Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEP2007-00142 Grade, Stormwater 6 commercial industry buildings - SEP Determinations - 9/17/2007
oN STATE MASON COUNTY 4P5 C °� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S° �= Planning Division o Y �? P 0 Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 of C,oy (360)427-9670 1864 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2007-00142 Description of Proposal: Grading, stormwater features and construction of six or more 6,000 sq ft business buildings for Johns Prairie Business Park Proponent: DB INDUSTRIES LLC Site Address (If Assigned): 3160 E JOHNS PRAIRIE RD SHELTON Directions to Site: Johns Prairie road to 3160 East Johns Prairie Rd, Shelton Parcel Number: 320044390025 Legal Description: W1/2 TR 2 OF N 30 AC.OF SW SE PCL 7 OF BLA #97-51 #667206 (R) TR 1 OF SP #2843 #639073 Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED. Please contact Pam Bennett-Cumming at ext. 287 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 10/1/2007. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. c� ✓� Authorized Local Government Official Date MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2007-00142 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION 1) A Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) will be created and implemented prior to development, clearing, grading, or construction of any portion of the proposed segregation. X 2) Emergency vehicle apparatus access roads shall conform with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Mason County Title 16. If the access road cannot conform, special conditions will be placed on any building permit issued on property that is served by a non-conforming access road. Contact the Mason County Fire Marshal for details. 3) Site is within a portion of the county designated as Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. Title Notification has been recorded. Resource Ordinance Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Chapter 17.01 .080 has specific provisions for allowed and prohibited land uses at this site. This business park proposal is to perform site grading, and construct access roads, stormwater facilities, and construct more than six 6,000 square foot business buildings. Applicant agrees that at the time of proposed uses for these buildings, proposals must undergo County review for consistency with Critical Aquifer Recharge Area provisions and other county requirements. x ��oN coat MASON COUNTY � ap Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 f NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF SEPA DETERMINATION This is to notify recipient agencies, tribes, groups and other parties that Mason County Department of Community Development hereby WITHDRAWS the SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for SEP2007-00142 based on substantive comments received thus far on this project, and the need to reconsider the significance of the proposal. SEP2007-00142 was issued for a project submitted by DB Industries LLC for the following project: Grading, stormwater features and construction of six or more 6,000 square foot business buildings for Johns Prairie Business Park. Said project is proposed at 3160 E Johns Prairie Road Shelton. Parcel numbers 320044390025, 3200444390026, 320044390027, 320044390028 located in Section 4, Township 20 North, Range E West, W.M. Comments thus far addressed: • The need for a hydrogeological study to provide a scientific basis for determining whether the proposed development will have an impact on Johns Creek. WAC 173-514 closed the basin to further appropriation of water in hydraulic continuity with the creek. At this time not enough information has been submitted to determine the potential for presence or lack of impact. • The need for a traffic study to determine if the proposal may have significant adverse impacts to State Route 3,which connects with Johns Prairie Road near the proposal. Other comments already in process for the earlier MDNS for this project will also be considered as the county reconsiders the proposal and its significance,mitigation needs, and the need for further studies. Please contact Pam Bennett-Cumming at 360-327-9670 ext 427 or pambca,co.mason.wa.us for questions or comments. STATgO� RECEIVED b F C q 2 207 1889 STATE OF WASHINGTON MCCD - PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775• Olympia, Washington 98504-7775• (360) 407-6300 October 1, 2007 Ms.Pam Bennett-Cumming Your address Mason County ` �' is in the Department of Community Development < Kennedy- Planning Division s Goldsborough PO Box 279 watershed Shelton,WA 98584 Dear Ms.Bennett-Cumming: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the John's Prairie Business Park project(SEP2007-00142)located at 3160 East John's Prairie Road in Shelton as proposed by DB Industries,LLC. The Department of Ecology(Ecology)reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s): TOXICS CLEANUP: Chuck Cline(360)407-6267 If contamination is currently known or observed during construction or soil removal(placement), sampling of the potentially contaminated media must be conducted. If contamination of soil or groundwater is readily visible,or is revealed by sampling,Ecology must be notified. Contact the Environmental Report Tracking System Coordinator at the Southwest Regional Office at(360) 407-6300. For assistance and information about subsequent cleanup and to identify the type of testing that will be required contact Mr.Chuck Cline at(360)407-6267. If contamination is identified,this issue may be referred to your jurisdictional health department as a solid waste concern. WATER QUALITY: Roberta Woods(360)407-6269 Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW,Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A,Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington,and is subject to enforcement action. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,grading,or construction. These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,silt,clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants. During construction,all releases of oils,hydraulic fluids,fuels,other petroleum products,paints, solvents,and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of spills should take precedence over other work on the site. After completion of this project,there is likelihood that stormwater runoff will contain increased levels of grease,oils, sediment,and other debris. It is recommended that stormwater treatment devices be installed so that any discharge will be appropriately treated to remove these substances. _qw. elf October 1,2007 Page 2 Soil in stockpiles should be stabilized or protected with sediment-trapping measures to prevent soil loss. All exposed areas of final grade or areas that are not scheduled for work,whether at final grade or otherwise, shall not remain exposed and un-worked for more than two days,between October 1 and April 30. Between May 1 and September 30,no soils shall remain exposed and un-worked for more than 7 days. Clearing limits and/or any easements or required buffers should be identified and marked in the field, prior to the start of any clearing,grading,or construction. Some suggested methods are staking and flagging or high visibility fencing. A permanent vegetative cover should be established on denuded areas at final grade if they are not otherwise permanently stabilized. Properties adjacent to the site of a land disturbance should be protected from sediment deposition through the use of buffers or other perimeter controls, such as filter fence or sediment basins. All temporary erosion control systems should be designed to contain the runoff from the developed two year,24-hour design storm without eroding. Provision should be made to minimize the tracking of sediment by construction vehicles onto paved public roads. If sediment is deposited, it should be cleaned every day by shoveling or sweeping. Water cleaning should only be done after the area has been shoveled out or swept. Wash water from paint and wall finishing equipment should be disposed of in a way which will not adversely impact waters of the state. Untreated disposal of this wastewater is a violation of State Water Quality laws and statutes and as such,would be subject to enforcement action. WATER RESOURCES: Vicki Cline(360)407-0278 Any proposed ground water withdrawal from an on-site community water system within the John's prairies business park is limited to 5,000 gallons per day in accordance with Chapter 90.44 RCW. Any ground water withdrawals in excess of 5,000 gallons per day or for the irrigation of more than one-half acre of lawn or noncommercial garden,requires a water right permit from Ecology. All water wells shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 173-160 WAC by a driller licensed in the State of Washington. Well reports must be submitted to Ecology within 30 days after completion of a well. All water wells that may be drilled must be a minimum of 100 feet from any known, suspected,or potential source of contamination. Wells shall not be located within 1,000 feet of a solid waste landfill The Growth Management Act(Section 63)requires an applicant to submit evidence of an adequate water supply before a building permit can be issued for any building requiring potable water. SOLID WASTE&FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE:Al Salvi(360)407-6287 Property owners,developers,and contractors are encouraged to recycle all possible leftover construction,demolition,and land clearing(CDL)materials and reduce waste generated. Recycling October 1, 2007 Page 3 construction debris is often less expensive than landfill disposal. Please call Ecology's 1-800- RECYCLE hotline for facilities in the area that will accept CDL materials for reuse or recycling. Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such,they do not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above. Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office (AW: 07-7538) cc: Chuck Cline,TCP Vicki Cline,WR Al Salvi, SW&FAP Roberta Woods,WQ Dave Mariano and Robert Olsen,DB Industries,LLC RE . k Rrr' F2 4 -1117 � Washington State — JL Olympic Region Headquarters VI/ Department of Transportation _ PLANNI 5720 Capitol Boulevard,Tumwater Douglas B. MacDonald P.O.Box 47440 Secretary of Transportation Olympia,WA 98504-7440 360-357-2600 Fax 360-357-2601 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 September 20, 2007 www.wsdot.wa.gov Ms. Pam Bennett-Cumming, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development Planning Division P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 RE: SR 3,Mile Post 6.57 Left Vicinity Johns Prairie Business Park County File No.: 2007-00142 EC File No.: 2007-546-M Dear Ms. Bennett-Cumming: The Washington State Department of Transportation(WSDOT) is in receipt of the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS)and Environmental Checklist for the Johns Prairie Business Park proposal. It is our understanding that this proposal is to perform a Boundary Line Adjustment involving four lots to enable the construction of up to six commercial buildings of approximately 6,000 square feet each. This proposal is located west of the SR 3 and Johns Prairie Road intersection and between Millright Road and East Capitol Hill Road. WSDOT has determined that this proposal may result in significant adverse impacts to SR 3. However the SEPA documents do not contain vehicle trip generation and distribution or traffic impact analysis information and there are no mitigation measures for traffic impacts within the MDNS. WSDOT is requesting that the applicant provide a trip generation and distribution report for this proposal. Please have that report sent to my attention when it is available. We respectfully request that the County withdraw the MDNS until the transportation impacts of this proposal can be determined and the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with the SEPA Rules. Ms. Pam Bennett-Cumming September 20, 2007 Page 2 We appreciate this opportunity for review. Should you have questions or require additional information please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Development Review Engineer WSDOT, Olympic Region AH:pr cc: Barbara Robinson, Mason County Bob Fink, Mason County Bob Thuring, Mason County John Sliva, Mason County Dale Severson, WSDOT Larry Deemer, WSDOT Brent Schiller,WSDOT SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE ............... RECE D,Pam Bennett-Cumming T 2 2007 Mason County Department of Community Development CT POB 279 Shelton, WA 98584 7MCCD - PLANNING Dear Pate, I am writing to ask you to withdraw the MDNS for the DB Tndustri,.s proposal in Johns Prairie (SEP2007-00142) . The Squaxin Island T?:I.'-)-- is concerned because no description of long term water supply is provided making it impossible to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposal The project area falls within the Johns Creek Basin. WAC 173-514 closed the basin to further appropriation of water in hydraulic continuity with the creek and it routinely -fails to meet admini;jtrative summer minimum instream flows. The closure includes a restriction limiting exempt wells to in-house single domestic use. The project proponent needs to clearly establish what quantity of water is necessary for long term operation of the proposal and the source of the water. Furthermore, a hydrogeologic report will be necessary to establish whether the source of the water is in hydraulic continuity with Johns Creek or any other surface water. Once that information is available, the county and the Tribe can evaluate the environmental impact of the proposal. It is important for the proponent to remember that exempt wells are not required to go through the permitting process, but they are not exempt from laws and regulations related to impact on water resources Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have questions. Best Regards, —---------- John Konovsky, Environmental Program Manager Nabm%l RegoulTes Department / S.E. 2= OW Ot"ptC HW1J. Shelton, 1411. 98W4 Fax DWI 4WB971 / Phone DWI 4W9781 —add& �s°N °0 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Shelton(360)427-9670 Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467 411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269 — PO Box 279 1854 Shelton,WA 98584 HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us February 27, 2009 Squaxin Tribe Natural Resources ATTN: John Konovsky 2952 Old Olympic Hwy Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Dave Mariano's DB Industries project, located at proposed Johns Prairie Business Park, parcels 32004-43-90025, 32004-43-90026, 32004-43-90027, 32004-43-90028. Dear Mr Konovsky: The above project has been pending resolution of the water-related issues in the Johns Creek basin, which is an impaired basin under WAC 173-514. In 2007 Mason County withdrew the SEPA determination on the above project at the request of the Squaxin Tribe, who cited the potential for cumulative impact to Johns Creek from further water withdrawals including what would.be proposed by this project. At this time it is our understanding that the Squaxin Tribe, the City of Shelton, the Port of Shelton and Mason County are conducting discussions on how to move forward on this issue -- relative to Ecology's administration of the WAC, and the need for the jurisdictional governments to be consistent with the code. Earlier Squaxin had requested that Ecology close the basin to any further withdrawals. The short-term outcome has been the discussions referenced above, which identify the need to move forward on further study of groundwater in the basin. Mr. Mariano has sent us additional documents (hydrogeological assessment, traffic impacts analysis), and requested that we reverse our withdrawal of the County's SEPA determination. Staff-has explained in writing that we are not able to do so at this time, pending outcome of the necessary hydrogeological studies and any necessary subsequent actions. Nonetheless, Mr Mariano has contacted staff and asked them to provide the hydrogeological information to the Squaxin Tribe, for their comment and response. Please find enclosed a cover letter from Mr Mariano dated December 5, 2008, together with Robinson Noble Saltbush Inc's assessment of hydrogeological implications of withdrawal, dated November 11, 2008. If you have any questions of the County, I can be reached at 360.427-9670 est 287. Sincer , Pam Ben tt- mmi �enPl enclosures cc: Barbara Adkins, DCD Manager °°U^s MASON COUNTY DE ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Shelton(360)427-9670 Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467 411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269 — PO Box 279 IS54 Shelton,WA 98584 HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us February 17, 2009 Dave Mariano DB Industries LLC 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Parcels 32004-43-90025, 32004-43-90026, 32004-43-90027, 32004-43-90028. Dear Mr Mariano, Mason County Planning Department is in receipt of your letter dated December 5, 2009. We apologize for not acknowledging receipt until now. Like many other institutions, the County has had to make staffing cuts and reorganize duties among those remaining. We thank you for submitting the information related to Robinson Noble Saltbush's assessment of hydrogeological implications of the withdrawal of groundwater for your proposed Johns Prairie Business Park. This information will be added to your case file for this project. We would also like to provide you with a brief update on the status of issues relating to new commercial withdrawals of water in the Johns Creek/Johns Prairie watershed. As you are aware, Johns Creek is an impaired water under state law. Last year the Skokomish Tribe requested that Ecology close the basin to further withdrawals. At this time the issue is unresolved; Mason County and the City of Shelton are in the process of related ongoing discussions during the spring of 2009. At such time as we have more information on the progress of these discussions, we will be in contact with you to provide an update. Sincer Pam Be ne t-Cumming Senior Planner, Water Resources and current planning. PSI �-�t: December 5, 2008 RECF ( VEC Ms. Pam Bennett-Cumming, M.E.S. DEC 0 5 2000 Senior Planner- Water Resource Planning VASON CO.PUAW DFF'T. Mason County Department of Community Development PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Re.: Withdrawal of SEPA Determination SEP2007-000142 Dear Pam Your letter dated May 26, 2006 notified us that you withdrew your previous Determination of Nonsignificance. We believe that the date of the letter may have been an oversight and that it was actually dated on or around November of 2007. Regardless the letter retracts the previous Determination of Nonsignificance made in September of 2007. This retraction was based upon 2 comments received during the SEPA comment period. Specifically the Notice of Withdrawal identifies these 2 comments requiring further action of us: 1. "The need for a hydrogeological study to provide a scientific basis for determining whether the proposed development will have an impact on Johns Creek." WAC 173-514 was referenced and it was noted that"At this time not enough information has been submitted to determine the potential for presence or lack of impact" John Konovsky, Squaxin Tribe 2. "The need for a traffic study to determine if the proposal may have significant adverse impacts to State Route 3, which connects with John's Prairie Road near the proposal"Alana Hess, WSDOT. We have completed the requested activity for each comment. Please find attached: 1. A Hydrogeological Study dated November 11, 2008 authored by Robinson Noble Saltbush, Inc. Robinson Noble is a respected firm and has completed considerable hydrogeological work in the area including analysis for the Manke gravel mine EIS and many other analyses performed throughout the John's Creek Basin. 2. Traffic Impact Analysis performed by Heath&Associates dated November 2007 and an email from Dale Severson of WSDOT dated December 5, 2008 confirming their concurrence with the findings. In selecting Heath & Associates, Inc. we used one of the several firms suggested by WSDOT as being recognized for their expertise in traffic engineering and for recent experience on County road systems. Page 2 of 2 12/5/2008 In submitting these items it is our understanding that we have completed the actions requested of us in order that the SEPA Determination may be revisited. The Geologist has indicated that the hyrogeolgical study provides the scientific analysis requested of us for use of the on site well. The depth of the well below sea level, its location through aquifers below Johns Creek, hydrology and geology of the area, as well as on site methods of use work together such that the result is a net increase to the flows of John's Creek. The traffic analysis performed by Heath and Associates, Inc. and the subsequent letter from WSDOT dated December 5, 2008 indicate that this project does not generate traffic such that a significant impact will occur at the intersection of John's Prairie Road& SR 3. As a result WSDOT has no further concerns for the project. We believe this addresses the items asked of us. We would like to request that your decision changing the determination for SEP2007-00142 (inadvertently dated May 26, 2006) be reconsidered and the Determination of Mitigated Nonsignificance previously made in September of 2007 be reissued. We would also like to request your assistance to advance the project so that a grading permit could be achieved in the near future. Please let us know how we can help to move this forward. Sin t- DBM Dave M Industries, LLC (360) 701-6623 Cc: R. Olsen M. Bardwil Page 1 of 2 Kell McAboy-Fw: SEPA comments From: "Dave Mariano" <dkmarianogmsn.com> To: "Kell McAboy" <Ke11M(aco.mason.wa.us> Date: 7/20/2009 7:33 AM Subject: Fw: SEPA comments Attachments: Draft SEPA comment response letter(7-19-09).doc Kell, how are you today? This is informational only. Mike is a scientist with Robinson Noble. He is providing an official letter from the company but I wanted you to get the information that will be in it as soon as possible. I've heard the sound bite about the septic reuse a few times now. But Mike has provided the proper context for it and the fact that it is being misused by the tribe. I will forward the final letter to you as soon as I receive it. With regard to the Port's letter. I am amazed they responded. I'm even more amazed they commented about water use and then cc a copy of it to the tribe. I will provide a response to it for the file. But at first glance I see 3 separate agendas in their letter. 