions of the wetland. Vegetative communities identified within wetland sample plots are dominated by slough sedge (Carex obnupta), red alder(Alnus rubra), spiraea(Spiraea douglasii). Plant communities with such characteristics are largely restricted to wetland habitats. The wetland boundary was flagged during the site reconnaissance; however, the flags were removed as the wetland zone is not located on the subject parcel. Abrupt changes in vegetation and soil characteristics at the toe of the slope provide an easily recognizable boundary between wetland and upland zones. The identified wetland qualifies as a jurisdictional Category 11 Depressional/Scrub shrub Wetland according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Western Washington Second Edition and the wetlands chapter of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Key factors influencing this rating include overall size (>2,500 square feet), fish and wildlife habitat value, connection to other important habitat types, plant diversity, condition of surrounding buffer, and history of human caused disturbance to the wetland. These wetlands require a vegetation area of 85 feet and a building setback of 100 feet according to the wetlands chapter of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Special setbacks include 100 feet for a septic drainfield and 200 feet for a livestock feedlot. PO Box 2854,Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 a-mail:boad40Qpeoplepc.com r W HC:All/W K LBHMPWS279 January 29,2006 Page No.6 r K:t� • -N `: � 4 ? 3 4 Figure 4. A Category II Depression Wetland was identified on the adjacent ownership. 3.2c Species Summary No streams or seasonal drainages are present on the subject property therefore potential habitat for listed fish species is not present. The following species descriptions and site specific findings have been provided for bird species regulated under chapter 17.01.110 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. These species are potentially relevant to the site. Information regarding mammal species regulated under 17.01.110 is not provided due to the lack of available information and lack of documented occurrence in proximity to the area. . Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocgphalus)-Threatened Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some old-growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or dead tops are used as perches and defense stations. The subject property is comprised of an interim second growth forest with no observed habitat features important to bald eagles. No nests or roosts were observed during the field review. The property does not support important bald eagle habitat due to the lack of old growth components and distance from water. PO Box 2854,Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com anuary 29.2006 Page No.7 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus) -Threatened Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests. Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest,however the average distance is roughly 5-miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor. Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a sufficient forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding or within the site. No potential nesting trees were observed during the field review. Potential habitat for Marbled Murrelet is not present. Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)-Threatened Spotted owls require a large amount of land for their nesting and hunting grounds; pairs may occupy up to 58 sq. km. They are territorial and do not migrate, but they may shift their ranges slightly in response to seasonal changes Suitable spotted owl habitat includes trees relatively large in diameter in the stand,multi-layered forest canopy with a moderate to high canopy closure in overstory, midstory, and understory, large,tall, live trees with cavities, broken tops,mistletoe, or platforms of branches capable of holding accumulated organic matter suitable for use as a nest. Dead standing trees and fallen decayed trees supporting - abundant populations of prey species are critical to spotted owl populations. No habitat suitable for spotted owl is present on the property due to the lack of large trees and multi- layered forest canopy. Golden Eagle(Aquila chrysaetos)- Candidate Golden eagles are commonly associated with open, and plateaus deeply cut by streams and canyons, western shrub-steppe and grassland communities and transition zones between shrub, grassland and forested habitat. Nests generally are located on cliffs and are occasionally located in trees. Although they are more common east of the Cascades, golden eagles are sometimes found in mature and old- growth forests near the edges of clearcuts in western Washington. The subject parcel does not represent suitable habitat for golden eagle. No potential nesting sites were observed during the field review. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentiles)—Candidate Northern Goshawks typically select mature or old forest habitat for nesting and breeding. Research in Washington and Oregon has shown links between nest stand occupancy and forest stand age. These forests are generally characterized by large saw timber,>50%canopy closure, two or more canopy layers,gaps in the canopy, abundance of large diameter crowns, and a high density of large shade tolerant trees. The subject parcel is not representative of old forest habitat and does not represent ideal nesting or breeding areas for Northern Goshawk. PO Box 2854,Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:boad40@peoplepc.com January 29,2006 Page No.8 Peregrine Falcon(Falco peregrinus)—endangered Peregrine falcons usually nest on cliffs, typically 45 in (150 ft) or more in height. They will also nest on off-shore islands and ledges on vegetated slopes. Eggs are laid and young are reared in small caves or on ledges. Nest sites are generally near water.The birds are sensitive to disturbance during all phases of the nesting season(1 March through 30 June). Peregrines feed on a variety of smaller birds that are usually captured on-the-wing. Hunting territories may extend to a radius of 19-24 km (12-15 mi) from nest sites. In winter and fall, peregrines spend much of their time foraging in areas with large shorebird or waterfowl concentrations, especially in coastal areas(Dekker 1995). At least 3 western Washington areas support significant numbers of winter resident peregrines annually: the Samish Flats, Grays Harbor, and the Sequim area(Dobler 1989). The subject property is not representative of Ideal habitat for Peregrin falcon do to the lack of cliffs or steep vegetated slopes. The property is approximately 3 miles from nearshore foraging habitat and contains no nesting features. Purple Martin (Progne subis)- Candidate Purple martins are insectivorous, colonial nesting swallows that nest in cavities. In Washington,most martins have been reported nesting in artificial structures near cities and towns in the lowlands of western Washington. Historically,they probably bred in old woodpecker cavities in large dead trees,but only a few such nests are known to exist in Washington today. The eastern race of purple martins often nests in apartment-style nest-boxes, while the western subspecies,found here in Washington,prefer to nest individually. Martins will nest in a variety of artificial nesting structures, including wood duck boxes. Favorable martin foraging habitat includes open areas, often located near moist to wet sites, where flying insects are abundant. No purple martin nesting sites have been observed or documented on the subject parcel. The lack of standing dead trees and aquatic sites dismisses the potential for the subject property to support critical habitat for purple martin. Pileated Woodpecker(Drycopus Pileatus) -Candidate The Pileated Woodpecker is listed as a candidate species by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and is considered a Species of Importance in Mason County. The pileated woodpecker lives in coniferous and deciduous forests, preferring large,dead trees for nesting. The Pileated Woodpecker digs characteristically rectangular holes in trees to find ants. Pileated woodpeckers seldom use clearcuts, but will forage in clearcuts or shelterwood cuts if substantial foraging habitat is retained. Throughout the entire property, only 3 standing dead trees were observed during the field review. None of the trees are of a size that would be considered large or potential nesting areas. The significance of the subject property to Pileated Woodpecker is minimal do to the overall lack of standing dead trees. PO Box 2854,Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:boad40@peoplepc.com FWHCAD/WR LBHMPWS279 January 29,2006 Page No,9 4.0 Conclusion No part of the ownership supports habitat characteristics that meet the chapter 17.01.110 definition of a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area. This is due to the identified lack of habitat features or documentation of use associated with any species of importance that may occur in Mason County. Based on these findings, building limitations associated with fish or wildlife habitat do not apply to this property. A small portion of the ownership is regulated under chapter 17.01.070 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. This is due to the presence of a nearby Category II Wetland identified applying a standardized methodology required by the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Such wetlands require a vegetative buffer of 85-feet with an additional 15-foot building setback. All buffers and setbacks have been measured horizontally from the wetland edge and flagged in the field. No other area within the property supports positive indicators of wetland conditions. I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for using me as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call. Lee Boad Senior Ecologist REFERENCES Cowardin,L.M., V.Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document FWS/OBS-79/31. 84 pp. Washington, D.C. Hitchcock, L.C. and A.Cronquist, 1973. Flora ofthe Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press.730 pp• Hruby, T., 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington — Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025. Munsell Soil Color Charts, 1998. GretagMacbeth. New Windsor,New York. Pojar,J.and A.MacKinnon, 1994.Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone Pine Publishing. 528 pp. Vancouver, British Columbia. Speare-Cooke, S., 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society.417 pp. PO Box 2854,Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:boad40@peoplepc.com F W HCADIWR i,BHMP WS279 January 29,2006 Page No.10 US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Mason County Area, Washington. September, 1960. US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1978. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology Publication #96-94, various pagination. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington Second Edition. 61 pp. Ecology Publication#93-74. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions for Reverine and Depression! Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Ecology Publication#99-115. Olympia, Washington. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993.National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands Region 9 -Northwest. Resource Management Group PO Box 2854,Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office:360-372-2421 e-mail:boad40@peoplepc.com Y! Appendix A: Vicinity Map JJ SS 5 J � �� �• 1, �y' �,- '� © �. am t, •�._ ___-y; G7s 7ff i ''�r •t - G i' r a S o-tis5 s-''Jr _ ■ i u Project: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory Client: GDG Construction Parcel #: 12321-2 I-00000 and 12321-24-00020 j; Date: January 2006 { Note: i P t. I� �• IL11 • 2- Appendix C: DNR Water Type Map ps Site Location N " 8I Be 170 88 708780 JL _ � f i �8$88 i170 170876 it (I ck� 0 Q C f I Project: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory Client: GDG Construction Parcel#: 12321-2.1-000 W and 12321-24-00020 1 Date: January 2006 I� Note: No streams mapped on site. Nearest Stream> 1/4 mile away I Appendix D: Priority Habitat and Species Map Y X Site Location i i; � rY f �� -� i �..;JL i+irc .�"" i ... �.•�'�'rp, ^fit y- [ t �,��,`��•,�' ei. . �1 It-ill. �r i M PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES SITES ® State Endangered Species OO State Threatened Species e State Sensitive Species O State Candidate Species O Other Priority Species 0 Priority Habitat Project: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory 1 Client: GDG Construction Parcel#: 12321-21-00000 and 12321-24-00020 , Date: January 2006 ' Note:No priority habitat or species mapped within '/z mile of site I+y}i `t Appendix E: Attached Wetland/Upland Determination Data t E Project: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment and Wetland Inventory Client: GDG Construction Parcel #: 12321-21-0000 0 and 12321-24-00020 ! Date: January 2006 Note: Three sample plots recorded for upland areas within subject property. One sample plot recorded for wetland area on adjacent property. {{�3 1� 1 r I yI 1i 1 a I 1 1 s 3 1 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual iroject/Site: property northwest of P2rcel:12321-21-00030 Date: January 16, 2006 Applicant: GDG Construction County: Mason Investigator(s): L. Boad State: WA S/T/R: SEC 21 T23N R1W Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Wetland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: 1 Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: Wetland A Explanation of a ical or roblem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species `Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator Spiraea douglasii S 80 FACW Rebus spectibilis S 20 FACW Carex obnupta H 20 OBL Alnus rubra T 20 FAC HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: > 50% Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation X Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities X Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes Rationale for decision/Remarks: > 50% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: Yes Sediment Deposits on tree stems Based on: Soil Temp/January Drift Lines: Yes Drainage Patterns: Yes Depth of inundation:2'-4' Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: No Channels <12 ii: Depth to free water in pit: 0 FAC Neutral: Yes Water-stained Leaves: Yes Depth to saturated soil: 0 Check all that apply & explain below: Other(explain): Observation of inundation ❑ Stream, lake or gage data X Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? Yes