1)there are a couple of minor comments about the project that are appropriate, 2) there seems to be an attempt to remind you of your duties, and 3)they embedded in their comment letter letter a desire to accomplish something on their agenda. I would offer the latter 2 items are inappropriate. Item 3 about establishing a public forum that includes the Tribe(which I'm sure is the reason for the tribe's cc of the letter) is interesting but has no bearing on this project whatsoever and I think should have been handled in a separate letter as a follow on action for that subject alone. Also the Ports comment about water consumption. I will address this in our response. But the amount of water projected to be consumed was calculated by the Engineer from Northwest Water and represents I'm sure the kinds of uses that are expected. If the Port has a calculation they would like to offer instead please provide it. But thank you for seeing their comment about this for what it is, speculation. As a lay check 40 people using the bathroom 3 times a day with 1.5 gallons to flush and .5 gallon to wash= 240 gallons. That is extreme use by everyone, every day. That still leaves 260 gallons of coffee each day. There is also no irrigation required or needed. Even so to bring this full context, we are allowed a maximum of 5,000 gpd. I doubt, whether the actual use is 400 gallons or 800 gallons, that either number would be considered significant use resulting in significant environmental impact. So why would the Port even note it? More to come from Mike. I hope today and tomorrow expires quietly. Thanks for your help. Thanks Dave M 701-6623 From: Mike Krautkramer Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 1:35 PM To: 'Dave Mariano' Subject: RE: SEPA comments file://C:\Documents and Settings\KeIIM\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4A641DBEMas... 7/21/2009 Page 2 of 2 Dave, I had the opportunity to read the comment letters and could not help but write a response letter to you regarding the Squaxin Island Tribe's statement. The letter is attached as a draft for your review. Technically I should have had it reviewed internally to take the emotion and attitude out of it before sending it to you. I will have that done tomorrow. I am confident that my response is valid but the mode of delivery probably could be improved by a more neutral read of the response by one of my colleagues. Because it may not seem so in my letter, I do want to say that I have respect for John Konovsky as a scientist and as a person and expect he was directed to find a reason to challenge the MDNS. It is a weak challenge at best. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Dave Mariano [mailto:dkmariano@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 7:58 AM To: Mike Krautkramer Cc: Sagebook; Robert Olsen Subject: Fw: SEPA comments Mike, how are you? It appears the County planner is going to retain their DNS in spite of the Tribe's comment. But they are asking me to respond for their records. Do you have any thoughts about John's comments? Thanks, Dave M 360.701.6623 From: Kell McAboy Sent:.Friday, July 17, 2009 5:22 PM To: dkmariano@msn.com Subject: SEPA comments Hi Dave, I wanted to forward these comments to you FYI. The comment period closes on July 21, 2009. I am not withdrawing the determination, however you may respond to these comments for our files. Have a great weekend. Kell Kell McAboy, Land Use Planner Mason County DCD 411 N. 5th/P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 360.427.9670 ext. 363 file://C:\Documents and Settings\Kel1M\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4A641DBEMas... 7/21/2009 f w NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INITIAL REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE In accordance with Washington State's Growth Management Act, the Mason County Comprehensive Plan regulates the placement, expansion or modification of commercial, industrial and public facilities to certain areas of the county. In the interest of saving you time and money the Department requires this initial review checklist to be completed and reviewed by this department prior to the submission of any building permits. Applicant Name Drtx Mr,v, Daytime Phone # 3(Lo ) 7 61 23 Mailing Address 13 S E S k-coku,►„ Q;co ;')r;yc s �c_i 4-am, w A I8.s8 4 Site Address 3 1 (r,. a 'F -XelA,,)s Rrarjc ?o.. -SLA4, G44 98Sd!� Directions to Site f-4L-1 A .f� -�,� ,s acc ;t ` 14 _ !2'U"_o2r. 1 r .a,• f;r C-)CA 1 tea. Septic or Sewer Water Supply Lj 0- ( I Tax Parcel Number # `3 a ZILI 3Cz Legal Description 1:2 - S/ Rcu r `-Qc i 1,,4 ,D o$' Sp 081,V-3 Type of Development Applicant's Signature OFFICIAL USE IUGA Approved By Existing Commercial Date -"oI-) Prc r j e 1�oad GM o o -o LS S t V � i d 0 go, I ao' a • ?rcnr;c�c 0 071- $ � � Qr,Ve dKarc,�.l rnarlawo 76J-66z3 g Kober+ d So� OI,Sc..� G p d T- AP t az Z si— e a� 5 �►,p _ n z 90N °°°�T� MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Shelton(360)427-9670 Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467 _ 411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269 PO Box 279 18-4 Shelton,WA 98584 HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us May 27, 2009 Dave Mariano SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL DB Industries LLC 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Parcels 32004-43-90025, 32004-43-90026, 32004-43-90027, 32004-43-90028. Requested information enclosed. Dear Mr Mariano, At your request, Mason County Planning Department is providing the requested documents. We understand you met with our Planning Manager Barbara Adkins last week, and in your discussions, you indicated you did not think you had received any information from the County regarding the water situation on Johns Prairie. Staff has researched your project file, and has found several emails and letters from us to you, and responses from you on the subject. Because we recognize that you may no longer have them to hand, or have forgotten the content, we are re-supplying you with these documents for your files. Enclosed please find: 1. Email dated 1212612007 2:41 pm from Barbara Robinson to Dave Mariano, cc: Pam Bennett- Cumming, Tim Sheldon. Subject: Johns Prairie Water Issues — referencing conversation with Commissioner Sheldon, and indicating County cannot sign off on SEPA until the Squaxin Tribe's concerns are addressed. 2. Email dated 411108 8:18am from Barbara Robinson to Dave Mariano. Subject: Johns Prairie Business Park— referencing conversation with all three commissioners, requesting documentation of water rights and other material. 3. Email dated 411108 8:21am from Dave Mariano to Barbara Robinson referencing project, and confusion over the Courdalene (CoeurD'Alene) project. 4. Email dated 411109 8:39am from Barbara Robinson to Pam Bennett-Cumming asking staff to watch for this (water rights information from #2 above). This is a response to included email dated 4/1/08 8A5am from Dave Mariano to Barbara Robinson. 5. Email dated 411108 9:13am from Pam Bennett-Cumming to Barbara Robinson with copy to Dave Mariano. Subject: Johns Prairie Business Park identifying needed water rights information not addressed in Dave Mariano 4/1/08 9:13 email in #4 above). 6. Email dated 411108 4:39pm to Dave Mariano, Barbara Robinson. Subject: Johns Prairie Business Park — referencing Barbara Robinson's earlier email (#2 above) and re-iterating the need for documentation of a water source with a water right, and capacity to supply the project. 7. Email dated 412108 12:03am from Dave Mariano to Pam Bennett-Cumming referencing that no recorded water right will be provided. 8. Email dated 412108 9:21 am from Pam Bennett-Cumming to Dave Mariano. Subject: Johns Prairie Business Park providing a "copy and paste" of the earlier email from Barbara Robinson to Dave Mariano (#2 above). 9. Letter from Mason County Department of Community Development referencing receipt of information from Robinson Noble Saltbush (RNS) re: Johns Prairie Business Park and indicating the information would be added to the case file. Also includes update of status of issues related to new commercial withdrawals of water in the Johns Creek/Johns Prairie watershed. 10. Handwritten note on #9 above indicating per phonecon with Mariano we have forwarded the RNS information to the Squaxin Tribe. 11. Letter dated 2127109 to Squaxin Tribe Natural Resources enclosing RNS information and clarifying that Mr Mariano has requested that we forward this information to the Tribe. Your project file is a large file. We have provided you here with the communications we understand you either no longer have, or do not remember. The above are specific to the water rights issues. If you need additional materials copied from the file, please let us know and we can work with you through the process. As you are aware, Johns Creek is an impaired water under state law. Last year the Skokomish Tribe requested that Ecology close the basin to further withdrawals. At this time the issue is unresolved; Mason County, the City of Shelton, Port of Shelton and the Squaxin Tribe are in the process of related ongoing discussions during the spring of 2009. At such time as we have more information on the progress of these discussions, we will be in contact with you to provide an update. Since Pam Bennett-Cumming Senior Planner. CC: Barbara Adkins Planning Manager Monty Cobb, Mason County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney g0 COON MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r rF Planning Shelton(360)427-9670 Belfair(360)275-4467 Mason County Bldg.1 Elma(360)482-5269 411 N 5th Street PO Box 279 154 Shelton,WA 98584 HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us February 17, 2009 Dave Mariano TO BE KEPT IN THE DB Industries LLC PA RC L L FILE 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Parcels 32004-43-90025, 32004-43-90026, 32004-43-90027, 32004-43-90028. Dear Mr Mariano, Mason County Planning Department is in receipt of your letter dated December 5, 200Y.: We apologize for not acknowledging receipt until now. Like many other institutions, the County has had to make staffing cuts and reorganize duties among those remaining. We thank you for submitting the information related to Robinson Noble Saltbush's assessment of hydrogeological implications of the withdrawal of groundwater for your proposed Johns Prairie'Business Park. This information will be added to your case file for this project. We would also like to provide you with a brief update on the status of issues relating to new commercial withdrawals of water in the Johns Creek/Johns Prairie watershed. As you are aware, Johns Creek is an impaired water under state law. Last year the Skokomish Tribe requested that Ecology close the basin to further withdrawals. At this time the issue is unresolved; Mason County and the City of Shelton are in the process of related ongoing discussions during the spring of 2009. At such time as we have more information on the progress of these discussions, we will be in contact with you to provide an update. Sincer Pam Be ne t-Cumming Senior Planner, Water Resources and current planning. Lk ltvvv' I alll UGIIIIGII-VUII III III ly - JVIIIIJ r-IdIIIC VVdICI L1.SUub rage l From: Barbara Robinson To: dkmariano@msn.com Date: 12/26/2007 2:41 PM Subject: Johns Prairie Water Issues CC: Pam Bennett-Cumming; Tim Sheldon Dave, I had a chance to talk to Commissioner Sheldon this morning about the water issues relative to your proposed development site on Johns Prairie. There was a meeting last week with the Squaxin Island Tribe, Port of Shelton, EDC and Commissioner Sheldon. The discussion was solely on water issues within the Johns Creek aquifer,specifically the requests for development in that area. The result of the discussion was that all agreed to seek funding from DOE to perform a study or analysis of the aquifer and the impacts associated with development in the area. There was a proposal to extend the existing line from the Port at Belco Forest Products toward the City water line, but all agreed that the study is necessary prior to any line extension without an analysis as to water availability or impacts.The problem with your site is that you have an exempt well, but the tribe stated their stand on usage for commercial activities, basically opposing any use beyond residential use. I know that you stated that you would be able to obtain documentation from sources to support your minimal use of water at your proposed site,which may be worth seeking; however,there is no assurance that this will be sufficient enough to assure no impacts to the aquifer.The information may be a tool in which you can develop an agreement with the Squaxin Island Tribe assuring them that the water usage is minimal and that the water will only be used until another approval water sources is available. Commissioner Sheldon indicated that the County has agreed to work with the Tribe on obtaining information through a study to determine affects of water usage on the aquifer. We could not sign off on the SEPA for your project without some assurance the concerns of the Tribe have been addressed. Your best option would be to work with the Tribe and develop an agreement,similar to what the County did in the construction of our new PW facility. We are in a difficult situation at this point, in that we cannot release the SEPA until we have satisfied the concerns of the Tribe with regard to water usage. Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670, Ext. 603 barbarr@co.mason.wa.us ----- Original Message ----- From: Barbara Robinson<mailto:BarbarR()co.mason wa us> To: DAVE MARIANO<mailto:dkmariano()msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Johns Praire Business Park Dave, I finally had a chance to talk to all three commissioners yesterday. Commissioner Sheldon stated that DOE will not have money for the analysis of the John Creek Watershed until next year. The Commission is not willing to push ahead using exempt wells for commercial uses in conflict with the Squaxin Tribe. As you know there is a legal battle in process between the tribe and DOE. Hopefully that will be resolved soon. As for your project, we can support you proceeding through the use of another approved water source as you stated was available to you. This water source must have water rights, capacity and connection ability to serve you and what ever else they currently serve. You will need to submit documentation is writing to Pam Bennett Cumming so that she can amend the SEPA to reflect the water usage issue. This documentation must address the rights, capacity and connection issues specifically for your project. Please get that to Pam as soon as you can so that we can proceed. If you have any questions, please contact me. Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670, Ext. 603 barbarrCa�co.mason.wa.us<mailto:barbarr co.mason.wa.us> >'» "DAVE MARIANO" <dkmariano(almsn com<mailto:dkmariano msn.com>> 4/1/2008 8:21 AM >>> Barb, any word yet? We just got another request to lease space yesterday. Our intent is to build 6 buildings over 2 phases of 3. So far by word of mouth only we have over half of phase 1 rented to 4 new businesses. But I can't give or more importantly, can't get a letter of intent from them until we can get this sorted out. The 4 businesses pledged to come include a 1 new business start up, 1 business relocation for purposes of growing, and 2 established business from outside MC coming here to serve our residents needs. Each of the 4 business have 3-4 employees each or 12-16 new jobs so far and this only half of phase 1. I'm confused why the Commissioners would sup oft Cordelane ood products as well as other projects even higher in the aquifer where im truly exist and not this effort low in aquifer where it is questionable at best if the really is an impact at all. I'm also confused that the environmental process that I th nk is suppose to judge the project on its merits (merits that I think we have addresse and mitigated) is being influenced a bit by politics. Sorry to whine but we are ge ng desperate to move forward. The alternative is quickly becoming fold and forggt it. While this action by us to stop the losses would practically be a declaration of bankruptcy or at least a measure to stop it from happening, it would also be a huge loss to the community. This project has the potential to create upwards of 30+ new jobs, suppo'tt economic development, and create new revenue sources for the community throughsales taxes, personal property taxes, as well as REET revenue. Thanks Barb for helping us to move this forward. We really, do appreciate your help! But I also need to let you know the challenges we are facingwhile we wait. Dave M 360.701.6623 dca,U dlvl� M1— i >>> Barbara Robinson 4/1/2008 8:39 AM >>> '4f Pam, would you watch for this. When will you be on vacation? Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670, Ext. 603 barbarrCabco.mason.wa us >>> "DAVE MARIANO" <dkmariano()msn.com> 4/1/2008 8:45 AM >>> THANK YOU BARB!!! I will have the system operator address our planned use of water, his available connections, and confirm that this volume is available and within his allowed usage. I will get this statement over to Pam ASAP. Thank you thank you! Dave M 5 (4/1/2008) Pam Bennett-Cumming - Fwd-. Re: Johns Praire Business Park Page 1 From: Pam Bennett-Cumming To: Barbara Robinson Date: 4/1/2008 9:13 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Johns Praire Business Park CC: dkmariano@msn.com Thank you Barb, I am gone next week, i.e. the week of April 7-11th. Dave, I am cc-ing you too, to clarify one issue you didn't address in your reply to Barb. We will need documentary evidence of the water right as well. Le not only a statement from the system operator to include details of hookups, volumes etc - but also a copy of their water right. Looking forward to getting the information we need, so our review can move forward. pam Pam Bennett-Cumming, M.E.S Senior Planner - Water Resource Planning Mason County Department of Community Development 411 North 5th PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 phone: (360) 427-9670 x287 fax: (360) 427-8425 email: pambc@co.mason.wa.us ----- Original Message ----- From: Pam Bennett-Cumming<mailto:PamBC(a)co mason wa us> To: Barbara Robinson<mailto:BarbarR(a)co.mason wa us> ; DAVE MARIANO<mailto:dkmariano msn com> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:39 PM Subject: Re: Re: Johns Praire Business Park Dave, I have re-read Barbara's earlier email and it is quite clear that what she, and the commissioners require is: a)documentation of an Ecology issued water right for a Group A well. and b) documentation that there is enough excess capacity available to your development, to meet its needs. Once we have those we will evaluate their applicability to your situation. I hope this clarifies things for you. pam Pam Bennett-Cumming, M.E.S Senior Planner - Water Resource Planning Mason County Department of Community Development 411 North 5th PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 phone: (360) 427-9670 x287 fax: (360) 427-8425 email: pambc(c�co.mason wa us<mailto:pambc(&co mason wa us> >>> "DAVE MARIANO" <dkmariano msn com> 4/2/2008 12:03 AM >>> Pam?? I do not remember anyone saying a Group A well. The system I have access to is a Group B well. I think I was up front with that. Group B wells are commonly used for community wells throughout MC and is the same classification as the Oak Park system approved for use by Courdelane Wood products. As for the water right, we are debating a point of law. Any system that is operating at 5,000 gallons or less has been effectively granted an automatic water right for it by RCW 90-44. RCW 90-44 mandates that a Water Right is required to remove waters of the state in excess of 5,000 gallons per day. The law is very specific in that if you are using less than this threshold then you are exempted from the requirement. Because of this you will not get a specific recorded water right. Instead you will get an operators license with a stipulation for a maximum draw for that amount. Thanks Dave M_ (4q2/ 08) Pam Bennett-Cumming - Re: Re: Johns Praire Business Park Page 1 From: Pam Bennett-Cumming To: DAVE MARIANO Date: 4/2/2008 9:21 AM Subject: Re: Re: Johns Praire Business Park CC: Barbara Robinson Dave, I wish I could say differently, but our hands are tied on this issue. Please see cut and paste of Barb's email about the Board's position. " Dave, I finally had a chance to talk to all three commissioners yesterday. Commissioner Sheldon stated that DOE will not have money for the analysis of the John Creek Watershed until next year. The Commission is not willing to push ahead using exempt wells for commercial uses in conflict with the Squaxin Tribe. As you know there is a legal battle in process between the tribe and DOE. Hopefully that will be resolved soon. As for your project, we can support you proceeding through the use of another approved water source as you stated was available to you. This water source must have water rights, capacity and connection ability to serve you and what ever else they currently serve. You will need to submit documentation is writing to Pam Bennett c Cumming so that she can amend the SEPA to reflect the water usage issue. This documentation must address the rights, capacity and connection issues specifically for your project. Please get that to Pam as soon as you can so that we can proceed. If you have any questions, please contact me." , Barb explained to me that she did reference Coeur d'Alene's situation to you as the example of what would work. They are obtaining water from a system with a recorded water right from ecology, which they produced for our (and the Squaxin Tribe's) review. That worked. We are hoping you are in a similar situation because it appears that is the only way. I hope this clarifies things for you, pambc Pam Bennett-Cumming, M.E.S Senior Planner - Water Resource Planning Mason County Department of Community Development 411 North 5th PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 phone: (360) 427-9670 x287 fax: (360) 427-8425 email: pambc@co.mason.wa.us P50N Co MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Shelton(360)427-9670 Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467 411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269 PO Box 279 1854 Shelton,WA 98584 HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us February 17, 2009 Dave Mariano DB Industries LLC 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Parcels 32004-43-90025, 32004-43-90026, 32004-43-90027, 32004-43-90028. Dear Mr Mariano, Mason County Planning Department is in receipt of your letter dated December 5, 2009. We apologize for not acknowledging receipt until now. Like many other institutions, the County has had to make staffing cuts and reorganize duties among those remaining. We thank you for submitting the information related to Robinson Noble Saltbush's assessment of hydrogeological implications of the withdrawal of groundwater for your proposed Johns Prairie-Business Park. This information will be added to your case file for this project. We would also like to provide you with a brief update on the status of issues relating to newcommercial withdrawals of water in the Johns Creek/Johns Prairie watershed. As you are aware, Johns Creek is an impaired water under state law. Last year the Skokomish Tribe requested that Ecology close the basin to further withdrawals. At this time the issue is unresolved; Mason County and the City of Shelton are in the process of related ongoing discussions during the spring of 2009. At such time as we have more information on the progress of these discussions, we will be in contact with you to provide an update. Sincer Pam Be n�t-Cumming �OSenior Planner, Water Resources and current planning. 4 °x Co MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Shelton(360)427-9670 J Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467 411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269 PO Box 279 18.54 Shelton,WA 98584 HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us f February 27, 2009 Squaxin Tribe Natural Resources ATTN: John Konovsky 2952 Old Olympic Hwy Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Dave Mariano's DB Industries project, located at proposed Johns Prairie Business Park,:" parcels 32004-43-90025, 32004-43-90026, 32004-43-90027, 32004-43-90028. Dear Mr Konovsky: The above project has been pending resolution of the water-related issues in the Johns-Creek basin, which is an impaired basin under WAC 173-514. In 2007 Mason County withdrew the SEPA determination on the above project at the request of the Squaxin Tribe, who cited the potential for cumulative impact to Johns Creek from further water withdrawals including what would be.proposed by this project :.At this time it is our understanding that the Squaxin Tribe,the City of Shelton; the Port of Shelton and rt,... Mason County are Conducting discussions on how to move;.forward.on this issue -- relative to:Ecology's administration of the WAC, and the need for the jurisdictional governments to be corisistent with the code. :Earlier Squaxin had requested that Ecology close.the.basin to any further withdrawals.. The . short-term outcome has.been the discussions referenced above,which identify the need to move forward on further study of groundwater in the basin. Mr. Mariano has sent us additional documents(hydrogeological assessment, traffic impacts-analysis), and requested that we reverse our withdrawal of the County's SEPA determination. Staff has'explained in writing that we are not able to do so at this time, pending outcome of the necessary,hydrogeological studies and any necessary subsequent actions. Nonetheless, Mr Mariano has contacted staff and asked them to provide the hydrogeological information to the Squaxin Tribe, for their comment and response. Please find enclosed a cover letter from Mr Mariano dated December 5, 2008, together with Robinson Noble Saltbush Inc's assessment of hydrogeological implications of withdrawal, dated November 11, 2008. if you have any questions of the County, I can be reached at 360.427-9670 est 287. Sincer . , Pam Ben tt- mmi , en PI er enclosures cc: Barbara Adkins, DCD Manager j (5/19/2009) Pam Bennett-Cumming - Fwd: Re: Status of Mariano project on John's Prairie. Page 1 r . From: Pam Bennett-Cumming To: Barbara Adkins Subject: Fwd: Re: Status of Mariano project on John's Prairie. Good morning, At Lynda's request, I provided her with a brief update on Mariano. She had a visit from him Friday or Monday, and indicated to him there was nothing we could do. She also asked for an update, to verify her understanding. As you can see below, she is saying we should sent the letter by registered mail, return receipt, once it has been approved by Monty. pbc >>> Lynda Ring-Erickson 5/18/2009 5:15 PM >>> Thanks, Pam. I did have it about right. We should send the letter registered mail, return reciept requested. Lynda >>> Pam Bennett-Cumming 05/18/09 3:16 PM >>> Good afternoon, At your request, here is information on the status of the Dave Mariano (DB Industries) project on John's Prairie Road. In 2007 The applicant submitted a grading permit for proposed Johns Prairie Business Park (4 adjacent parcels), together with a SEPA checklist. Because SEPA requires that the entire project be addressed, the checklist included his proposed build-out, which would be four or more 6,000 square foot business buildings on the parcels. The sites are served by an exempt well. We initially issued a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance. Within the comment period the Squaxin Tribe requested in writing that we withdraw the SEPA, citing WAC173-514 which closed the basin to further appropriation of water in hydraulic continuity with the creek(summer flows not met), and because the closure includes a restriction limiting exempt wells to in-house single domestic use. Squaxin requested that the water solution be acceptable to both the County and the Tribe, and not be in hydraulic continuity to Johns Creek. Mason County withdrew the SEPA determination, citing the above comments and the need for a traffic study. The second issue has been addressed to the satisfaction of Mason County and DOT. As with other similar projects where the Squaxin Tribe has raised the water issues, we suggested to the applicant that the best way through this process was to work with the Tribe toward a mutually agreeable solution. This is what happened with the Coeur D'Alene and Mason County Public Works projects-with both coming to an acceptable resolution. With both of those the Tribe wrote to us withdrawing their objections, and we were able to re-issue the SEPAs and approve the projects. To my understanding this is the main Planning issue holding up the project. Mr Mariano recently deepened his well and provided a document from a hydrogeologist indicating that the well was not in hydraulic continuity with the Creek. We forwarded this information to the Tribe, but it is our understanding from Mr Mariano that he has not had any success with the Tribe. We have explained to him that the water solution needs to be acceptable to both the County and the Tribe, to be successful. We have communicated this information to him several times, however he recently indicated to Barbara Adkins that he was unaware of this. At her request staff has drafted a letter to Mr Mariano addressing and including the several communications to him. The letter is currently being reviewed by Monty Cobb, DPA, prior to being sent out to him. Please let me know if you have any questions - I'd be happy to provide any information you need. pbc Pam Bennett-Cumming, M.E.S. Senior Planner-Water Resources Mason County Department of Community Development 411 North 5th PO Box 279 f O � v a f� V7 Q i C� •+cyst S�s�c� s 'Pro posc6 T 1 ' z+V cc -%p. 4-he de sg.a 4 L,e"4 J C v O � ?I'o po se C,6w nJi l �-o Lx•� X';♦ c9�s;�a .t'�r '`q �: Nc 1-'tJ��vS�wiW� �.Otbaid..i f to;LS .y t Uei%gncd 44VI Lac 4c Need 2 �y�S�rv1q nlbPes•cAA� 7S�?�QiGel FU�Url T✓'cc-�muJ��r?c{c�.1a%� Wc1� r� 5 ��be Leto%�or� •1.�X'�) Cc��IA���o,�s t f , Q J . (7/24/2009) Barbara Adkins- SEP2007-00142 Page 11 From: Kell McAboy To: DAVE MARIANO; John Konovsky; pattimc@portofshelton.com CC: Barbara Adkins Date: 7/24/2009 10:48 AM Subject: SEP2007-00142 Attachments: SEP2007-00142 all comments.pdf The SEPA comment period for the above mentioned SEPA closed on July 21, 2009.Attached are all of the received comments fyi. The county retains the MDNS determination. Kell McAboy,Land Use Planner Mason County DCD 411 N. 5th/P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 360.427.9670 ext.363 ® ROBINSON NOBLESALTBUSH INC.F..biwai947 GROUNDWATER&ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS July 21, 2009 Dave Mariano DB Industries LLC 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton WA, 98584 Subject: Response to comment letters from Squaxin Island Tribe and Port of Shelton regarding the MDNS for your proposed Johns Prairie Bus ness Park Project Dear Dave, I have just received and reviewed the email with the comment letters attached and wanted to respond as quickly as possible. My response to the Squaxin Island Tribe's comment is actually quite simple. The PCHB case cited by the Tribe (PCHB No. 96-66) is a case that I was involved with and with which I am quite familiar. The issue that was addressed by the PCHB was not one of hydrology but one of governance of water rights. The PCHB's point was that a water right is issued in perpetuity and the Department of Ecology has no authority to require that'on- site septic systems (with their inherent groundwater recharge component) are also used in perpetuity. The PCHB used this argument to sidestep the scientific facts that 1) return flow from such system is equivalent to 70 to 90 percent of associated groundwater withdrawals, and 2) the return flow recharges to shallower groundwater systems which provide base flow for streams much more efficiently than leakage from deeper groundwater systems. The PCHB did not find these scientific arguments invalid. Mr. Konovsky improperly presumes that the PCHB rejection of these arguments was a finding of fact against them or the science behind them. This was not the basis for the ruling, and the arguments stand as presented. Further, State statutes enacted subsequent to that particular PCHB case (reflected in RCW 90.44.055)instruct Ecology to consider the overall net impact of the water resource management changes that will occur from a project. Within that context alone, it is clear that our finding of net benefit is consistent with State water law. That said, State water law is not the function of the SEPA process. SEPA is to consider the real-world implications of a project to the environment. The letter we provided, and that is quoted by the Squaxin Island Tribe, was written to address the SEPA aspect of the project. We stand by our assertion that the water resource result of the use of the deep well (to provide water to the project) and a septic drainfield (to treat waste water and return it to the environment) is a net benefit to stream flow. Mr. Konovsky's attempt 3011 South Huson Street,Suite A Tacoma,Washington 98409 ■ (253)475-7711 ■ Fax:(253)472-5846 e-mail: mail@robinson-noblc.com July 21, 2009 Page 2 to obscure the science with an incorrect assertion that water rights law somehow precludes the proper application of science is unfortunate. Since the flow of water to Johns Creek will clearly be enhanced by the project as proposed, and the Tribe's stated concern is the hydrology of Johns Creek, I do not understand the motivation for the negative comment or for their opposition to the project on a water-resource basis. The comments from the Port of Shelton appear to be related to governance and policy issues, not issues related to water-resource impacts. I decline the opportunity to respond to those comments in that the expertise we have provided to the project does not deal with those aspects. I will say that the water system, as proposed, legally accesses water, as far as I am aware, since the exempt well option remains on the table in Mason County at this time. I hope that this review is adequate for your response to Mason County. If there are questions, please contact me. Respectfully submitted, e o{ wash��� F.Michael Krautkramer, LHG, RG Principal Hydrogeologist Hydrogeo(ogist W F,MICHAEL KRAUTKRAMER ,3TATg 4. r x J � 2 't 1889 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47775 •Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 •(360)407-6300 711 for Washington Relay Service •Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341 July 21, 2009 Mr. Kell McAboy, Land Use Planner Your address Mason County is in the Department of Community Development Kennedy- Planning Division 4 PO Box 279 Goldsborough Shelton, WA 98584 watershed Dear Mr. McAboy: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the John's Prairie Business Park project (SEP2007-00142) located at 3160 East John's Prairie Road in Shelton as proposed by DB Industries, LLC. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s): SOLID WASTE & FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: Anya Caudill (360) 407-6084 Property owners, developers, and contractors are encouraged to recycle all possible leftover construction, demolition, and land clearing (CDL) materials and reduce waste generated. Recycling construction debris is often less expensive than landfill disposal. Please call Ecology's 1-800-RECYCLE hotline for facilities in the area that will accept CDL materials for reuse or recycling. WATER RESOURCES: Vicki Cline (360) 407-0278 Any proposed ground water withdrawal from an on-site community water system within the John's Prairie Business Park is limited to 5,000 gallons per day in accordance with Chapter 90.44 RCW. Any ground water withdrawals in excess of 5,000 gallons per day or for the irrigation of more than one-half acre of lawn or noncommercial garden, requires a water right permit from Ecology. All water wells shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 173-160 WAC by a driller licensed in the State of Washington. Well reports must be submitted to Ecology within 30 days after completion of a well. All water wells that may be drilled must be a minimum of 100 feet from any known, suspected, or potential source of contamination. Wells shall not be located within 1,000 feet of a solid waste landfill. July 21, 2009 Page 2 The Growth Management Act (Section 63) requires an applicant to submit evidence of an adequate water supply before a building permit can be issued for any building requiring potable water. Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such, they may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action. If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments, please contact the appropriate reviewing staff listed above. Department of Ecology Southwest Regional Office (AW: 09-3993) cc: Anya Caudill Vicki Cline, WR Dave Mariano and Robert Olsen, c/o DB Industries, LLC PORT OF SHELTON AVIATION I INDUSTRIAL MARINE July 20, 2009 Kell Mc Aboy Mason County, DCD PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: SEP2007-00142 Dear Ms. McAboy: This morning I was able to meet with Dave Mariano of DB Industries LLC. He was able to answer the questions that were in the Port's SEPA earlier comment letter. No further mitigation measures will be necessary with regard to fire flow. Further since it appears that there is no irrigation planned for the landscaping, the projected water use of 500 gpd appears adequate. Therefore, we are not expecting any further response as a result of our earlier comments. We still concur with the MDNS determination for this project. This morning's meeting did provide a good opportunity to begin conversations on how DB Industries LLC, the Port, and others may be able to partner to address fire flow. Sincerely, Patti Miller-Crowley Planning & Development Director Cc: Steve Goins, City of Shelton Bob Smith, PUD 3 Matt Matayoshi, EDC Dave O'Connel, MCT Jon Konovski, Squaxin Island Tribe Uortl om am\Planning'&Develop ent\S WA EPAWason Count\7 2�q 4 N�DS f9J.s�rlf.YLLC. d�w.portofshelton.com P P Y 9 Y k ;1e SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE :....... .+....._... ........ .... . ......i... _7:r,:. ..•ca4:.d8grty'r.::.'- L'S1v t 16 July 2009 Kell McAboy Mason County Department of Community Development POB 279 Shelton, WA 98584 SUB: SEP2007-00142 Dear Ms McAboy, am writing on behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribe to request that you withdraw the MDNS for the DB Industries LLC proposal. In our opinion, the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the environment, particularly water resources in the Johns Creek basin. The proponent's own consultant, Robinson and Noble, concluded that based on the planned use, there will be an impact on the shallow aquifer and streamflow from pumping a well located in a deeper aquifer under the property. It is small, but none-the-less as Robinson and Noble correctly noted, an impact that is regulated by state law. The mistake that disqualifies this proposal from an MDNS determination occurred in the formulation of a mitigation plan. Robinson and Noble incorrectly apply a septic return flow credit for the impact to streamflow. However, they have overlooked a Pollution Control Hearings Board decision (PCHB No. 96-66) that clearly states in conclusion 3: as a matter of law, an applicant is not entitled to apply any return flow from septic systems at its site to mitigate again its proposed groundwater withdrawal. When the septic return credit is taken away, the environmental impact on water resources in the Johns Creek basin legally remains and thus, an MDNS determination is inappropriate. Robinson and Noble may argue that the PCHB decision does not apply to exempt wells. However, other than permitting issues, exempt wells are subject to all provisions of the state water code. Our conclusion is that to move forward with this proposal as written is a violation of the state water code. I urge you to withdraw the determination and ask DB Industries to try and correct the deficien- cies. n Sincerely, ( t Jofl Konovsky, Environmental Program Manager SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE / 70 S.E. Squaxin Lane / Shelton, WA 98584 / Phone (360) 426-9781 Tribal Council (360) 426-9781 Natural Resources (360) 426-9783 Health Clinic (360) 427-9006 July 16, 2009 PORT OF SHELTON AVIATION I INDUSTRIAL MARINE Kell McAboy Mason County, DCD PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: SEP2007-00142 Dear Ms. McAboy: The Port does not object to the MDNS per se but has the following concerns: 1. Given the site plan configuration and topography, it appears that the southernmost two lots could easily be used for additional future development unless there is some physical constraint that would preclude this such as drainfields, wetlands, well protection area or buffer areas. If there are constraints such as this, their approximate location should be identified on the site plan. If, however, there are any plans for future expansion, this should be identified under question 7 and should be reflected in the supporting reports. 2. Question b.2 (page 5) indicates upwards of 6 buildings will be constructed for the purpose of commercial retail space leasing (see also question 6 a). Per the recently adopted Development Regulations, in the Industrial Zone, permitted commercial retail is limited to sale of goods or products that serve industrial property. If the intent is to provide commercial retail space to serve the general public, this would require a zone change. General commercial retail in this area would not be compatible with nearby heavy industrial traffic and should not be permitted. 3. Additional detail is desired regarding what the "fire system monitoring services" will consist of (question 15 a). Fire flow capability is currently lacking at this site. It appears that the plan is to establish a new community well to serve this development but there is no discussion of establishing storage capacity. Therefore, fire fighting capacity will be limited. We would like more detail for assurance that the proposed development will not pose a fire threat to or be unduly threatened by the adjacent timber-based industries at Johns Prairie. Based on this detail, mitigation might include measures that would ensure there would be sufficient fire fighting capacity on-site. 4. Water production of 500 gpd seems rather low for a development serving 36-54 employees as well as landscaping. 21 W Sanderson Way, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)426-1151 (360)427-0231 fax www.portofsheiton.com CADocuments and Settings\enniferg\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\SOFJR62N\7 14 09 MDNS DB Industries LLC(2).doc Finally, although this is not strictly a SEPA issue, it relates to the need for fire flow and municipal water all along Johns Prairie Road. The Port is operating under an interim agreement with the Department of Ecology which limits the Port's water use at Johns Prairie, with connection to public water system required by Jan. 1, 2010. This has significantly impacted the Port's ability to support industrial growth at Johns Prairie. Meanwhile, private development is continuing to be proposed to be served by either individual or community wells (i.e., SEP2009-00026 (Kamin) and this proposal) and/or private development has been required to expend significant funds on water storage to provide on-site fire flow capability (i.e., SEP2007-00101 (Coeur d' Alene Fiber Fuels)). This unduly burdens individual property developers and reduces the incentive to resolve the fire flow issue to the benefit of all affected parties. Further, approval of each additional individual or community well introduces a new potential point of contamination to this critical aquifer. The Port welcomes the opportunity to meet with the County, private property owners, the City, PUD 3, Squaxin Tribe, DOE and others to expedite resolution of the water & fire flow problem in a more comprehensive manner to benefit all involved. 