Rationale for decision/remarks: Primary and secondary indicators present I SOILS j Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand Drainage Class: excessively drained Field observations confirm mapped type? no Profile Description Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Munsell moist Munsell moist)_ size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 0-12 10YR2/1 Mucky peat Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) X Histosol ❑Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1)matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks Hydric soils present?Yes Rationale for decision/Remarks: Histosol Wetland Determination dydrophytic vegetation present?Yes Hydric soils present? Yes Wetland hydrology present?Yes Is the sampling point within a wetland?Yes Rationale/Remarks: Positive for all three parameters NOTES: wetland edges underlain by dark loamy sand(10YR2/1) .Survey done during heavy rain event Wetland is located on adjacent property. Revised 4/97 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Project/Site: property northwest of Parcel:12321-2 1-00000 Date: January 16, 2006 Applicant: GDG Construction County: Mason Investigator(s): L. Boad State: WA S/T/R: SEC 21 T23N R1 W Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: 1 Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: upland B Explanation of atypical or problem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species *Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species *Stratum %cover Indicator PoNstichum munitum H 50 FACU Gaultheria shallon S 30 FACU Pseudotsuga menziesii T 20 NI Alnus rubra T 20 FAC HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: < 50% ;heck all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation X Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities X Technical Literature ❑ Other(explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? No Rationale for decision/Remarks: < 50%of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: no Sediment Deposits: no on tree stems Based on: Soil Temp/January Drift Lines: No Drainage Patterns: no Depth of inundation No inundation Oxidized Root (live roots) Local Soil Survey: No Channels <12ii:No Depth to free water in pit: > 16 FAC Neutral: no Water-stained Leaves: no Depth to saturated soil: > 16 Check all that apply & explain below: Other(explain): Observation of inundation ❑ Stream, lake or gage data X Aerial photographs `-D Other Wetland hydrology present? no 1 Rationale for decision/remarks: no indicators I i SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand Drainage Class: excessively drained Field observations confirm mapped type? yes Profile Description Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Munsell moist Munsell moist size and contrast structure,etc. (match description) 0-16 10YR3/4 Loamy sand Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑ Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma_<2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑ Suffidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑ Reducing Conditions ❑Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1) matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks Hydric soils present?no Rationale for decision/Remarks: no indicators Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present?no Hydric soils present? no Wetland hydrology present?no Is the sampling point within a wetland?no Rationale/Remarks: negative for all three parameters NOTES: sample plot located in upland areas south of wetland Revised 4/97 Routine Wetland Determination DATA FORM 1 (Revised) WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Project/Site: Parcel:12321-2A .00000 Date: January 16, 2006 Applicant: GDG Construction County: Mason Investigator(s): L. Boad State: WA S/T/R: SEC 21 T23N R1W Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID: Upland Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? No Transect ID: 2 Is the area a potential problem area? No Plot ID: upland D Explanation of a ical or Rroblem area: VEGETATION Dominant Plant S ecies `Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant S cies 'Stratum % cover Indicatoi Polystichum munitum H >20 FACU Gaultheria shallon S >20 FACU Pseudotsuga menziesii T >20 NI Alnus rubra T >20 FAC Vaccinium ovatum S >20 FACU HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: < 50% Check all indicators that apply and explain below: ❑ Visual observation of plant species growing in ❑ Physiological/reproductive adaptations areas of prolonged inundation/saturation X Wetland plant database ❑ Morphological adaptations X Personal knowledge of regional plant communities X Technical Literature ❑ Other (explain) Hydrophytic vegetation present? No Rationale for decision/Remarks: < 50% of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? No Water Marks: no Sediment Deposits: no on tree stems Based on: Soil Temp/January