72,ely, Patti Miller-Crowley Planning & Development Director Cc: Steve Goins, City of Shelton Bob Smith, PUD 3 Matt Matayoshi, EDC Dave O'Connel, MCT Jon Konovski, Squaxin Island Tribe CADocuments and Settings\jenniferglLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\SOFJR62N\7 14 09 MDNS DB Industries LLC(2),doc (7/15/2009) Kell McAboy- Mariano Office Park Page 1 From: "Dave Salzer" <acsalzer@ci.shelton.wa.us> To: "KELL MCABOY" <KeIIM@co.mason.wa.us>, "LARRY WATERS" <law@co.mason.wa.us> CC: "Dave O'Leary" <doleary@ci.shelton.wa.us>, "RICHARD KNIGHT" <chief@mason... Date: 7/14/2009 3:08 PM Subject: Mariano Office Park ** Reply Requested by 7/14/2009 (Tuesday) PAR2009-00027 The pre-sub meeting showed a site plan with 2 buildings. SEPA2007-00142 (MITIGATED DNS) shows a site plan with 6 buildings. Since there is no fire flow to the site, it appears that fire protection for the project will involve monitored fire alarm systems in all buildings (correct Larry?). Given that these buildings will be "spec" buildings, built to a general use, how will the County monitor uses by future tenants that may conduct activities that would require additional fire protections, i.e., sprinklers? Since the County does not issue business licenses, how will use of the buildings be monitored? The applicant kind of blew off that question, but the reality is that once the buildings are built and occupied, we (FD 5) will have no control over use and since eventual annexation (site is in the Shelton UGA) will leave the city with a fire protection liability. Pls. advise. Dave Salzer, Assistant Fire Chief Mason County FD5 Shelton Division 110 West Franklin Shelton, WA 98584 360-432-5170 clsalzer@ci.shelton.wa.us Page 1 of 1 Kell McAboy - RE: SEP2007-00142 From: "John Konovsky" <jkonovsky@squaxin.nsn.us> To: "'Kell McAboy- <KeIIM@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 6/26/2009 1:17 PM Subject: RE: SEP2007-00142 Attachments: PCHB Pt. Blakely.w.Pors.pdf Kell, Robinson and Noble conclude that based on the planned use, there will be an impact on the shallow aquifer and streamflow from pumping the well located in the deeper aquifer. It is small, but none-the-less as Robinson and Noble correctly conclude, an impact that is regulated by state law. They incorrectly then apply a septic return flow credit as mitigation for the impact to streamflow. However, they have overlooked a Pollution Control Hearings Board decision (see attached) that clearly states in conclusion 3: as a matter of law, an applicant is not entitled to apply any return flow from septic systems at its site to mitigate again its proposed groundwater withdrawal. When the septic return credit is taken away, there is a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and a DNS or MDNS is not approprate. Robinson and Noble may argue that the PCHB decision does not apply to exempt wells. But exempt wells are subject to state water code, they just don't require a permit. The bottom line is that even exempt wells drilled after the 1984 adoption of WAC 173-514 cannot impair streamflows and as proposed, the Mariano proposal does impair streamflow, it was drilled after 1984, and violates state water code. Hope that helps explain our position. Call if you have questions. John Konovsky n r �C ---------- �S (�� John Konovsky (n 0 Environmental Program Manager r' / I l W S uaxin Island Tribe 2952 SE Old Olympic Hwy + ITr) Shelton, WA 98584 TEL (360) 432-3804 � � w CEL (360) 49090-12121212 (NEW!) EMAIL jkonovsky@squaxin.nsn.us CC�t GL� e From: Kell McAboy [mailto:KeIIM@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:04 PM To: John Konovsky Subject: SEP2007-00142 Hi John, Attached is the Robinson Noble Saltbush Inc. analysis. Thanks in advance for any comments you can provide. Kell file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ke11M\Loca1 Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4A44CA82Maso... 6/26/2009 °N.STA MASON COUNTY 4P� , C �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ° S o Planning Division ° � ti P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2007-00142 Description of Proposal: Grading, stormwater features and construction of six or more 6,000 sq ft business buildings for Johns Prairie Business Park Proponent: DB INDUSTRIES LLC Site Address (If Assigned): 3160 E JOHNS PRAIRIE RD SHELTON Directions to Site: Johns Prairie road to 3160 East Johns Prairie Rd, Shelton Parcel Number: 320044390025 Legal Description: W1/2 TR 2 OF N 30 AC.OF SW SE PCL 7 OF BLA #97-51 #667206 (R) TR 1 OF SP #2843 #639073 Lead Agency: Mason County The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public upon request. MITIGATED MEASURES ARE ATTACHED. Please contact Kell McAboy at ext. 363 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 7/21/2009. Appeal of this determination must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals. � 17h Authorize Local Governmen Offl 'al Date MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (WAC 197-11-350) SEP2007-00142 CONDITIONS OF THIS DETERMINATION �) A Stormwater Site Plan (SSP) will be created and implemented prior to development, clearing, grading, or construction of any portion of the proposed segregation. X 2) Emergency vehicle apparatus access roads shall conform with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and Mason County Title 16. If the access road cannot conform, special conditions will be placed on any building permit issued on property that is served by a non-conforming access road. Contact the Mason County Fire Marshal for details. 3) Site is within a portion of the county designated as Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. Title Notification has been recorded. Resource Ordinance Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Chapter 17.01.080 has specific provisions for allowed and prohibited land uses at this site. This business park proposal is to perform site grading, and construct access roads, stormwater facilities, and construct more than six 6,000 square foot business buildings. Applicant agrees that at the time of proposed uses for these buildings, proposals must undergo County review for consistency with Critical Aquifer Recharge Area provisions and other county requirements. x MASON CO. ENVIROMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: John's Prairie Business Park 2. Name of applicant- Dave Mariano and Robert Olsen, c/o DB Industries, LLC 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 360.701.6623, or K",VT� 360.490.2634 Q) c,P� 4. Date checklist prepared: September 4, 2007 5. Agency requesting checklist: Mason County 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 2008, Construct access road and related infrastructure. Begin erecting structures 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal: If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 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. None. 10. List any governme t approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. None. �O uL L4�n� �. �� _��1 d �PrtMitil�J 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The project proposes to complete a boundary line adjustment (BLA) within an existing 4 lot ownership resulting in 4 lots approximately 2 acre each. Upon completion of the BLA infrastructure will be installed and the project will proceed towards constructing upwards of 6 pre-engineered steel structures intended for commercial leasing. Each building will be approximately 6,000 sf and will house, depending on tenant needs, 1-3 tenants each. The project will be phased with the first phase constructing 3 buildings as needed on the NW parcel. This will be followed 3 more buildings in a second phase, as they are needed, on the NE parcel. 12. What is the 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 project is located in Mason County approximately 3 miles east of Shelton on John's Prairie Road. More specifically parcel no 32004490025, 32004490026, 32004490027, 32004490028 located in Section 4, Township 20 North, Range 3 West, W.M. A site plan has been prepared and submitted for your review as a part of other plans and submittals. 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)? The property is relatively flat with a slight slope to the south of 1-2 feet over 400 feet, approximately 0.5%. 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. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 2 The NRCS soils survey for Mason County classifies the on site soils as Carstairs Gravelly Loam (hydrologic Group B). Soil testing confirmed the Carstairs series classification. (Olympic Engineering, Drainage Report dated August 2007, Soils Report Parnell Engineering dated March 2007) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity: If so, describe. None e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The purpose for grading and filling proposed for the site is for construction of the roadway providing ingress and egress, establish vehicle parking areas, and level platforms to construct the proposed buildings upon. The grading is proposed to be balanced as much as possible with excavations used for embankment construction. However, depending on the nature of stripping materials encountered the site could experience approximately 1 ,000 cy of imported granular material to supplement existing excavated materials. The source of any imported materials is likely to be from adjacent established quarry sites. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use: If so, generally describe. No. The soils at the site are granular, the site flat, and in general there is little opportunity for lateral movement of the granular soils and there is very little existing silts that would be subject to movement as the result of runoff. Minimal erosion and sediment control measures should prove adequate to protect neighboring properties and waters of the State. A sediment control plan has been prepared consisting of silt fences, designated wash down areas for trucks and concrete mixers as well as a stabilized construction entrance. In addition imported topsoil's will be protected from rains and stabilized in place with plantings and mulches. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project constructions (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 2.9 acres or 37% of the 7.7 acre site will be covered with impervious surface. This impervious surface includes roadways, parking, and building areas. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The Erosion Control Report prepared by Olympic Engineering indicates soils that are granular in nature. The site is relatively flat, in general there is little opportunity for the lateral movement of granular soils and there are very little existing silts that would be subject to movement as the result of runoff. Minimal erosion and sediment control measures should prove adequate to protect neighboring properties and waters of the State. A sediment control plan has been Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 3 prepared consisting of silt fences, designated wash down areas for trucks and concrete mixers as well as a stabilized construction entrance. 2. AIR: a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, and industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. The construction phase of the project could release dust during movement of existing soils and emissions from equipment working at the site. Dust will be controlled by watering the site as needed. Emissions from construction equipment will be minimized through the use of modern properly maintained equipment. Upon completion emissions will be limited to vehicles entering and leaving the site. Tenant businesses at the site will not be of a nature that creates emissions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During construction modern equipment will be used. All equipment will be properly maintained and will operate in a state of better repair maintaining exhaust emissions within normal expectations. Dust will be managed during construction by limiting dust producing activities where appropriate and applying water to work areas where needed to keep dust particulate to a minimum. During operation the roadway grades, utility, and minimal volumes generated by the few businesses will be such that emissions from idling vehicles, stop and go traffic, or traffic platooning between traffic control facilities will be minimized. 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. None Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 4 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. LA 1>t k a tiv�a -� _F6h No, ground water will not be withdrawn for the construction of thig' ISroject. Water, if needed for compaction or dust control will be imported from off site commercial sources 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. The project proposes to construct upwards of 6 buildings for the purpose of commercial retail space leasing. These will be built in 2 phases constructing 3 buildings on each of the 2 lots established adjacent John's Prairie Road. A septic facility will be constructed for each parcel encompassing 3 buildings each. Sewage discharges will be that generally associated with domestic sewage. No industrial discharges will be permitted into the septic facility. In addition there will be no discharges of chemicals or agricultural wastes on the site. A septic design has been completed and submitted for your review. Its capacity is designed around 15 employees per building or 45 employees per system generating a maximum amount of approximately 675 gallons of domestic sewage per Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 5 day. (Parnell Engineering Septic Design, July 2007). However it should be noted the actual occupancy planned for the buildings is somewhat less. C. Water runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff will be generated from parking areas and building roofs. Runoff will sheet flow to the center of the facility where it will be intercepted for treatment and detention through biofiltration swales, underground retention, and infiltration. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters: If so, generally describe. No. Waste materials generated by the facility during operation will limited, if any at all, and will not be allowed to be stored on site. However, should an accident occur the material can be intercepted on the hard surfaces within the buildings or intercepted in the parking areas as it sheet flows toward the drainage facilities. If it were to reach the drainage facility it will then be collected by biofiltration swales where it can be slowed, skimmed, and/or removed through various spill response methods. Road film, etc., will be filtered and removed as part of the normal drainage treatment features including biofiltaration swales, check dams, rock blankets etc. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See above 4. PLANTS: a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation There are no existing trees and vegetation is limited in the gravelly areas of the proposed site of work. Existing vegetation consists of patches of grasses in the gravely areas of the site. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 6 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site has limited vegetation in the areas proposed for construction. Minor amounts of grasses exist and will be removed as part of the grubbing operation. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any- Existing native plants on the balance of the 8 acre site will be maintained in their natural state as much as possible. Planted buffers with doubled density of plantings will be installed as part of the screening needed between parcels. Native plantings will be used to the extent possible in order to accomplish this. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None have been observed. This site is situated between existing light and heavy industrial uses. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Nothing specific is planned. The site is situated between existing light and heavy industrial uses. A natural boundary will be maintained at the back of the property against adjacent ownerships. 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. The businesses are commercial retail in nature and could incorporate a small light industrial activity as part of the business activity. Each building will be set up with its own individual 200 amp single phase service. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 7 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties: If so, generally describe. No C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The use of equipment during construction that is in good repair minimizing fuel consumption. Utilizing excavations that are adjacent to embankment needs in order to minimize haul. Utilizing a shortened haul route where possible through adjacent private property rather then longer routes across public roads. Using adjacent established quarry sites for additional imported materials thereby reducing haul. Implementing existing code requirements for building efficiencies including insulation and the use natural lighting where possible. 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. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Spill response plan will be established for accidental fuel spills during construction and after during operation. b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? There are several sources of noise in the vicinity of this site. These include grinders, bark producers, wood waste recyclers, lumber mill activities, etc. At this time it is not anticipated that these sources will affect the project. The milling activities are some distance away and the bark manufacturer and wood recycler have a limited use of their grinders. 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 hour's noise would come from the site. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 8 Short term construction noise during daylight hours. During operation there would be limited, if any, noise generated from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Use of modern equipment including mufflers maintained in good repair. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE: a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Currently the site is maintained as undeveloped property. Adjacent lands are developed and used as light industrial applications. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No C. Describe any structures on the site. There is an existing dilapidated home on the adjacent parcels within the site that will likely be removed. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The existing home is located on the back 2 parcels of the site and will eventually be removed. Its current state is habitable but can not reasonably be repaired. As a result it will ultimately be removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is currently zoned industrial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The site is currently located within the County but within the city of Shelton UGA boundary. g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? N/A Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 9 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. This industrial zoned area is within the boundaries of a designated aquifer recharge area i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The 6 buildings of the project are anticipated to generate between 6 - 9 jobs per building. Over 6 buildings this would range 36 to 54 jobs at the site. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Existing land uses allow residential, light industrial, and heavy industrial based businesses. The site will integrate itself into this surrounding by using a boulevard approach to movement of traffic through the business park, building materials and architecture that blend with existing light industrial installations surrounding the site, as well as the use of plantings and native landscaping to buffer the site against adjacent uses and to blend the site into the surrounding environment. 9. HOUSING: a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. AESTHETICS: a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? It is intended that the aesthetics blend with the existing adjacent light industrial uses. Each structure is proposed to be pre-engineered steel structures with up to 16' eaves and a pitched Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 10 roof. Construction will be steel framing with metal sidings, aluminum store fronts with slightly tinted glazings to match surrounding light industrial based businesses. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The site will integrate itself into this surrounding by using a boulevard approach to movement of traffic through the business park, building materials and architecture that blend with existing light industrial installations surrounding the site, as well as the use of plantings and native landscaping to buffer the site against adjacent uses and to blend the site into the surrounding environment. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Lighting would be limited to that required at each building necessary to illuminate safe pedestrian ingress and egress. In addition a limited number of luminaires will be installed to facilitate the safe movement of traffic through the facility. It is anticipated that these lights will be operated during the dusk hours and evening hours. While pedestrian lights may be left on for security, after hours, and emergency entrance purposes luminaires for traffic lights may be turned during mid evening hours to conserve energy. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No, the size of the parcels, the fact that the proposed lighting is oriented and contained within the facility should work to minimize glare escaping the site. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal.. Adjacent sites utilize high pressure sodium and mercury vapor lights to light their business and sites. The adjacent Port of Shelton facility uses luminaries extensively throughout their facilities. Lumber mills located on the Port of Shelton site operate 24 hours a day and use extensive lighting for their operational and security needs. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Lighting would be limited to that required at each building necessary to illuminate safe pedestrian ingress and egress. In addition a limited number of luminaires will be installed to facilitate the safe movement of traffic through the facility. It is anticipated that these lights will be operated during the dusk hours and evening hours. While pedestrian lights may be left on for security, after hours, and emergency entrance purposes luminaires for traffic lights may be Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 11 turned off during mid evening hours to conserve energy. 12. RECREATION: a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? To the west Mason County Recreational operates baseball and soccer fields along John's Prairie Road. Adjacent to this is a go cart racing facility. To the west along SR 3 is Bayshore a private golf course business and a public fishing and boat launch facility operated by WDFW on Oakland Bay. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No, the proposed site is private property and in the past has not been made available to the public for recreational use. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N/A 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 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. The site has been used in the past as a horse pasture. It has also been heavily traversed by land surveyors, civil engineers, and geotechnical engineers. No evidence of these features has been identified. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: During construction the site will be monitored for artifacts or objects that may be inadvertently uncovered. If an object is found appearing to be archaeological or historical in nature work will be stopped until the area can be further investigated and the objects curated. Resources at Mason County as well as those of neighboring Squaxin Indian Tribe will be utilized should a discovery of significance be identified. 14. TRANSPORTATION: Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 12 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by John's Prairie road. John's Prairie road is a County road connecting the McReavy Road near Shelton to SR 3. The site will establish a paved approach meeting County road approach standards for turning radii for vehicular traffic as well as standards for site distance. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the existing street system? Show on site plans, if any. Yes, Mason County Transit C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will create approximately 65 parking stalls for each phase. 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. Yes, there is freight rail line operated by the Port of Shelton approximately 1,000' to the west. This is shown on the vicinity maps prepared for the project. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project: If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The number of trips per day is not known. It is dependant on tenants that may eventually occupy the site. At present it is estimated that the site could employ between 36 -54 employees. Because these businesses are intended to be industrial based suppliers the peak periods are likely to occur early in the mornings before normal peak traffic periods experienced elsewhere. In addition these businesses usually finish their day earlier and as a result and the afternoon peaks are also likely to occur before normal PM peaks elsewhere. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Business will be encouraged to use Mason County Transit and carpooling to reduce the number of trips. Trip reduction planning will also be included as a part of the leasing discussion. Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 13 15. PUBLIC SERVICES: a. Would the project result in an increased need for public service (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe: It is not anticipated that this project will require the need for additional police protection or other public services. The facility will utilize on site private security and fire patrolling as well as private security and fire system monitoring services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Although it is anticipated that this proposal will have a minor impact to public roads businesses will be encouraged to use Mason County Transit and carpooling to reduce the number of trips. Trip reduction planning will also be included as a part of the leasing discussion. In addition the facility will utilize on site private security and fire patrolling as well as private security and fire system monitoring services. 16. UTILITIES: a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: telephone, high speed internet access 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. PUD #3 power, Qwest telephone, and PUD #3 high speed internet will assist the project by distributing single phase power, voice, and high speed data services within the site. This will be accomplished through the use of existing facilities currently located in front of the site at John's Prairie Road. 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. .-L Signature: Date submitted: q O Mason County Environmental Checklist Page 14 A T ti' SITE N.T.S. SR-3 i E JOHN'S PRAIRIE RD m x �o -� 4 BAYSHORE o Q) GOLF COURSE SR-3 (360)705-2474 JOHN'$ PRAIRIE JOB NUMBER FIGURE (360)705-2443 fax � BUSINESS PARK 06039 eNGINEeRIN 300 Deschutes Way SW 1 DRAWING NAME Suite 315 Tumwater WA 98501 VICINITY MAP 06039_VIC wate p ............. all, N"Ar W , 24 .............._'� _7 BUILDING #4 BUILDING #5 AUILD11140-#6 !i,050 SF 0.050 3F FF-21L00 "2011 • '1"- ......... FF- FF 210.5 ................. ..................... U .............. T 1,TJ i 15,/l- 1 P3 A S!M, A BASIN .......... ............................ I I I F s o272,jr't < 0 X Lj L i�lljl, 11T k < CL INP BUI6LD05INGS 2 BUILDING #3 BUILDING #1 0F , S.050 SF F F.0.00 -f6,250 S 2 FF211.00 FF-210.00 v 5 r w NAT 5 ff =7-T ...........X L (360)705-2474 JOB NUMBER FIGURE (360)705-2443 fax JOHN'S PRAIRIE 06039 300 Deschutes Way SW BUSINESS PARK DRAWING NAME 2 Suite 315 DRAINAGE BASIN MAP 06039BASIN Tumwater WA 98501 John 's Prairie Business Park Mason County, WA Final Drainage Report August 2007 Prepared by: Olympic Engineering 300 Deschutes Way SW Suite 315 Tumwater, WA 98501 360.705.2474 360.705.2443 fax chris@olyeng.com FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT Mason County,Washington August 2007 Project Information Project: John's Prairie Business Park Prepared for: DB Industries LLC Contact: Dave Mariano 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 701-6623 Reviewing Agency Jurisdiction: Mason County Project Number: Project Contact: Project Engineer Prepared by: Olympic Engineering 300 Deschutes Way SE, Suite 315 Tumwater, WA 98501 (360) 705-2474 FAX (360) 705-9361 Contact: Chris M. Merritt, P.E. OE Project No.: 06039 File Name: 06039 fdr.doc PROJECT ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this //+ ti 4 Final Drainage Report for the John's Prairie Business Park in Mason l County,Washington has been prepared by me or under my supervision 7 ?i ` and meets the intent of the WSDOE 1992 Stormwater Management e%, •.�,._.�` > Manual,unless noted otherwise,and normal standards of engineering z&SIO�Ft�� �a '�^ W practice.I understand that the jurisdiction does not and will not assume �YGs oh F-f-; liability for the sufficiency,suitability,or performance of drainage facilities designed for this development. 1 Table of Contents APPENDICES PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT........................................................1 Appendix 1-Final Drainage Calculations SECTION 1- PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................1 Appendix 2-Vicinity Map Appendix 3-Drainage Basin Map SECTION 2- EXISTING CONDITIONS.....................................................2 Appendix 4- Soils Report SECTION 3- INFILTRATION RATES/SOILS REPORT..........................2 SECTION 4- WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS.........................................3 SECTION 5- FUEL TANKS........................................................................3 SECTION 6- SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION.................................................3 SECTION 7- ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD.......................................3 SECTION 8- AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES.........3 SECTION 9- DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS.................................................3 SECTION 10-COVENANTS,DEDICATIONS,EASEMENTS...................4 SECTION 11-ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.......................................4 PART II EROSION CONTROL REPORT....................................................5 SECTION 1- CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE..........5 SECTION 2- TRAPPING SEDIMENT........................................................5 SECTION 3- PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL...................................6 SECTION 4- GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT.....................6 SECTION 5- INSPECTION SEQUENCE...................................................6 SECTION 6- CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS..............................................7 PART III MAINTENANCE PLAN................................................................8 SECTION 1- REQUIRED MAINTENANCE...............................................8 SECTION 2- RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION......................................16 SECTION 3- VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN..............................16 SECTION 4- SOURCE CONTROL............................................................16 ii PART I STORM DRAINAGE REPORT SECTION 1 -PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prepared for: DB Industries, LLC Contact: Dave Mariano 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 701-6623 Parcel Number: 32004490025, 32004490026, 32004490027, 32004490028 Total Site Area: 7.77 Acres Zoned: Commercial Site Address: 3160 John's Prairie Road Shelton, WA 98584 Required Permits: Grading, Utility, Building, etc. Section, Township, Range: Section 4 Township 20 North Range 3 West, W.M. Project Overview The project site is located on the south side of John's Prairie Road in Shelton, WA. The applicant proposes to create a 4 lot subdivision and construct six 6,000 square foot commercial buildings and associated parking lot improvements on the front two lots. The development will be constructed in one phase. Construction will include clearing and grading of the site, storm drainage improvements, on-site septic systems, community water system, and parking lot paving. Proposed stormwater facilities shall consist of proposed biofiltration swales for storm water treatment which drain to underground facilities for retention and infiltration of stormwater runoff. For stormwater design purposes, the proposed development has been subdivided into two drainage sub-basins (see basin map in Appendix 3). 1 Stormwater Treatment: Proposed biofiltration swales located in the center of the proposed parking lot will provide all treatment for stormwater runoff. All runoff from parking areas will be allowed to sheet flow to the swales in the stormwater area for treatment prior to infiltration. The proposed swales exceed the minimum WSDOE requirements for flow depth, velocity, and residence time. See the swale calculation sheets in Final Drainage Calculations section of Appendix 1. Stormwater Storage: All stormwater generated by the proposed development shall be discharged to the infiltration facilities located in the center of the parking area once runoff passes through the filter strips. Both Basin A and Basin B will utilize an underground infiltration system (StormTech chambers, see plan) to achieve the necessary storage volume required. The underground system located in Basin B shall be located as such to keep the effective infiltration area out of the protective well radius of the proposed community water wells. At the 100-year storm event, the proposed stormwater storage facilities exceed the minimum storage requirements per the WSDOE. See Final Drainage Calculations in Appendix 1. Roof Runoff: Roof runoff from each commercial building will be tightlined to the underground detention facilities located in the center of the parking lot (See plan). SECTION 2 -EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is currently occupied by a temporary single manufactured office building. Site topography is gently undulating. Site vegetation consists of a conifer tree grove located on the south end of the project site. The project site is bounded by John's Prairie Road to the north, and commercial property to the east, south, and west. See Section 6 for description of off-site drainage to the property, if any. SECTION 3 -INFILTRATION RATES / SOILS REPORT The Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) soil survey of Mason County classifies the on-site soils as Carstairs Gravelly Loam (Hydrologic Group B). Soil testing confirmed the Carstairs series classification. Two test pits were excavated by backhoe to a maximum depth of 14T'below existing grade and two falling head infiltration tests were completed. A 20"/hr rate will be 2 used for design in Basins A and B. Test pit soil log data sheets and infiltration test results are included in the Appendix of this report. SECTION 4 -WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS No wells within 200-feet of the project boundaries were found during a site investigation. Water and sanitary sewer services for the proposed project will be provided by an on-site community water system and septic systems. SECTION 5 -FUEL TANKS No fuel tanks were located during a site inspection or soils work. The latest"LUST' list (Leaking Underground Storage Tank) was reviewed and no listing for the subject site was found. SECTION 6 - SUB-BASIN DESCRIPTION From our site visit there were no signs of existing drainage swales or channels on the proposed property. There did not appear to be a significant amount of off-site runoff onto the site from the adjacent west, east, and south properties. Hazardous material handling or transportation is not expected in the area tributary to the on-site detention facility. SECTION 7 -ANALYSIS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD Upon inspection of FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the proposed development does not he within a 100-year flood plain. SECTION 8 -AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR FACILITIES All disturbed pervious areas including the storm drainage area and area around buildings will be vegetated and landscaped. SECTION 9 -DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS Final calculations for the project stormwater treatment and storage systems are included in the Appendix of this report. All stormwater runoff generated by site development will be treated, stored, and infiltrated on-site. In the event of failure, storm water will overflow into the adjacent parking area and partially flood the lower area of the parking lot. Adjacent properties should not be affected due to failure of the proposed stormwater system. 3 SECTION 10 -COVENANTS, DEDICATIONS, EASEMENTS On-site drainage facilities will require routine maintenance. A maintenance agreement will be prepared and finalized prior to final project approval. SECTION 11 -PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION In light of the commercial nature of this project, special covenants covering landscape, maintenance, signage, stormwater and site maintenance may be put in place at the time of final platting. The Owner's and/or their representatives will perform maintenance of these private storm drainage facilities. 4 PART II EROSION CONTROL REPORT SECTION 1 -CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND PROCEDURE Proposed development of the residential property will include site grading and erosion control measures designed to contain silt and soil within the project boundaries during construction until permanent erosion control is in place. Erosion/sedimentation control will be achieved by a combination of structural/vegetative cover measures and construction practices tailored to fit the site. Best Construction Management Practices (BMP's)will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. Before any construction begins on-site, erosion control facilities shall first be installed. The planned construction sequence is as follows: 1. Install rock construction entrance. Use 4" to 8" diameter spalls with 12" minimum depth. 2. Install filter fabric fencing, where appropriate. 3. Construct temporary sedimentation basins, if necessary. 4. Clear site (grubbing and rough grading). 5. During November 1 through March 31, all disturbed areas greater than 5,000 sf that are to be left un-worked for more than twelve (12) hours, shall be stabilized by one of the following: mulch, sodding, or plastic covering. 6. Install underground utilities (cable, telephone,power, etc.). 7. If applicable, provide catch basin protection by installing filter fabric in all inlets to drainage system. 8. After paving is complete, install landscape, sod and/or seed, and mulch all disturbed areas. 9. Maintain all erosion control facilities until the entire site is stabilized and silt runoff ceases. 10. Designate an area for washing of equipment and concrete trucks to control the runoff and eliminate entry into storm drainage systems. 11. Flush the storm system upon completion of construction but prior to connection to the wetvault and biofiltration swale. The biofiltration swale shall be protected from construction runoff. SECTION 2 -TRAPPING SEDIMENT A stabilized construction entrance shall be installed at the entrance to the proposed project to prevent vehicles from tracking soil away from the disturbed areas. If sediment is tracked onto public roadways, sediment shall, on a daily basis, be swept or shoveled from paved surfaces and not washed down into the roadside storm drainage system. 5 The contractor shall not be allowed to leave disturbed areas greater than 5,000 sf that are to be left un-worked for more than twelve (12) hours uncovered during the rainy season from November 1 through March 31. Mulch, sodding or plastic covering will be used to prevent erosion in these areas. During construction, the contractor will also be required to install filter fabric fencing as needed, per the erosion control plan and as directed by the engineer, or City Inspector SECTION 3 -PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL & SITE RESTORATION All disturbed areas will be paved, covered with a building or landscaped with grass, shrubbery or trees. SECTION 4 -GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND REPORT There are no slopes exceeding 15% on-site, therefore, a geotechnical analysis was deemed unnecessary. SECTION 5 -INSPECTION SEQUENCE In addition to the normal County inspections, the Project Engineer shall inspect the facilities related to storm water treatment, erosion control, storage and conveyance during construction. At a minimum, the following items shall be inspected at the time specified: 1. The erosion control facilities shall be inspected before the start of clearing and grading to ensure the following structures are in place: a. Construction Entrance b. Filter Fabric Fences 2. The conveyance systems will be inspected after construction of the facility, but before the project is completed to ensure the following are in working order: a. Biofiltration Swale b. Infiltration Surfaces C. Infiltration Gallery (StormTech Chambers) 3. The permanent site restoration measures should be inspected after landscaping is completed. 6 SECTION 6 -CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENTS Washout from a concrete truck shall not be dumped into the storm drain, or onto soil or pavement, which carries stormwater runoff. It can be dumped into a designated area to be later backfilled or hardened and broken up for disposal into a dumpster. The Contractor will be required to designate a wash down area for equipment and concrete trucks. 7 PART III MAINTENANCE PLAN SECTION 1 -REQUIRED MAINTENANCE The following pages contain maintenance needs for most of the components that are part of your drainage system, as well as for some components that you may not have. Let us know if there are any components that are missing from these pages. Ignore the requirements that do not apply to your system. You should plan to complete a checklist for all system components on the following schedule: 1.Monthly from November through April. 2.Once in late summer(preferably September). 3.After any major storm (use 1"in 24 hours as a guideline) items marked"S" only. Using photocopies of these pages, check off the problems you looked for each time you did an inspection. Add comments on problems found and actions taken. Keep these "Checked" sheets in your files, as they will be used to write your annual report (due in May). Some items do not need to be looked at every time an inspection is done. Use the suggest frequency at the left of each item as a guideline for your inspection. You may call the jurisdiction for technical assistance. Please do not hesitate to call, especially if you are unsure whether a situation you have discovered may be a problem. 8 ATTACHMENT`A' MAINTENANCE PROGRAM COVER SHEET Inspection Period: Number of Sheets Attached: Date Inspected: Inspector's Signature: 9 ATTACHMENT"A": MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Maintenance Checklist for Grounds (Landscaping) Frequency Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should Exist System Feature M General Weeds Weeds growing in more than Weeds present in less than 5%of (nonpoisonous) 20%of the landscaped area the landscaped area. (trees and shrubs only). M Safety hazard Any presence of poison ivy or No poisonous vegetation or other poisonous vegetation or insect nests present in insect nests. landscaped area. M,S vl Trash or litter See Ponds Checklist. See Ponds Checklist. M,S Erosion of Noticeable rills are seen in Causes of erosion are identified Ground Surface landscaped areas. and steps taken to slow down/spread out the water. Eroded areas are filled, contoured,and seeded. A Trees and J Damage Limbs or parts of trees or Trim treestshrubs to restore shrubs shrubs that are split or shape. Replace trees/shrubs broken which affect more with severe damage. than 25%of the total foliage of the tree or shrub. \4 v' Trees or shrubs that have Replant tree,inspecting for been blown down or knocked injury to stem or roots. Replace over. if severely damaged. A J Trees or shrubs which are Place stakes and rubber-coated not adequately supported or ties around young trees/shrubs are leaning over,causing for support. exposure of the roots. If you are unsure whether a problem exists,please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comments: Key A=Annual(March or April preferred) M=Monthly(see schedule) S=After major storms 10 ATTACHMENT"A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Energy Dissipaters Freq. Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should Exist System Feature A Rock Pad Missing or Only one layer of rock exists Replace rocks to design moved rock above native soil in area 5 standard. square feet or larger,or any exposure of native soil. A Rock-filled Missing or Trench is not full of rock. Add large rock(f30 lb.each)so trench for moved rock that rock is visible above edge discharge from of trench. pond M Dispersion Pipe plugged Accumulated sediment that Pipe Cleaned/flushed. trench with sediment exceeds 20%of the design depth. M Perforations Over 1/2 of perforations in Clean or replace perforated pipe. plugged pipe are plugged with debris and sediment. M,S Not discharging Visual evidence of water Trench must be redesigned or water properly discharging at concentrated rebuilt to standard. Elevation of points along trench(normal lip of trench should be the same condition is a"sheetflow"of (flat)at all points. water along trench). Intent is to prevent erosion damage. M,S Water flows out Maintenance person Facility must be rebuilt or top of observes water flowing out redesigned to standards. Pipe is "distributor" during any storm less than probably plugged or damaged catch basin the design storm or its and needs replacement. causing or appears likely to cause damage. M,S Receiving area Water in receiving area is Stabilize slope with grass or over-saturated causing or has potential of other vegetation,or rock if causing landslide. condition is severe. If you are unsure whether a problem exists,please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comments: Key: A=Annual(March or April preferred) M=Monthly(see schedule) S=After major storms I1 ATTACHMENT"A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Ponds and Infiltration Areas Freq. Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should Exist System Feature M.S. General Trash&debris Dumping of yard wastes Remove trash and debris and buildup in pond such as grass clippings and dispose as prescribed by County branches into basin. Waste Management Section Unsightly accumulation of non-degradable materials such as glass,plastic,metal, foam,and coated paper. M.S. Trash rack Bar screen over outlet more Replace screen. Remove trash plugged or than 25%covered by debris and debris and dispose as missing or missing. prescribed by County Waste Management Section. M Poisonous Any poisonous vegetation Remove poisonous vegetation. vegetation which may constitute a Do not spray chemicals on hazard to the public. vegetation without obtaining Examples of poisonous guidance from the Cooperative vegetation include:tansy Extension Service and approval ragwort,poison oak, from the County. stinging nettles,devilsclub M.S. Fire hazard or Presence of chemicals such Find sources of pollution and pollution as natural gas,oil,and eliminate them. Water is free gasoline,obnoxious color, from noticeable color,odor,or odor,or sludge noted. contamination. M Vegetation not For grassy ponds,grass For grassy ponds,selectively growing or is cover is sparse and weedy thatch,aerate,and reseed ponds. overgrown or is overgrown. For Grass cutting unnecessary unless wetland ponds,plants are dictated by aesthetics. For sparse or invasive species wetland ponds,hand-plant are present. nursery-grown wetland plants in bare areas. Contact the Cooperative Extension Service for direction in invasive species such as purple looseime and reed canary grass. Pond bottoms should have uniform dense coverage of desired plant species. M Rodent holes Any evidence of rodent Rodents destroyed and dam or holes if facility is acting as berm repaired. Contact the a dam or berm,or any Thurston County Health Dept. evidence of water piping for guidance. through dam or berm via rodent holes. M Insects When insects such as wasps Insects destroyed or removed and hornets interfere with from site. Contact Cooperative maintenance activities,or Extension Service for guidance. when mosquitoes become a nuisance. A ! Tree Growth Tree growth does not allow Trees do not hinder maintenance maintenance access or activities. Selectively cultivate interferes with maintenance trees such as alders for firewood. activity(i.e.,slope mowing, silt removal,orequipment 12 Freq. Drainage Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should Exist System Feature movements). If trees are not interfering with access, leave trees alone. M Side slopes of Erosion on Check around inlets and Find causes of erosion and pond berms or at outlets for signs of erosion. eliminate them. Then slopes entrance/ Check berms for signs of should be stabilized by using exit sliding or settling. Action appropriate erosion control is needed where eroded measure(s);e.g.,rock damage over 2 inches deep reinforcement,planting of grass, and where there is potential compaction. for continued erosion. M Storage area Sediment Accumulated sediment that Sediment cleaned out to designed buildup in pond exceeds 10%of the pond shape and depth;pond designed pond depth. reseeded if necessary to control Buried or partially buried erosion. outlet structure probably indicates significant sediment deposits. A Pond dikes Settlements Any part of dike which has Dike should be built back to the settled 4 inches lower than design elevation. the design elevation. A Emer-gency .j Rock missing Only one layer of rock Replace rocks to design overflow/ exists above native soil in standards. spillway area 5 square feet or larger, or any exposure of native soil. One time Emer-gency Overflow Side of pond has no area Contact County for guidance. overflow/ missing with large rocks to handle spillway emergency overflows. If you are unsure whether a problem exists,please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comments: Key: A=Annual(March or April preferred) M=Monthly(see schedule) S=After major storms 13 ATTACHMENT"A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Infiltration Systems Frequency Drainage J Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should Exist System Feature M's General Trash&debris See Maintenance Checklist for See Maintenance Checklist for buildup in Ponds. Ponds. pond M Poisonous See Maintenance Checklist for See Maintenance Checklist for vegetation Ponds. Ponds. M,S Fire hazard or See Maintenance Checklist for See Maintenance Checklist for pollution Ponds. Ponds. M Vegetation not See Maintenance Checklist for See Maintenance Checklist for growing or is Ponds. Ponds. overgrown M Rodent holes See Maintenance Checklist for See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. Ponds. M Insects See Maintenance Checklist for See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. Ponds. 1 Storage J Sediment A soil texture test indicates Sediment is removed and/or area buildup in facility is not working at its facility is cleaned so that system designed capabilities or was infiltration system works incorrectly designed. according to design. A sediment trapping area is installed to reduce sediment transport into infiltration area. A J Storage area A soil texture test indicates Additional volume is added drains slowly facility is not working at its through excavation to provide (more than 48 designed capabilities or was needed storage. Soil is aerated hours)or incorrectly designed. and rototilled to improve overflows drainage. Contact the City for information on its requirements regarding excavation. M J Sediment Any sediment and debris filling Clean out sump to design trapping area area to 10%of depth from sump depth. bottom to bottom of outlet pipe or obstructing flow into the connector pipe_ One Time J Sediment Stormwater enters infiltration Add a trapping area by trapping area area directly without constructing a sump for settling not present treatment. of solids. Segregate settling area from rest of facility. Contact City for guidance. Ni Rock filters J Sediment and By visual inspection little or no Replace gravel in rock filter. debris water flows through filter during heavy rain storms_ S Infiltration J Infiltration Standing Water in Inspection Excavate bottom of trench as Trenches Failure Well After 48 hours after necessary but at least 3 feet. storm or Overflow during Replace with crushed rock. Storms Check pretreatment systems 14 for effectiveness. Check tributary area for sediment sources. If you are unsure whether a problem exists,please contact the Jurisdiction and ask for technical assistance. Comments: Key A=Annual(March or April preferred) M=Monthly(see schedule) S=After major storms 15 SECTION 2 - RESPONSIBLE ORGANIZATION An association established by the developer shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of all on-site drainage facilities. SECTION 3 -VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN All disturbed pervious areas within the site will be landscaped to provide an aesthetically pleasing environment. SECTION 4 - SOURCE CONTROL Warning signs (e.g., "Dump No Waste - Drains to Groundwater")will be embossed or painted on asphalt adjacent to biofilter strips and will be repainted periodically as necessary. 16 Appendix I Final Drainage Calculations STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS John's Prairie Business Park Shelton, WA Reference: WSDOE Storm Water Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, 1992 ed. 24 hour Desijxn Storms: 6 month 2.9 inches(72%of 2-year) 2 year 4.0 inches 10 year 5.5 inches 100 year 8.5 inches Design Infiltration Rate: 20 in./hr. Drainage Basin Summary: Impervious Impervious Disturbed Total Basin Basin Parking Lot Building Pervious Area Area Area Area Basin A 1.21 acres 0.56 acres 0.88 acres 2.65 acres Basin B 0.75 acres 0.28 acres 0.47 acres 1.50 acres Water Quality& Treatment: Per StormShed Hydrologic Model(SBUH Method), 6 month water quality storm flow rates: Basin A= 0.86 cfs* Basin B= 0.53 cfs* *Water quality flow rates given here exclude roof runoff since roof drains will be tied directly to infiltration galleries. See StormShed output for basins"Basin A—No Roof'and"Basin B—No Roof'. See swale calculation sheets on next two pages. Stormwater Storage and Infiltration: Infiltration shall occur only in the bottom area of the underground storage chambers. Basin A: Infiltration Surface Area Provided = 3,193 sf Discharge Rate (use bottom only) = 3,193 sf(20in/hr)(1 hr/3600s)(lft/12in) = 1.47 cfs Storage Provided (gallery) = 5,795 cf Storage Provided (swale) = 1,394 cf Basin B: Infiltration Surface Area Provided = 1,556 sf Discharge Rate (use bottom only) = 1,556 sf(20in/hr)(1 hr/3600s)(lft/121n) = 0.72 cfs Storage Provided (gallery) = 2,790 cf Storage Provided (swale) = 2,286 cf John's Prairie Business Park Swale Sizing Calculations Per WSDOE Stormwater Manual Mason County,WA(City of Shelton UGA) #06039 4/16/2007 BASIN A Biofiltration swale sized per section Volume V of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual BMP T9.10 Design Flow Rate(6-mo.)from hyrdologic model Q= 0.860 cfs Swale longitudinal slope,s= 0,015 ft/ft Swale Side Slope,Z= 3 :1 Manning's Coefficient,n= 0.300 Maximum Depth of Flow*,y= 0.33 ft Calculated Bottom Width based on Depth of flow,b= 8 ft- Proposed Swale Bottom Width(per plan),b= 6 ft Swale Cross-Sectional Flow Area,A= 2.31 sf 6 month,24 hour Precipitation(72%of 2 Year from Appendix II I-A)= 2.90 inches Flow Velocity at Design Flow Rate,V= 0.37 ft/s Minimum Residence Time,t= 9 minutes Required Swale Length,L= 201.33 ft Proposed Swale Length(per plan),L= 260 ft _ Qn b -Zy 1.49(y^1.67)(s^0.5) V= Q/A V must be less than 1 ft/s L= Vt(60 sec/min) L must be greater than 100 ft *Maximum Flow Depth(y)in Winter,Infrequent Mowing=4 Inches John's Prairie Business Park Swale Sizing Calculations Per WSDOE Stormwater Manual Mason County,WA(City of Shelton UGA) #06039 4/16/2007 BASIN B Biofiltration swale sized per section Volume V of the WSDOE Stormwater Management Manual BMP T9.10 Design Flow Rate(6-mo.)from hyrdologic model Q= 0.530 cfs Swale longitudinal slope,s= 0.015 ft/ft Swale Side Slope,Z= 3 :1 Manning's Coefficient,n= 0.200 Maximum Depth of Flow,y= 0.33 ft Calculated Bottom Width based on Depth of flow,b= 8 ft Proposed Swale Bottom Width(per plan),b= 6 ft Swale Cross-Sectional Flow Area,A= 2.31 sf 6 month,24 hour Precipitation(72%of 2 Year from Appendix III-A)= 2.90 inches Flow Velocity at Design Flow Rate,V= 0.23 ft/s Minimum Residence Time,t= 9 minutes Required Swale Length,L= 124.07 ft Proposed Swale Length(per plan),L= 127 ft Qn b_ -Zy 1.49(y^1.67)(s^0.5) V= Q/A V must be less than 1 ft/s L= Vt(60 sec/min) L must be greater than 100 ft 'Maximum Flow Depth(y)in Winter,Infrequent Mowing=4 Inches BASIN A SC-740 Quantity Calculator Project Name John's Prairie Business Park Project Location Mason County Number of chambers 76 Area 3193 sf from AutoCAD Perimeter 324 ft from AutoCAD Stone above 6 in Stone below 6 in Voids in stone 30 % Length of Isolator Row ft Volume in chambers 3488.4 cf Volume of excavation 11175.5 cf (system only- not total excavation) Amount of stone 7687.1 cf 284.7074 cy Volume in stone 2306.13 cf Amount of Filter Fabric 8648 sf (not including Isolator Row) Number of Chambers 72 Number of End Caps 8 Amount of Stone 285 cy Amount of Filter Fabric 8648 sf Non-Woven Isolator Row ft of 8'wide roll Woven Isolator Row ft of 5'wide roll Total Storage Volume 5794.53 cf BASIN B SC-740 Quantity Calculator Project Name John's Prairie Business Park Project Location Mason County Number of chambers 36 Area 1556 sf from AutoCAD Perimeter 181 ft from AutoCAD Stone above 6 in Stone below 6 in Voids in stone 30 % Length of Isolator Row ft Volume in chambers 1652.4 cf Volume of excavation 5446 cf (system only- not total excavation) Amount of stone 3793.6 cf 140.50 cy Volume in stone 1138.08 cf Amount of Filter Fabric 4307.325 sf (not including Isolator Row) Number of Chambers 32 Number of End Caps 8 Amount of Stone 141 cy Amount of Filter Fabric 4308 sf Non-Woven Isolator Row ft of 8'wide roll Woven Isolator Row ft of 5'wide roll Total Storage Volume 2790.48 cf StormShed Hydrologic Model Results 8/2/2007 John's Prairie Business Park Olympic Engineering Job#06039 BASIN A-WATER QUALITY EVENT Basin A-No Roof Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss Basin A-No Roof 0.86 7.83 0.3114 2.09 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 6 mo Drainage Area: Basin A-No Roof Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur 24.00 hrs Area CN TC Pervious 0.8800 ac 68.00 0.06 hrs Impervious 1.2100 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 2.0900 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Disturbed Pervious 68.00 0.8800 ac Impervious CN Data: Paved Parking&Sidewalks 98.00 1.2100 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 20.00 ft 2.00% 0.2400 4.86 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 90.00 ft 2.00% 0.0100 1.27 min BASIN A- INFILTRATION/RETENTION FACILITY DESIGN RLPCOMPUTE[LP Basin A]SUMMARY 100 yr MatchQ=PeakQ=4.6768 cfs Peak Out Q: 1.4700 cfs-Peak Stg:205.85 ft-Active Vol:0.16 acft Summary Report of all RLPool Data Project Precips [6 mo] 2.90 in [2 yr] 4.00 in 110 yr] 5.50 in [25 yr] 6.50 in [100 yr] 8.50 in BASLIST2 [Basin A] Using[TYPE1A]As[100 yr] LSTEND BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------ (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss Basin A 4.6768 7.83 1.5604 2.65 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 100 yr BASLIST[TYPE1A]AS [100 yr] DETAILED [Basin A] LSTEND Drainage Area: Basin A Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur 24.00 hrs Area CN TC Pervious 0.8800 ac 68.00 0.06 hrs Impervious 1.7700 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 2.6500 ac Supporting Data: 1 of 4 StormShed Hydrologic Model Results 8/2/2007 John's Prairie Business Park Olympic Engineering Job#06039 Pervious CN Data: Disturbed Pervious 68.00 0.8800 ac Impervious CN Data: Paved Parking&Sidewalks 98.00 1.2100 ac Roofs 98.00 0.5600 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 20.00 ft 2.00% 0.2400 4.86 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 90.00 ft 2.00% 0.0100 1.27 min Sheet Roof Runoff 30.00 ft 10.00% 0.0100 0.28 min HYDLIST SUMMARY [100 yr Out] LSTEND HydID Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Cont Area ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) (ac) 100 yr Out 1.47 7.33 1.5616 2.6500 STORLIST [Basin A Stg-Sto] LSTEND Node ID: Basin A Stg-Sto Desc: Basin A Stg-Sto Start El: 199.5000 ft Max El: 207.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Stage Input Volume Volume 199.50 0.00 cf 0.00 cf 0.0000 acft 205.00 5795.00 cf 5795.00 cf 0.1330 acft 207.00 8189.00 cf 8189.00 cf 0.1880 acft DISCHLIST [Basin A Stg-Disch] LSTEND Control Structure ID: Basin A Stg-Disch-Stage Discharge rating curve Descrip: Infiltration Gallery Start El Max El Increment 199.5000 ft 207.0000 ft 0.10 Stage Discharge 205.0000 ft 1.4700 cfs 206.0000 ft 1.4700 cfs 207.0000 ft 1.4700 cfs 199.5000 ft 1.4700 cfs 2 of 4 StormShed Hydrologic Model Results 8/2/2007 John's Prairie Business Park Olympic Engineering Job#06039 BASIN B-WATER QUALITY EVENT Basin B-No Roof Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype ------- Event (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss Basin B- No Roof 0.53 7.83 0.1894 1.22 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 6 mo Drainage Area: Basin B-No Roof Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur 24.00 hrs Area CN TC Pervious 0.4700 ac 68.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.7500 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 1.2200 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Disturbed Pervious 68.00 0.4700 ac Impervious CN Data: Paved Parking&Sidewalks 98.00 0.7500 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 20.00 ft 2.00% 0.2400 4.86 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 90.00 ft 2.00% 0.0100 1.27 min BASIN B- INFILTRATION/RETENTION FACILITY DESIGN RLPCOMPUTE[LP Basin B]SUMMARY 100 yr MatchQ=PeakQ=2.6543 cfs Peak Out Q:0.7200 cfs- Peak Stg:205.75 ft-Active Vol:0.11 acft Summary Report of all RLPool Data Project Precips [6 mo] 2.90 in [2 yr] 4.00 in 110 yr] 5.50 in [25 yr] 6.50 in [100 yr] 8.50 in BASLIST2 [Basin B] Using[TYPE 1A]As[100 yr] LSTEND BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event ------ (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss Basin B 2.6543 7.83 0.8916 1.50 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 100 yr BASLIST[TYPE1A]AS[100 yr]DETAILED [Basin B] LSTEND Drainage Area: Basin B Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs: 0.20 Storm Dur 24.00 hrs Area CN TC Pervious 0.4700 ac 68.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 1.0300 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 1.5000 ac 3 of 4 StormShed Hydrologic Model Results 8/2/2007 John's Prairie Business Park Olympic Engineering Job#06039 Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Disturbed Pervious 68.00 0.4700 ac Impervious CN Data: Paved Parking&Sidewalks 98.00 0.7500 ac Roofs 98.00 0.2800 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 20.00 ft 2.00% 0.2400 4.86 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Sheet Flow 90.00 ft 2.00% 0.0100 1.27 min Sheet Roof Runoff 30.00 ft 10.00% 0.0100 0.28 min HYDLIST SUMMARY [100 yr out Basin B] LSTEND HydlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Cont Area ------- (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) (ac) 100 yr out Basin B 0.72 6.83 0.8916 1.5000 STORLIST [Basin B Stg-Sto] LSTEND Node ID: Basin B Stg-Sto Start El: 199.5000 ft Max El: 206.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Stage Input Volume Volume 199.50 0.00 cf 0.00 cf 0.0000 acft 204.00 2790.00 cf 2790.00 cf 0.0640 acft 206.00 5076.00 cf 5076.00 cf 0.1165 acft DISCHLIST [Basin B Stg-Disch] LSTEND Control Structure ID: Basin B Stg-Disch-Stage Discharge rating curve Start El Max El Increment 199.5000 ft 206.0000 ft 0.10 Stage Discharge 204.0000 ft 0.7200 cfs 205.0000 ft 0.7200 cfs 206.0000 ft 0.7200 cfs 200.0000 ft 0.7200 cfs 199.5000 ft 0.7200 cfs 4 of 4 Appendix II Vicinity Map SITE N.T.s. SR-3 E JOHN'S PRAIRIE RD rn � x F Q� 0 BAYSHORE o Cj f� GOLF COURSE SR-3 � (360)705-2474 JOHN'S PRAIRIE JOB NUMBER FIGURE UL.YMPf (360)705-2443 fax �+ 06039 ENGINEERING` 300 Deschutes Way SW BUSINESS PARK DRAWING NAME Suite 315 VICINITY MAP 06039_VIC Tumwater WA 98501 Appendix III Drainage Basin Map , n �..._ I' BUILDING #4 15,M SF BUILDING #5 BUILDING #6 `•� 6,050 SF ' 6..0 SF .._........iF-212.00 I i FF-211.00 FF.210.5 1 _...............................•• I � Tm BASIN A BASIN a , p 0' f I I I ` •i I 1 a I_LLL O BUILDING #1 BUILDING #2,' BUILDING#3., 6,050 SF 6,050 SF ' B.OSD SF / >r �I FF-211.00 FF�2t0.00 I i _ ; � 1 r ._ ,401, _ p P/ i (360)705-2474 JOHN'S PRAIRIE JOB NUMBER FIGURE ry ,, (360)705-2443 fax 06039 ENGINEERING 300 Deschutes Way SW BUSINESS PARK DRAWING NAME 2 Suite 315 DRAINAGE BASIN MAP 06039BASIN Tumwater WA 98501 Appendix IV Soils Report John's Prairie Business Park Soils Report For Drainage Purposes Site Address: 3160 John's Prairie Road, Shelton WA 98584 Tax Parcel Number: 320044390025, 320044390026, 320044390027, 320044390028 Prepared For: DB Industries LLC 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 701-6623 Contact: Dave Mariano Prepared By: Parnell Engineering 10623 Hunters Lane S.E. Olympia, WA 98513 (360) 491-3243 Contact: William Parnell, P.E. PE PARNELL ENGINEERING SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 1: GENERAL SITE INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: John's Prairie Business Park SHEET: 1 OF 1 PE PROJECT NO.:07109 DATE: 3/15/07 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. 