Drift Lines: No Drainage Patterns: yes Depth of inundation No inundation Oxidized Root(live roots) Local Soil Survey: No Channels <12n.:No Depth to free water in pit: > 16 FAC Neutral: no Water-stained Leaves: no Depth to saturated soil: > 16 Check all that apply& explain below: Other(explain): Observation of inundation ❑ Stream, lake or gage data X Aerial photographs ❑ Other Wetland hydrology present? no Rationale for decision/remarks: insufficient indicators I SOILS Map Unit Name: Indianola loamy sand Drainage Class: excessively drained Field observations confirm mapped type? yes Profile Description Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle abundance Texture, concretions, Drawing of soil profile inches Munsell moist Munsell moist size and contrast structure, etc. (match description) 0-16 10YR3/2 Loamy sand Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) ❑Histosol ❑ Matrix chroma<_2 with mottles ❑ Histic Epipedon ❑ Mg or Fe Concretions ❑Sulfidic Odor ❑ High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils ❑Aquic Moisture Regime ❑ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ❑Reducing Conditions ❑Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List ❑ Gleyed or Low-Chroma (=1)matrix ❑ Other(explain in remarks Hydric soils present?no Rationale for decision/Remarks: no indicators Wetland Determination Hydrophytic vegetation present?no Hydric soils present? no Wetland hydrology present?no Is the sampling point within a wetland?no Rationale/Remarks: negative for all three parameters NOTES: sample plot located in forested area within property. Revised 4/97 Contract Administration G807 Project Team Directory (Instructions on the reverse side) t PROJECT(Name and address): PROJECT NUMBER: ' (Indicate firm //name,address,and telephone and tax numbers,as well as an e-mail address,for each Project Team participant listed below) all OWNER: V Go wS Y rwc�tl Designated Representative: G �, i i , :4 S ti= Reviewers of Architect's Submittals: Attorneys: <s V. y "'"F k apt'-f•,s Insurance Advisors: Accountants: _ Owner's Consultants: � q Owner's Separate Contractors: F `jdff v ARCHITECT: Nf_ -- fi Architect's Designated Representative: Project Architect/Manager: Architect's Consultants: ®(/t t V1GGrtr CONTRACTORS 0114 as*neial and other prime contractors,if any): AIA Document G807 Project Team Directory©2001 The American Institute of Architects•Washington,DC•wwwaia.org•WARNING:Reproduction,unlicensed photocopying or substantial quotation of the material herein without written permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will subject the violator to legal prosecution.To report copyright violations of AIA Contract Documents,e-mail The American Institute of Architects'tegal counsel, copyright@aia.org. Contract Administration Project Number: AA 6pD2 \IsR,AIA Date: 0 4.04- •0& G809 Project Abstract (Instructions on the reverse side) PROJECT( ame and address): ABSTRACT STATUS: ) IN PROGRESS ❑ CLOSED OUT PROJECT TYPE: ❑Institutional :,❑Industrlal , Residential ❑Other: PROJECT SIZE(Square feet): Y f✓S rr j BUILDING COST, $ PROJECT SCOPE: l.Ocl ;�711�►SI ' •! � vt'i�op WGV1 COST OF SITE WORK: S CURRENT PROJECT STATUS tl'Dbslpn ',; ❑ Under�`onstPuct1dn DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION: ail , ❑Procurement ❑ComlelAd DATE OF FINAL COMPLETION: OWNER(Name and address): ' a' r bWNERIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE(Name and address): J CONTRACTOR(Name and address): l CONTRACTOR'S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE(Name and address): PROCUREMENT METHOD. ARCHITECT(Name and address), CONSULTANTS 1 + AIMr�-L vt 14cr'Gln� �t�,�ut/a• �w1G. CIVfI(Namd)' " irVGs'�' ,$Qyt,• l 1 ��s Landscape(Namdr:' fiy 11 Structural(Name): r, PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE(Name): 1���!%�1 �jwotV MEP(Name): •�-. GOGKGvi Interiors Name): PROJECT ARCHITECT/MANAGER(Name): J 1, ( I PROJECT STAFF(Name): Others(Name} 1 Will we use this project for marketing? ❑ Yes ❑ No t} •, Do we want a detailed account of the change orders? ❑ Yes ❑ No r Do we want to Include in SF254 Profile statistics? ❑ Yes ❑ No }`;'•,''``'' SF254 Profile Codes(List all applicable): AIA Document G809 Project Abstract®2001 The American Institute of Architects•Washington,DC•www.ala.org-WARNING:Reproduction,unlicensed photocopying or substantial quotation of the material herein with written permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will subject the violator to legal prosecution.To report copyright violations of AIA Contract Documents,e-mail The American Institute of Architects'legal counsel,copyrfghf@ala.org. ge 1 of 2 AA jj AA Contract Administration Project Number. FZ�7!Z = 'AIA G806 c Pr 'e t Parameters W rk hee t o� o s PROJECT(Name and address): OWNER(Name and address): ARCHITECT(Name and address): G moo,,,,5T,r�,�j- ,•�.