1. SITE ADDRESS: 3160 John's Prairie Road, Shelton WA TPN: 320044390025, 320044390026, 320044390027, 320044390028 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a commercial business park. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is currently occupied by a single manufactured residential dwelling. Site topography is gently undulating. Site vegetation consists of a conifer tree grove located on the south end of the project site. The project site is bounded by John's Prairie road to the north, and commercial property to the east, south and west. On-site soils are a well- drained Carstairs series soils formed in gravelly glacial drift. 4. SUMMARY OF SOILS WORK PERFORMED: Two test pits were excavated by backhoe to a maximum depth of 144" below existing grade. Soils were inspected by entering and visually logging each test pit to a depth of four feet. Soils beyond four feet were inspected by examining backhoe tailings. Two falling head percolation tests were completed. Test pit soil log data sheets and infiltration test results are included in this report. 5. ADDITIONAL SOILS WORK RECOMMENDED: Additional soils work should not be necessary unless drainage infiltration facilities are located outside the general area encompassed by the soil test pits. 6. FINDINGS: The Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey for Mason County mapped the on-site soils as a Carstairs gravelly loam (Ca). All test pits confirmed the Carstairs designation, generally profiling an extremely gravelly loam surface soil overlying an extremely gravelly coarse sand substratum. The substratum gravels and sands were moderately loose. Water table was not present in either test pit and possible indicators were not evident. Falling head percolation tests completed at 72" below the existing grade in test pit#1 and#2 yielded infiltration rates of 1080 in/hr and 720 in/hr respectively. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Carstairs soil series is an excessively drained soil that formed in gravelly glacial outwash. Infiltration rates are generally rapid in the substratum soils. The specified substratum C-horizon soils should be targeted for all drainage infiltration facilities as noted in the attached soil log data sheets. A design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less would be appropriate for these targeted soils. During construction, care must be taken to prevent the erosion of exposed soils. Drainage facility infiltration surfaces must be properly protected from contamination by the fine-grained upper horizon soils and from compaction by construction site activities. Soils not properly protected will cause drainage infiltration facilities to prematurely fail. I hereby certify that I prepared this report, and conducted or supervised the performance of related work. I certify that I am qualified to do this work. I represent my work to be complete an accurate within the bounds of uncertainty i nt to the practice of soils science, and to be suitable for its intended use. SIGNED: DATE: �J S lc,� t�,C•�-i� SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2: SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE: John's Prairie Business Park SHEET: 1 OF 2 PE PROJECT NO.:07109 DATE: 319/07 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #1 LOCATION: 180 ft. east and 150 ft.south of the northwest property corner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: Falling Head Percolation Carstairs(Ca) Outwash Plains 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GROUP: Gravelly Glacial Drift B Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Greater Than Bottom Of Hole Greater Than Bottom Of Hole Gently Undulating 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Minimal Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS:The C-horizon soils were moderately loose. A falling head percolation test completed at 72"below the existing grade yielded an infiltration rate of 1080 in/hr. Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C-horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #1 Horz Depth Color Texture %CL %ORG CF STIR MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP Ap 011- 101, 10YR2/1 ExGrLm <10 <5 <65 Gr ff 2-6 2 Bw 10% 21" 10YR3/2 ExGrLm <10 - <85 Gr - - - mf 2-6 4 C1 21"- 44" 10YR5/3 Pea Gravel <1 - <98 SG - - - mf >20 >40 with sand binder C2 44% 56" 10YR5/2 Gravel with <1 - <98 SG - - - mf >20 >40 C-MSa binder C3 56"- 77" 10YR5/4 ExGrSa <1 - <85 SG - - - >20 >40 C4 77"-144" 10YR6/2 ExGrCSa <1 - <95 SG - - - - >20 >40 SOIL EVALUATION REPORT FORM 2. SOIL LOG INFORMATION PROJECT TITLE:John's Prairie Business Park SHEET: 2 OF 2 PE PROJECT NO.:07109 DATE: 3/9/07 PREPARED BY: William Parnell, P.E. SOIL LOG: #2 LOCATION: 180 ft. east and 400 ft. south of the northwest property corner 1. TYPES OF TEST DONE: 2. SCS SOILS SERIES: 3. LAND FORM: Falling Head Percolation Carstairs(Ca) Outwash Plains 4. DEPOSITION HISTORY: 5. HYDROLOGIC SOIL 6. DEPTH OF SEASONAL HW: GROUP: Gravelly Glacial Drift B Greater Than Bottom Of Hole 7. CURRENT WATER 8. DEPTH TO IMPERVIOUS 9. MISCELLANEOUS: DEPTH: LAYER: Greater Than Bottom Of Hole Greater Than Bottom Of Hole Gently Undulating 10. POTENTIAL FOR: EROSION RUNOFF PONDING Minimal Slow Minimal 11. SOIL STRATA DESCRIPTION: See Following chart 12. SITE PERCOLATION RATE: See FSP 13. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS:The C-horizon soils were moderately loose. A falling head percolation test completed at 72"below the existing grade yielded an infiltration rate of 720 in/hr. Use a design infiltration rate of 20 in/hr or less for drainage infiltration facilities located in the C-horizon soils. Soils Strata Description Soil Log #2 Horz Depth Color Texture %CL %ORG CF STIR MOT IND CEM ROO <X> FSP Ap 011- 8" 10YR2/1 ExGrLm <10 <5 <65 Gr - - - ff 2-6 2 Bw 8% 17" 10YR3/2 ExGrLm <10 - <85 Gr - - - ff 2-6 4 C1 17% 33" 10YR5/3 Pea Gravel <1 100 SG - - - >20 >40 C2 33%144" 10YR5/1 ExGr&Cob <1 <98 SG - - - >20 >40 CSa Abbreviations Textural Class Structure Grades of Structure (Texture) (STR) Cobble -Cob Granular - Gr Strong - 3 Stoney - St Blocky - Blky Moderate - 2 Gravelly - Gr Platy - PI Weak - 1 Sandy Sa Massive - Mas Loamy - Lm Single Grained - SG Silty - Si Sub-Angular Block - SBK Clayey - CI Coarse - C Very - V Extremely - Ex Fine - F Medium - M Induration & Cementation (IND) (CEM) Weak - Wk Moderate - Mod Strong - Str Mottles (MOT) 1 Letter Abundance 1st Number Size 2nd Letter Contrast Few - F Fine - 1 Faint - F Common - C Medium - 2 Distinct - D Many - M Coarse - 3 Prominent - P Roots (ROO) 1st Letter Abundance 2nd Letter Size Few - f Fine - f Common - c Medium - m Many - m Coarse - c <X> - Generalized range of infiltration rates from SCS soil survey (<X>) FSP - Estimated Field Saturated Percolation rate based on horizon specific factors. Falling Head Percolation Test John's Prairie Business Park Test Date 3/9/2007 Completed By : William Parnell, P.E. PE Job #07109 Test Hole # 1 ( test completed @ 72" below existing ground surface ) Start Stop Elapsed Time Total Drop Infiltration Rate ( Min ) ( Min ) ( Min ) ( Inches ) ( In/Hr j 010011 0' 15" 0' 15" 6 0' 45" 11051, 0' 20" 6 1' 40" 2' 00" 0' 20" 6 2' 20" 2' 40" 0' 20" 6 3' 00" 3' 20" 0' 20" 6 3' 40" 4' 00" 0' 20" 6 Soaking Period 30' 00" 30' 20" 0' 20" 6 30' 40" 31' 00" 0' 20" 6 31' 20" 31' 40" 0' 20" 6 1080 Note: Test completed with a 6" solid pvc pipe to prevent sidewall collapse. Test Hole # 2 ( test completed @ 72" below existing ground surface ) Start Stop Elapsed Time Total Drop Infiltration Rate ( Min ) ( Min ) ( Min ) ( Inches ) ( In/Hr) 010011 0' 25" 0' 25" 6 0' 45" 1' 15" 0' 30" 6 1' 30" 2' 00" 0' 30" 6 2' 15" 2' 45" 0' 30" 6 3' 00" 3' 30" 0' 30" 6 3' 45" 4' 15" 0' 30" 6 Soaking Period 30' 00" 30' 30" 0' 30" 6 30' 45" 31' 15" 0' 30" 6 31' 30" 32' 00" 0' 30" 6 720 Note: Test completed with a 6"solid pvc pipe to prevent sidewall collapse. I I ROBINSON NOBLE SALTBUSH 1;i:JI N C.FnW�a ivv GROUNDWATER&ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS November 11, 2008j Mr. Dave Mariano DB Industries LLC 13 SE Skookum View Drive Shelton, WA 98584 Subject: Assessment of hydrogeologic implications of the withdrawal of groundwater for the proposed Johns Prairie Business Park Dear Mr. Mariano: Robinson Noble & Saltbush was retained by DB Industries to assess the hydrogeologic implications of the use of ground water to provide water to the proposed Johns Prairie Business Park. Figure 1, attached, displays the location of the site. Mason County and the Squaxin Tribe are concerned that withdrawal of ground water will adversely impact the base flows of Johns Creek, a stream that has significance to the Tribe. It does appear from our investigation that production of ground water from the shallower groundwater regime beneath your site, may have some potential for such impact. As we have discussed in the past, the shallow groundwater of the area flows to the north or northeast where it discharges along the lower Johns Creek reach of that drainage. Based on these conditions, you were advised to drill the well to the deep confined aquifer that exists substantially below sea level. Investigation Our hydrogeologic investigation included review of the published reports that describe the hydrogeology of the Johns Prairie/Johns creek area, an evaluation of information gained through your specific drilling program, and an assessment of the overall hydrologic response of the water resource to the proposed production from the well. The available data indicate that use of the deep aquifer source results in return-flows of water to the shallow system through a septic drainfield, which enhances rather than diminishes the base flow of Johns Creek . The hydrogeology of this area was first described by Noble and Molennar (1970)'. Subsequent work has been accomplished, particularly by the recent watershed planning efforts for the Kennedy-Goldsborough (WRIA 14) Watershed (Golder & Associates', Northwest Land & Water, Inc. et al.', and Cosmopolitan Engineering Group et al.'). Other, more focused studies on the Johns Creek Basin have been completed for major land-use projects in the area, many of which were completed by our firm (hydrogeologic setting of Manke Mine to the south and Bayshore Sand & ' Noble,J.B. and Molenaar, D., 1970, Geology and Related Ground-Water Occurrence, Southeastern Mason County, Washington, USGS—WA Division of Water Resources, Water Supply Bulletin No. 29 ' Golder & Associates, 2003, Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed(WRIA 14) Phase 11— Level 1 Assessment, prepared for WRIA 14 Planning Unit, Shelton, WA. 3 Northwest Land & Water, Inc. and Plateau Technical Communication Services, 2005, WRIA 14/Kennedy- Goldsborough Watershed Phase 11 Hydrogeologic Investigation, prepared for WRIA 14 Planning Unit, Shelton,WA. ' Cosmopolitan Engineering Group and RH2 Engineering, Inc., 2005, Kennedy-Goldsborough Watershed Water Storage Assessment, prepared for WRIA 14 Planning Unit, Shelton,WA 3011 South Huson Street,Suite A Tacoma,Washington 98409 ■ (253)475-7711 ■ Fax: (253)472-5846 e-mail: mail@robinson-noble.com November 11, 2008 Page 2 Gravel mine to the north, Lincoln Heights Development hydrogeologic investigation south bank of Johns Creek at its mouth, Island West development investigation north of Johns Creek). This extensive body of work allows a confident description of the hydrogeologic setting pertinent to the Business Park site. The Johns Prairie Business Park site is on a flat-lying outwash plain created at the conclusion of the most recent glaciation (the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation). The surface geology is dominated by recessional outwash deposits (Figure 2) of gravel and sand laid down by the rivers that issued from the retreating glacial terminus. In most parts of the plain, the fluvial outwash sediments are underlain by glacial till. The till is a poorly sorted mix of everything from clay-sized material to cobbles that was deposited directly by the glacial ice. Since it was not exposed to flowing water at the time of deposition, no washing or sorting of the fine material occurred. Further the till was subjected to the compaction caused by the weight of nearly 2,000 feet of glacial ice that overrode the till after being deposited. As a consequence of the abundance of fine material and the compaction, the till is of substantially lower permeability than the overlying fluvial sediments of the outwash plain. Material below the till is a complex sequence of glacial and non- glacial unconsolidated sediments. In some cases, the sediment immediately below the till is advance outwash sediment of the same glaciation that deposited the till and recessional outwash above it. This appears to be the case in proximity to the lower reaches of Johns Creek and beneath the Business Park site. Farther east toward the bluffs above Oakland Bay, the gravel and sand outwash deposits formed a delta in Glacial Lake Russell. The face of that delta is apparent as one drives south on SR3 between Mason Lake Road and a point nearly three miles south of the Johns Prairie Road intersection. The delta represents a much thicker deposition of recessional outwash gravel and sand that is draped over the antecedent hillside (lakeshore at the time of deposition). To the west, the complex older sediments are generally encountered at a shallower depth. Deeper sediments, particularly at and below sea level have deposits that are much older and that contain laterally extensive units of low permeability. Regionally, these units serve as confining layers for the deeper aquifers that underlie them. (See Figures 3-4 and 3-8 from the WRIA 14 Assessment report, attached in Appendix A, for illustrations of the unit relationships.) The groundwater regimes above the deeper low permeability sediments found at and below sea level (WRIA 14 Assessment, Units A-E) tend to discharge to the steep valley that Johns Creek has cut into the Vashon glacial sediments. Springs exist at those points where the valley wall cuts through the aquifer material of the recessional and advance aquifers. It is the discharge from these aquifers that provides the base flow essential to the biological functions of the lower reach of johns Creek. The flow of the deeper sub-sea-level confined aquifers (the deep aquifer of Unit F), however, is eastward toward Oakland Bay. The fact that Oakland Bay is a very shallow marine feature makes it likely that the water of the deeper aquifers continues to flow eastward beneath Oakland Bay to discharge as sub-aqueous springs in deeper portions of Puget Sound. The static water level elevations observed in deep wells near the western shore of Oakland Bay supports this interpretation. These differences in ultimate fate of the water flowing through the shallow and deep systems are fundamental to assessing the implications of the groundwater production proposed for the Business Park and in describing the overall potential impact of the project. Your intent, as we understand it, is to produce water from the new well and to dispose of used water through an on-site drainfield. The water use as estimated by your Engineer, Todd Krause of Northwest Water, will be between 300 and 500 gallons per day (gpd). This is equivalent to 0.21 to 0.35 gallons per minute (gpm). However, the actual use will change somewhat as the Business November 11, 2008 Page 3 Park has further developed and the tenants uses are defined. The well to be used is the new well drilled by Arcadia Drilling during the summer of 2008. This well was originally drilled to a depth of 180 feet (approximately 30 feet above sea level) and was deepened to a depth of 450 feet (about 240 feet below sea level) at our direction in July and August of this year. As it is currently configured, the well produces water from a deep, confined aquifer encountered between 428 and 450 feet (elevation 220 to 240 below sea level). This aquifer is confined by a low permeability unit found between 365 feet and 428 feet below land surface (155 to 218 feet below sea level) that exhibited no water entry while being drilled. The well is capable of production at significantly higher rates than are demanded for the Business Park and is clearly capable of reliably producing the needed water from the aquifer tapped. Formal constant-rate testing of the well was accomplished in September of 2008 at a rate of 50 gpm with an observed drawdown of slightly over two feet after five hours of continuous production. The static water level in the well was measured at 118.2 feet below land surface which is an estimated elevation 90 feet above sea level. Analysis In assessing the potential for the withdrawal of groundwater from this deep aquifer to adversely affect the flows of Johns Creek, it is necessary to look at the potential for indirect effects of the pumping. As explained above, the discharge of the deeper aquifers including the one from which the Business Park would be served, is not directly to or related to the flows of Johns Creek. However, since production from a well creates a change in the water pressures around the well, there is an inherent change in the forces that drive water either upward or downward through the confining layers that separate given flow systems. These head changes (as they are called) were defined through well hydraulics equations that are standard to our science. The drawdown data was used in conjunction with an estimated vertical hydraulic conductivity (similar to permeability) for the confining layer to estimate the additional leakage through the confining layer that would be predicted to occur due to the production from your well. The calculation is a direct application of the Darcy Equation. According to research by the USGS, 70 to 90 percent of the water produced from the deep aquifer will be returned to the shallow groundwater regime through the on-site drainfield. This must be considered when assessing the impact of the groundwater withdrawal on the base flows of Johns Creek. This is done by calculating the return flows (in gpd) and comparing that value to the calculated induced leakage that will remove water from the shallower groundwater system. Water returned to the near-surface groundwater regime will, for the most part, flow vertically to the water table and then flow toward the discharge point for the aquifer (along the lower reaches of Johns Creek). To complete the calculation method discussed above we used the following parameters: • Production rate of 500 gpd from the deep aquifer (the new Business Park Well) • Deep aquifer transmissivity of 30,000 gpd/ft, • Storage coefficient of 0.0001, • Confining layer thickness of(more than) 60 feet and • Estimated confining layer hydraulic conductivity of 10-3 gpd/ft' (Heath, 1987, table on page 13). The calculation predicts an additional leakage of less than four gallons per day from the overlying sediments to the deep aquifer under pumping conditions. This is a small value in the context of the shallow aquifer budget or even the base flow of Johns Creek. However, it is within the regulatory November 11, 2008 Page 4 management responsibility to protect the flows of Johns Creek. If this was the only result of the planned use of groundwater by the project, then even this small impact would have to be considered as a detriment. However, between 70 and 90 percent of the water removed from the deep aquifer by the proposed project is returned to the shallow groundwater regime, an input that would not otherwise occur. Even using the lower 70% limit of return flow used by the USGS, a minimum 350 gallons per day will be put into the shallow groundwater regime that provides base flow to Johns Creek. Therefore, the return flows from the on-site drainfield outweigh the adverse impacts of induced leakage by a factor of 100. The stream will have a net benefit from the return flow of over 345 gpd of the pumped water that would otherwise flow to discharge points in Puget Sound. It is clear both conceptually and by calculation that the use of groundwater as proposed for the Johns Prairie Business Park will not be detrimental to the flows of Johns Creek but will, in fact, result in benefits to those flows. Further, the more water pumped from the deep aquifer and returned to the shallow aquifer through the drainfield, the greater that benefit is. If there are questions regarding these findings or as we can be of further help in hydrogeologic matters, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, °{ was Robinson, Noble & Saltbush �e h �O F. Michael Krautkramer, Principal Hydrogeologist HydrogeotogW F.MICHAE!KRAUTKRAMER Attachments: Figure 1 —Site Location Map Figure 2 —John's Prairie Geology Map (image from Logan, 2003) Appendix A—WRIA 14 Hydrogeologic Assessment selected documents ROAD_ el'r' tr �� � •f . :5 •• ' � h Su a ject Location r nr�,cr --- --(See insert) °- 5 j�Tirl� 1 rein• -- ---------t j " • `� \ • 83 BOYS t 1 r • '� � Cr+.a t Bay Shore IRIL H N S — -- � 8� y / f �• _ ,- . ---• __ .----..._ . _- � � _ _. � ar97 ;, ! /J'• I�r to '�'` .'• . a - Rom•y.� � �► �1!E JOHNS Redo Tower f kMAS jr 16 ail f► . �.a. �• .. J: •�",.v+ - SiteMd _ .► Cei Munson •• f - EL4Point r 01 2000, Eagle J3convs shore'scr�st ROBINSON Note: PM: FMK h 2490-001A Mason County Figure 'I s�LreusH USGSBasem pfrom November 2008 Scale 1" = 2000' T 20 N/R 03 W - 04 Vicinity Ma NOBLE I1Jc. USGS Shelton y p GROUNDWATER&ENVIRONMENTALSCIEM7STS Quad. DB Industries, LLC: Well Production at Johns Prairie Business Park Qga Q-a ` ► Qga Qgt Qa - ,Qa Qg2 _ .. 