� A w•P. c PROJECT OBJECTIVE(Indicate Owner's objective or use): TIME PARAMETERS x Milestone dates and task durifhc� (Describe or attach copy) _ -- OWNER'S PROGRAM (Indicate documentation,applicable standards,voluntary guidelines or manner in which program will be developed): PROPOSED PROCUREMENT/DELIVERY METHOD OF PROJECT CONSTRUCTION: OTHER PARAMETERS: S LEGAL PARAMETERS FINANCIAL PARAMETERS Legal description of site Overall Project budget (Describe or attach copy): (including contingencies and the Architect's compensation,': Restrictions,covenants,easements,liens or leases Cost of the Work budget (Describe or attach copy): (Excluding the Architect's compensation): Uses of adjacent properties: Cost of the Work: $ Contingency for Market Conditions: S _ Contingency for Work Changes: $ Owners of adjacent properties: Funding Sources (Indicate company name,representative,telephone/lax numbers and amount method,e.g., loans,bonds or grants): AIA Document G806 Project Parameters Worksheet 0 2001 The American Institute of Architects•Washington.DC•www.aia.org•WARNING:Reproduction. unlicensed photocopying or substantial quotation of the material herein without written permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will subject the violator to legal prosecution.To report copyright violations of AIA Contract Documents,e-mail The American Institute of Amhitects'legal counsel,copyright@aia.org. PROJECT(Name): Page 2 of 2 Project Number: PUBLIC SERVICES(indicate company name,representative and telephone/fax numbers): Gas: Electric: Communications and data: Sewer. Water: z Other: PHYSICAL PARAMETERS(Indicate size,location,dimensions and other pertinent btl0ro glifggardin $nlldbipsr REGULATORY COMPLIANCE(Indicate title and edition of applicable in FJ f- Zone ordinance: ,: Building codes: Life Safety codes: ^� Accessibility: Energy code: ' Other(Environmental,historic preservation,hygiene,',tr�c.): SURVEYS AND REPORTS jtrldka7e Jlrrri,report title and dater Boundary survey: - •� s Topographic survey: Geolechnicai teslstreport: Other(Aerial photos,maps,etc.): AIA Document G806 Project Parameters Worksheet®2001 The American Institute of Architects•Washington,DC•www.aia.org•WARNING:Reproduction, unlicensed photocopying or substantial quotation of the material herein without written permission of the AIA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will subject the violator to legal prosecution.To report copyright violations of AIA Contract Documents,e-mail The American Institute of Architects'legal counsel.copyrightQais.org. DAI[ 03- 23 - ob PLACE Lai Usz Ile, . e ch i ot w �►^ � ��«�wts 1� t /mow%- x "l �o�to� uN�o,,,, ; hoti�v�'r4 l off% 1s o � CA Gl � 23 . 042 ri vwwr Ga+n,sG�rv�►�` "'' '41 = a nT' I r'• T 360.297.8233 F 360.297.4330 10900 NE STATE HIGHWAY 104 PO BOX 1452 KINGSTON WA 98346 r r \ \ f Potential Master Development Plan Area within an Urban Growth Area RrR6 aR1a f Leg end �� State igh%ays R g el lair UOA TCf P arce is ` ■tl 4 ,,,��vx�x a;. ■ y� �B_i _:Zoning Code �[ d ' ; _ _ - W+r,�,tn" '.tsR'F 7z _ i f r, �: err RwK® �`"' `'�■.�m- t. �, �• Like s "a ZIA a r i� .�� �r�-a�n �tl tl r r ■ jtia� � Y cc � O ■ C �■ amrc a..!t'u4uti! r F +;! x r■ 1 0 N y� fi'i"e' n r Ei■ 6 tl ■ LTA ems. AG&d:a:•.. r.G. ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ 2 as r■�� air .r�z+f m._-s- w •} rm Y.i it jr"'..y_...1l.,..c� 6 ' S }Y �� � • 'Y'w'7� '&'' r ■ ■- W Ld P i � y 9 W N Syt k r'Yn .PP � Ntl tl ■ C .. fa ■ "�+ R.,_'_u ..�.: {��''"y`"#t��Laa�. s,y"'�' ����� tea, s. �x f;_�` '�• m�■© ■ ■ ■ r o u w /.:9maA&tR ' -lttina M.f "``���tt •lx• "n My� :.! t ��� �' � � fir"`; r ■ ■ r ■ r � ■ -- - ` s� n XrrSAP CO. MASON ca.► cBy ' s ww•wv`+_ r�.f N" }� S . 'h+►f{ MYIY�. _r. +•�,_"A'•M+"�"• i �OpGf � d• !3y (M'� _ T� �...�.. R ... .. ' _.. x' 2-6 .34 ai eh ALL f t YN f yr I �� C f, .� � �•n 4ti �" -- 3 , c'+.4i'� .. _ .a.�-j l w., � ...:aw i•^ r•- 'j -+fM�„r•� rr...wr. ,.s+ ..r.�t...r•� 60 vex .J.4t'%!s•.'7mR� UL- AIL tr a JW) A hit fat— Its _ 1 Uwe team 00 got'OW PROM r\I'wJ Cl F ifA.i11 wwJJ i I i j\1 \ ' f # ' � Memo 0111 NOS" i { al t:r:- Belfair Sub-Area Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas Asl"Am nos Avon tiqqls gaees$1131.i �Q,fl"Imm R3a3He Legend ® Critical Aqu+fer Recharge Area within the Belfair UGA i f . j- Business-Industrial(84) �tSc i General Cmusaiau Business-Indndusvial(GGeI) Belfair UGA Boundary Draft,March sv S , Ir W E 5 o soe 1.000 zf3oo Feet ��J • � cm I � � S / + �l19ssl/gg7Yqsil YgglllqqilqqqDII1 r ! � rr ■ �,/ ■ z- z o, o Masons a r Or Q "s low Is Belfair Sub-Area Locslfon c Township 23 N.,Rang.t W. -=S ■ :sue,., = is 2 f js !l11T12!f!!!!1RaY 994ClgH11Y1g111q11YqY1CYY17 w.pnaa bV ww Ceu Iy P116ge lwbrks ells LEGEND: BELFAIR WATER DISTRICT WELL WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS _ ZONE I _ ZONE 2 23 �- ZONE 3 20 ........... .• BUFFER ZONE 4 ' ........ .. Z411 .. • ^3 • o N 30 9 'O 28 27 26 J RIEGLER �. LAKE 31 -.. 32 LYNCH WELLS 33 35 COVE 3 GQ' T 23 N T22N WYE 6 ''$ 4 ,`�C,� 3 LAKE �a a 7 8 it •� 10 DEVE EAUX LAKEVf LAKE KOENEMA Q 3500 7000 SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 15 RECOMMENDED WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA FOR THE DEEP AQUIFER SYSTEM OfLFNR NO. 1 W3.LHEAD PROTEC?lON PLRN Belfair Sub-Area Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas � "avail ffltHiflff■1fffOft99f9■Rf9lf7■f■f4II899994 \\ It S •/%/jJ/�J�1} as Legend ' Criica AquiferRecharge Area w:inn the"fait UGA Irdustrial(84) Gorrerai C W-tI (U Bus•ressir�trial(GGBI) 0�"aQ� eetta<UGA Bawrdary � �" /� •,,,•"--"_'- - / \ Ur.M—h 24.2OD4u: w �E E ' ED o soot i f ffffffffffHRffffffifff79ff99 Q j V kII Beffalr Sub-Area Location Township 23 N.,Range 1 W. a ❑ t d (J■{l.e■■■■■■f■Hf■■9r■9s fnilinnsHf9r:9rnsrfmrrrR ,t Prcpared by Mason County Public Works GiS where: 11 = porosity d = distance in feet K = hydraulic conductivity in feet/day Ah = head difference in feet over the specified distance Thus, the process of travel-time calculation combined the results of mapping the hydraulic conductivity and porosity values and the potentiometric surface definition. Once a specific travel time was calculated along a set of particle tracks for a well, the endpoints along the line for that travel time were connected to define the preliminary capture zone for that time period. As with the analytical modeling, this process was accomplished using one-half and double the hydraulic conductivity value in order to account for uncertainty in aquifer parameters. The results of the two conductivity cases were combined to reflect the longest and widest indicated capture zones. Recommended WH PA Zones The Washington State Department of Health requires the definition of wellhead protection zones based on travel time rates of ground water (DOH, 1995). They define five zones for which wellhead protection strategies should be considered: The sanitary control area: typically the 100-foot radius of control around a wellhead (as defined in WAC 246-290-135) f Zone 1: the one-year, horizontal time of travel boundary Zone 2: the five-year, horizontal time of travel boundary Zone 3: the ten-year, horizontal time of travel boundary and the Buffer Zone, which extends up gradient of Zone 3 and may include the entire zone of contribution The first four of these zones are required components of WHP plans and define areas requiring differing levels of response to a contamination event based on the expected time of travel to the given well or wellfield. The Buffer Zone is optional, but is considered useful in compensating for errors when delineating capture zones, and is considered an important planning tool for providing information on monitoring the presence of potential contaminant sources outside Zone 3 which have the potential for contaminating the WHPA (DOH, 1995). In the case of the District, the recommended Zones 1, 2, and 3 are based on the composite one-, five-, and ten-year capture zones as delineated by the modeling process described above. Figures 14 and 15 present the defined WHPA zones for the District's wells. The recommended zones are not a direct representation of the composite capture zones; instead, they are slight modifications of the capture zones. The modification represents subtle interpretation based on our understanding of how the assigned modeling conditions may differ from actual hydrogeologic conditions, which typically have a much higher degree of lateral and vertical variability than can be represented in the modeling process. In addition, in cases where wells are close enough that their capture zones interact (Wells 1 and 2), the WHPA zones were modified to include all of the interacting capture zone areas. Buffer Zones are commonly based upon the entire zone of contribution. However, based on the uncertainties in aquifer boundaries, defining the Buffer Zone to include the complete zone of Robinson & Noble, inc. Page 14 LEGEND: L� BELFAIR WATER DISTRICT WELL WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS t --� _ ZONE 9 — ZONE 2 21 '' ll ' 23 ZONE 3 .............. BUFFER ZONE �OkD a4 ........ N 30 9 r 28 27 26 r.3 J Z RIEGLER •- o LAKE >r 31 32 LYNCH WELLS 33 4 35 1&2 GP T23N BOO T 22 N WYE -Z 4 3 LAKE 7 8 o. ! � 10 � 11 t DEVE. EAL1X ` ! LAKE LAKE ' KOENEMA 0 3500 7000 SCALE IN FEEFIGURE I— _ RECOMMENDED WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA FOR THE DEEP AQUIFER SYSTEM tn►� REIZAIR WATER DISTRICT NO. 1 WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN where: Ti = porosity d — distance in feet K = hydraulic conductivity in feet/day Ah = head difference in feet over the specified distance Thus, the process of travel-time calculation combined the results of mapping the hydraulic conductivity and porosity values and the potentiometric surface definition. Once a specific travel time was calculated along a set of particle tracks for a well, the endpoints along the line for that travel time were connected to define the preliminary capture zone for that time period. As with the analytical modeling, this process was accomplished using one-half and double the hydraulic conductivity value in order to account for uncertainty in aquifer parameters. The results of the two conductivity cases were combined to reflect the longest and widest indicated capture zones. Recommended WHPA Zones The Washington State Department of Health requires the definition of wellhead protection zones based on travel time rates of ground water (DOH, 1995). They define five zones for which wellhead protection strategies should be considered: The sanitary control area: typically the 100-foot radius of control around a wellhead (as defined in WAC 246-290-135) Zone 1: the one-year,horizontal time of travel boundary Zone 2: the five-year, horizontal time of travel boundary Zone 3: the ten-year, horizontal time of travel boundary and the Buffer Zone, which extends up gradient of Zone 3 and may include the entire zone of contribution The first four of these zones are required components of WHP plans and define areas requiring differing levels of response to a contamination event based on the expected time of travel to the given well or wellfield. The Buffer Zone is optional, but is considered useful in compensating for errors when delineating capture zones, and is considered an important planning tool for providing information on monitoring the presence of potential contaminant sources outside Zone 3 which have the potential for contaminating the WHPA (DOH, 1995). In the case of the District, the recommended Zones 1, 2, and 3 are based on the composite one-, five-, and ten-year capture zones as delineated by the modeling process described above. Figures 14 and 15 present the defined WHPA zones for the District's wells. The recommended zones are not a direct representation of the composite capture zones; instead, they are slight modifications of the capture zones. The modification represents subtle interpretation based on our understanding of how the assigned modeling conditions may differ from actual hydrogeologic conditions, which typically have a much higher degree of lateral and vertical variability than can be represented in the modeling process. In addition, in cases where wells are close enough that their capture zones interact (Wells 1 and 2), the WHPA zones were modified to include all of the interacting capture zone areas. _ Buffer Zones -are commonly based upon the entire zone of contribution. However, based on the uncertainties in aquifer boundaries, defining the Buffer Zone to include the complete zone of Robinson & Noble, Inc. Page 14 Send To Printer Back To TerraServer Charge to 1 1x!7 Print Sizr! Rein,--ve Grid Un�S Change to Landscape MUSGS 3 km NE of Belfair, Washington, United States 01 Jul 1994 122W 49' 29" 122W 49' 10" ::122W 48' 51" :-122.82483 -.-122.81952 :-122,81421 :513,200.0 :513,6 0.0 i514,000.0 ...... ----- -----------------------F------- ................... ------- -----N-W ......- ?47N 28- 18" A ------)---- --------------------------- 47.47170: i47.47169 5,257,600.0�-- :5,257,600.0 A w Is OF ..................... ....... ..... . .4 ----- ----------- t-V------ . ........ 47.46812: 7.46809 5,257,200.0 ■ 15,257,200.0 V. > 4P j .. .. ......... ...... .. ............. .................................. .... ......... ........ . ell- ...... ':47N 27'S2 47.46451: -7:4 .46449 5,256,800.0:: �tl - L :5,256,800.0 Y Ar N. R ................/... . ...................... ------- ----- --- . ................---------- 47li-2­5;'44;5-224V 49-30" ;:122W 49' 10" .47N 27-39" 47.46091:-122.82486 :-122-S19.56 :47.46069 5,256,400.0:513,200.0 :513,600.0 5,256,400.0 :122W 48'51" L122.81425 514,000.0 zoom 01 ZOOyd Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey (5, 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement ttp:Hterraserver-usa.com/printimage.aspx?T=2&S=11&X=1284&Y=13142&Z=10&P=3+k... 2/9/2006 r Send To Printer Bark To TeraServer change t-) 11x17 Print Size Shova Grid L••r?es CranRe tl.�Landscaoe ZLJSGS 3 krr+ NE of Belfair, Washington, United States 01 Jul 19-34 r t l �� 9rti pF i ��2--, ':`- :: .! r;• i(555ccc 6 41 Af •x� �'�7'?f T4 �. � �_ • �r 't°11MY�fSt'Y9Jl�H! �' � 7 ..� ' t _ Ct x 3 I_ip i •, ■ ' Nam_ �°` "■ +►.ti i N f Vf - ,r 1 NA t it• 1�'}= '.*..^` �. .. � 3�: �r� �i" � S O` '200M 0' '200yd Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey n 200a Micrr,-:n`t (';)rpnration. Terms of Use Privacy Statement http://terraserver-usa.com/Printlmage.aspx?T=2&S=11&Z=10&X=1284&Y=13142&W=2... 2/9/2006 Send To Printer Bacr.To ,rraSe"T Cha ... [ollxl7Pnn',5iz-- Show Grid Lines Chance to Land-s:2pe ►USGS 4 km = jr Washington., United States 21 Jun 1990 V "71 A" NF,M X I ,U A q ---40 CON-InVALT,M- -zw;4= K, �07 Ol 1100M 0. 1100yd Image courtesy of the U.S. Geological Su-;!ey Oc 2004 Microsoft Corporation. Terms of Use Privacy Statement http://terraserver-usa.com/Printlmage.aspx?T=l&S=l O&Z=l 0&X=2570&Y=26285&W=2... 2/9/2006