1 Qgo ` _ Qgt Qgp g Qt Approximate Oa Site LoEatign r f/ QgoOgt Qgp Qga ,{ Qa Legend: Qgt -- J J �,! Significant Geologic Units Qa Quaternary Alluvium ` Qgt QC Gao QgO Qgo Quaternary Vashon Recessional Outwash " P Qgt Quaternary Vashon Till Deposits Qgp Qga Quaternary Vashon Advance Outwash pa Qgp Pre-Fraser Drift Deposits ` J" tNOBLE' RUOBINSON Note:Image taken PM: FMK Mason County Figure 2 nLTsii from Geologic November 2008 T 20 N/R 03 W - 04 Surface Geology Map IN(:. Map of Shelton, 2490-001A G- .1°"^' 11-01. """` " 1:100,000 Quad. DB Industries, LLC: Well Production at Johns Prairie Business Park ten Legend • ' Phase I and II Cross Section Alignments p � © • b WRIA 14/16 Boundary ® • Phase I Study Area Boundary F Phase II Focus Area Boundary • • Phase I and II Wells WRIA 16 • • City and Port of Shelton Supply Wells IA 14 • as � ® •C1 o' 1 • C • • • • all, 0c7^s n P *r • • • • �. 8 © • • • ® D • • • r. D N • Creek o c , Goldsborough 7 ••ZIP • Shelton E • _., • Figure 3-1 A B Cross-Section Alignments o � m • N 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles WRIA 14 Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Investigation Grants G03000042 and G00 0107 I ntem@'ction1-G' m N n w Pouth North ¢ o Q a� w C C C 1 C C L a U o > w 0 o iu C m LO o C N — — — �J r cN C �O c w U) CN _ I C O N P W O O L9 O to x . X X X ' X x X x X x X x X x xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R MX R X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R xX R X X X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x X x k x ■ • R • R x M 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 Section Distance, in feet from C Well Log Explanation Well Log Borehole Figure 3-4. �^ Textural Name(distance H dro eolo is Section C-C' Unit A aDescription from section y 9 9 Unit E Sand,Gravel,Silt,Clay trace in feet) ® Unit B Unit F Till Sandy and/or Gravelly Silty Cl Water Level x 771 Silty Sand Elevation Unit C Bedrock Sand and Grave Screened or \. Clay perforated ■ Interval K o R T raw�® Bedrock WRU414 Phase 2Flydrogeobpk:Investigation line&water,iKc Unit D Sea Level Grants G03000042 and G0000t07 North ,(�` Intersection 3 O U SOuth c Y moth U m p o Q[ N a dQ �p c� K of `C? tiW 7 t N ti L C �, n co .- ro m L c m o a E c mr c 30 Y -' y Ex o o' ►° Johns Creek N C5 0 Cm O ' C O r WN O O lA7 i O xX x -X- xX x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xX xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX x xX X 0 10000 20000 Section Distance Hydrostratigraphic Units Well Log Explanation Unit A ��Borehole ■ Well Log Name(Distance from Unit B Textural S� section trace,in feet) Description Overburden: Sand,Gravel,Silt,Clay Figure 3-8. Unit C Till Sandy and/or Gravelly Silty Clay Hydrogeologic Section G-G' Alt,Sand,Gravel,Silt,Clay,Till Water Level Unit D Silty Sand Elevation Permeable Conglomerate Sand and Gravel Screened or Unit E clay perforated Gravel and Clay Interval Bedrock NORTH%F 5 T WRIA 14 Phase 2 Hydrogeologic Investigation Land&Water,iNc. Unit F M Bedrock Sea Level Grants G03000042 and G0000107 111.1,,111.1-.11 .• HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC. Transportation and Civil Engineering i l '1'yM kfA. � �44W FY: G 10 7�77- MCCD - JOHNS PRAIRIE BUSINESS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS —LEVEL 1 MASON COUNTY, WA B. C7 •'6/30/09 4 �sslONAL �l 1'�7 EXPIRE Prepared for: David J. Mariano Mariano and Associates, Inc 6430 Tacoma Mall Blvd, Ste 1 Tacoma, WA 98409 NOVEMBER 2007 2214 Tacoma Road•Puyallup,WA 98371 •(253)770-1401 •Fax(253)770-1473 JOHNS PRAIRIE BUSINESS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS —LEVEL 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3 II. Project Description...................................................................................................... 3 III. Existing Conditions..................................................................................................... 3 IV. Future Traffic Conditions............................................................................................ 6 V. Summary...................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix LIST OF TABLES 1. Trip Generation............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map and Roadway System ............................................................................ 4 2. Site Plan....................................................................................................................... 5 3. Trip Distribution and Assignment............................................................................... 8 2 JOHNS PRAIRIE BUSINESS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS — LEVEL 1 L INTRODUCTION The main goals of this study focus on the assessment of existing roadway conditions and forecasts of newly generated project traffic. The first task includes the collection of general roadway information, road improvement information and entering sight distance data. Forecasts of future traffic and dispersion patterns on the street system are then determined using established trip generation and distribution techniques. As a final step, appropriate conclusions and mitigation measures are defined if needed. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Johns Prairie Business Park project proposes 6 buildings of 6,050 square feet each, for a total of 36,300 square feet of business park space on a 7.77 acre site. The project is located on the south side of Johns Prairie Road, northwest of the City of Shelton in unincorporated Mason County. Project access will be via one main access onto Johns Prairie Road. Land use in the vicinity is general light industrial or undeveloped land. Completion and occupancy of this project is estimated roughly in 2009. Figure 1 shows the general site location and surrounding streets. A site plan illustrating the overall lot configuration and driveway location is given in Figure 2. III. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Surrounding Roadways The street network serving the proposed project consists of a variety of roadways. Streets near the site mainly consist of two-lane arterials and highways. Defining characteristics for these roadways vary with respect to lane widths, grades, speeds, and function. Differences are based on specific roadway designations and proximity to major employment areas. The primary roadways are described below. E Johns Prairie Road is a two-lane, east-west arterial that borders the north side of the project. Lane widths are roughly 12 feet, with gravel shoulders. This road provides interconnection between Allyn/Belfair and Shelton. SR-3 is a two-lane, southwest to northeast state highway that lies to the east of the project. Lane widths are 12 feet, with 3 foot paved shoulders transitioning to grass/gravel. The posted speed limit is 40 mph in the site vicinity. 3 N �JohNs PRAIRIE RD 51TE 5HELTON 2� or 3 JOHNS PRAIRIE BUSINESS PARK HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC VICINITY MAP a ROADWAY 5Y5TEM Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE I „ •• ...,.,,,�,�- fell s I NZ I � a ,. a. 6 I + Z I F I SA I as 1l �• y ` -- —J 1 ��. • 1 1 Ao��� I � 1 111 1 1 1 - l\ +U -`,7°- as - / ✓/ j JOHN5 PRAIRIE BUSINESS PARK HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC 517E PLAN Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 2 B. Roadway Improvements According to the Mason County 2006-2011 Transportation Improvement Program, an improvement project is located on John's Prairie Road for the 2007 time frame. C. Transit Service According to the Mason Transit bus schedules, transit is not provided in the project vicinity. Route 7 which serves Shelton is further east and Route 1 travels via SR-3 between Shelton and Allyn. D. Sight Distance at Access Driveways Entering sight distance refers to whether adequate visibility can be provided for inbound/outbound project traffic. Field review indicates that adequate sight distance is available at the proposed access location on Johns Prairie Road. E. Non-Motorist Traffic Pedestrian and bicycle trips generated by the proposed project are expected to be negligible given the project location and area roadways. Non-motorist traffic is not expected to have a significant effect on vehicle progression in the area. IV. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Trip Generation Trip generation can be used to determine the magnitude of project impacts on the surrounding street system. Data presented in this report was taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's publication Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. The designated land use for this project is defined as Business Park (LUC 770). ITE average rates were used. Table 1 on the following page shows the trip generation values for the project. Included are the average weekday daily volume and the AM and PM peak hour generation volumes for the 36,300 square feet of business park. 6 TABLE 1 Trip Generation 36,300 sfBusiness Park Time Period Volume AWDT 463 vpd AM Peak Inbound 44 vph AM Peak Outbound g vph AM Peak Total 52 vph PM Peak Inbound 11 vph PM Peak Outbound 36 vph PM Peak Total 47 vph B. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution describes the process by which project generated trips are dispersed on the street network surrounding the site. Site generated trips are expected to follow the trip pattern shown in Figure 3 on the following page. This figure reflects trips taken by project traffic during the higher volume PM peak hour. Distribution percentages are assigned to the primary project trips, and are based largely on the roadway network and location of nearby major commercial and residential areas. Trips to/from the Shelton area would distribute westerly via Johns Prairie Road. V. SUMMARY The Johns Prairie Business Park project consists of 6 buildings with a total area of 36,300 square feet of business park on 7.77 acres. On a typical weekday, 463 daily trips are expected, with 47 trips during the PM peak hour. The project distribution is expected to favor trips to/from the Shelton area via Johns Prairie Road, as shown in Figure 3. 7 N0� STOP �-p 9� -2 20 7 20%O 80% F�OhNS P IRIE RD 51TE a� 2 0 STOP 3 0� I 0 0 PM PEAK PROJECT TRIP5 INBOUND: I I VPH OUTBOUND: 3G VPH JOHNS PRAIRIE BUSINESS PARK HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC TRIP DISTRIBUTION 4 A55IGNMENT Transportation and Civil Engineering FIGURE 3 JOHNS PRAIRIE BUSINESS PARK TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS -LEVEL 1 APPENDIX Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 36.3 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of Business Park November 12, 2007 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 12.76 5.78 1.00 463 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 1.20 0.00 1.00 44 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.23 0.00 1.00 8 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 1.43 1.34 1.00 52 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.30 0.00 1.00 11 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.99 0.00 1.00 36 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1.29 1.28 1.00 47 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 1.20 0.00 1.00 44 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.23 0.00 1.00 8 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.43 1.34 1.00 52 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.30 0.00 1.00 11 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.99 0.00 1.00 36 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.29 1.28 1.00 47 Saturday 2-Way Volume 2.56 1.96 1.00 93 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday 2-Way Volume 1.29 1.27 1.00 47 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS STATE OF WASHINGTON - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION T R I P S S Y S T E M ANNUAL TRAFFIC REPORT STATE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME ---------------------------------- ROUTE FUNCT TRUCK PERCENTAGES 2003 2004 2005 2006 STATE ROUTE MILEPOST LOCATION COUPLET CLASS SNGL DEL TRIPLE TOTAL UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS 002 333.89 BEFORE JCT SR 2 CONEWPRT (COUPLET) 1 6400 6600 6600* 6600 002 ** 333.91 AFTER JCT SR 2 CONEWPRT WYE CONN C 1 4700 4800 4800* 5200 002 334.37 BEFORE JCT SR 2 CONEWPRT WYE CONN C 1 4700 4800 5000* 5400* 002 334.38 AFTER JCT SR 2 CONEWPRT (COUPLET) 1 11000 11000 11000* 13000* 002 334.51 BEFORE JCT SR 41*CITY ST 1 9900* 10000 9900* 11000 STATE ROUTE NO 002 COUPLET BROWNE SR 2 TO SR 90 UXING 002COBROWNE ** 287.45 BEGIN ROUTE 1 22000* STATE ROUTE NO 002 COUPLET DIVISN SR 2/EUCLID AVE TO SR 2 002CODIVISN ** 289.20 AT ADC LOCATION R103 1 25000* STATE ROUTE NO 002 COUPLET NEWPRT UNION AVE TO 4TH ST 002CONEWPRT ** 334.45 BEFORE JCT SR 20*WASHINGTON AVE 1 6700 6900 7600* 8000* 002CONEWPRT 334.45 AFTER JCT SR 20*WASHINGTON AVE 1 5500 5600 5100* 5200* 002CONEWPRT 334.86 BEFORE JCT SR 2 WYE CONN 1 5200 5400 5100* 5000 STATE ROUTE NO 003 MAINLINE SR 101/SHELTON TO SR 104 003 000.00 AT SR 101 UXING*BEG ROUTE 1 7200 7100* 6700* 6700 003 000.11 AFTER RAMP SR 101 1 12000 12000 11000* 11000 003 001.49 BEFORE JCT ARCADIA AVE*ARCADIA RD 1 13000* 13000 13000 14000* 003 001.51 AFTER JCT ARCADIA RD WYE CONN 1 14000* 14000 14000 15000* 003 002.25 BEFORE JCT HARVARD AVE 1 15000* 16000* 16000 16000 003 002.31 AFTER JCT MILL ST 1 19000 19000* 19000 19000 003 002.71 BEFORE JCT RAILROAD AVE*S FIRST ST 1 15000* 14000* 15000 16000* 003 002.71 AFTER JCT RAILROAD AVE*S FIRST ST 1 3800* 3900* 3900 4400 003 002.93 AFTER JCT PINE ST*FRONT ST 1 9300 9300* 9300 9300 003 008.98 BEFORE JCT AGATE RD WYE CONN 1 12000 13000* 13000 13000 ** COUPLET SKETCH IN BACK OF BOOK * BASED ON ACTUAL COUNT + SOURCE OF TRUCK PERCENTAGES Page 1 of 2 DAVE MARIANO From: "Severson, Dale" <Severs D@wsd ot.wa.g ov> To: "Pam Bennett-Cumming" <PamBC@co.mason.wa.us>; "DAVE MARIANO" <dkmariano@msn.com> Cc: "John Sliva" <JohnS@co.mason.wa.us>; "Jones, Bob (Olympic Region)" <JonesR@wsdot.wa.gov>; "Steigner, Vicki" <SteignV@wsdot.wa.gov>; "Hess, Alana" <HessA@WSDOT.WA.GOV> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 8:48 AM Subject: SR 3 Johns Prairie Business Park Level I Traffic Impact Analysis: WSDOT Comments Good morning all, At the request of the proponent Dave Mariano I just want to clarify the comments below and the position of WSDOT. WSDOT is not asking for any improvements or funding contributions from this project. The traffic to be generated by this development does not have a significant adverse impact to the WSDOT system, therefore no mitigation of any kind is or will be asked of this development towards the state highway system. In addition, WSDOT rescinds any comments we made below regarding suggestions or other possible mitigations of or from this development towards the Mason County road system. In summary we have no objections to this development being approved. We also have no other comments about this project as our jurisdiction is only the state highway system. If you have any questions please give me a call. Thanks all Dale C. Severson, P.E. Development Services Engineer WSDOT, Olympic Region Direct line: (360) 357-2736 Work cell: (360) 791-3105 Fax: (360) 357-2748 Email: seversd@wsdot.wa.gov From: Hess, Alana Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 3:02 PM To: 'Pam Bennett-Cumming' Cc: 'John Sliva'; Severson, Dale; Deemer, Larry; Schiller, Brent Subject: SR 3 Johns Prairie Business Park Level I Traffic Impact Analysis: WSDOT Comments Dear Ms. Bennett-Cumming: The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the November 2007 Level I Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Johns Prairie Business Park. The estimates for trip generation were based on the ITE Manual Business Park classification using 36,300 square feet. A total of 463 new trips will result from this development with 47 new PM peak trips.Twenty percent of those trips -or 9.4 new PM peak trips -are expected to impact the SR 3 and Johns Prairie intersection. No mitigation measures for traffic impacts are identified in the TIA. WSDOT does not currently have a funded project to construct improvements to SR 3 in the vicinity of Johns 12/5/2008 Page 2 of? 'i Prairie Road therefore we cannot collect funds from this developer towards improvement of the intersection. If improvements are constructed in the future at this intersection it is likely that widening of the bridge will be a necessary component of those improvements. Although we do not necessarily concur with the how the new trips from this development were distributed in the TIA even if all 47 new PM peak trips were directed to the SR 3 - Johns Prairie intersection requesting mitigation at this intersection from this one developer would not be reasonable due to the anticipated cost of constructing the needed improvements. A project on Johns Prairie Road is identified in the County's 6-Year Transportation Improvement Program. Perhaps proportional share or constructed improvement mitigation from this developer for traffic impacts to the County's facilities would be appropriate. WSDOT will continue to monitor the SR 3 and Johns Prairie intersection and would like to advise your office that study of SR 3 between US 101 and SR 304 is underway. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Should you have questions or require additional information please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Alana Hess Development Review Engineer Olympic Region Development Services Washington State Dept of Transportation 5720 Capitol Blvd P.O. Box 47440 Olympia, Washington 98504-7440 (360) 357-2725 (360) 357-2748 FAX hessa@wsdot.wa.gov 12/5/2008 (4/2/2008) Pam Bennett-Cumming - Fwd.- Re: Johns Praire Business Park Page 1 From: Barbara Robinson To: Pam Bennett-Cumming Date: 4/1/2008 8:39 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Johns Praire Business Park Pam,would you watch for this. When will you be on vacation? Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670, Ext. 603 barbarr@co.mason.wa.us >>> "DAVE MARIANO" <dkmariano@msn.com> 4/1/2008 8:45 AM >>> THANK YOU BARB!!! I will have the system operator address our planned use of water, his available connections,and confirm that this volume is available and within his allowed usage. I will get this statement over to Pam ASAP. Thank you thank you! Dave M -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Robinson<mailto:BarbarROco.mason.wa.us> To: DAVE MARIANO<mailto:dkmariano@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday,April 01, 2008 8:18 AM Subject: Re: Johns Praire Business Park Dave,I finally had a chance to talk to all three commissioners yesterday. Commissioner Sheldon stated that DOE will not have money for the analysis of the John Creek Watershed until next year. The Commission is not willing to push ahead using exempt wells for commercial uses in conflict with the Squaxin Tribe. As you know there is a legal battle in process between the tribe and DOE. Hopefully that will be resolved soon. As for your project,we can support you proceeding through the use of another approved water source as you stated was available to you. This water source must have water rights,capacity and connection ability to serve you and what ever else they currently serve. You will need to submit documentation is writing to Pam Bennett Cumming so that she can amend the SEPA to reflect the water usage issue. This documentation must address the rights,capacity and connection issues specifically for your project. Please get that to Pam as soon as you can so that we can proceed. If you have any questions, please contact me. Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670, Ext. 603 barbarr@co.mason.wa.us<mailto:barbarr@co.mason.wa.us> >>> "DAVE MARIANO" <dkmarianoOmsn.com<mailto:dkmariano@msn.com>> 4/1/2008 8:21 AM >>> Barb,any word yet? We just got another request to lease space yesterday. Our intent is to build 6 buildings over 2 phases of 3. So far by word of mouth only we have over half of phase 1 rented to 4 new businesses. But I can't give or more importantly,can't get a letter of intent from them until we can get this sorted out. The 4 businesses pledged to come include a 1 new business start up, 1 business relocation for purposes of growing, and 2 established business from outside MC coming here to serve our residents needs. Each of the 4 business have 3-4 employees each or 12-16 new jobs so far and this only half of phase 1. (4/2/2008) Pam Bennett-Cumming - Fwd: Re: Johns Praire Business Park Page 2 I'm confused why the Commissioners would support Cordelane wood products as well as other projects even higher in the aquifer where impacts may truly exist and not this effort low in aquifer where it is questionable at best if there really is an impact at all. I'm also confused that the environmental process that I think is suppose to judge the project on its merits (merits that I think we have addressed and mitigated) is being influenced a bit by politics. Sorry to whine but we are getting desperate to move forward. The alternative is quickly becoming fold and forget it. While this action by us to stop the losses would practically be a declaration of bankruptcy or at least a measure to stop it from happening, it would also be a huge loss to the community. This project has the potential to create upwards of 30+ new jobs, support economic development,and create new revenue sources for the community through sales taxes, personal property taxes,as well as REET revenue. Thanks Barb for helping us to move this forward. We really do appreciate your help! But I also need to let you know the challenges we are facing while we wait. Dave M 360.701.6623 -----Original Message----- From: Barbara Robinson<mailto:BarbarR(abco.mason.wa.us<mailto:BarbarR(&co.mason.wa.us>> To: DAVE MARIANO<mailto:dkmariano@msn.com<mailto:dkmariano@msn.com>> Sent: Monday, March 24,2008 4:07 PM Subject: Re:Johns Praire Business Park Thanks for the update Dave. As for my briefing, it was canceled,since Commissioner Sheldon had to leave and Commissioner Ring Erickson is out of town. Sheldon will be out all week, but I hope to talk to him by cell phone this week. Barbara Robinson Community Development Director Mason County P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 360-427-9670, Ext. 603 ba rba rr(aDco.mason.wa.us<maiIto:barbarrC&co.mason.wa.us<maiIto:barbarrOco.mason.wa.us%3CmaiIto:barbarr@co.maso n.wa.us>> >>> "DAVE MARIANO" <dkmariano@msn.com<mailto:dkmariano(nlmsn.com<mailto:dkmarianoOmsn.com%3Cmailto:dkmariano@msn.com>>> 3/24/2008 2:05 PM >>> Barb,thanks for taking the time to speak with me this morning. Before your briefing this afternoon I wanted to let you know that I spoke with Michael McSems and John Sliva this morning about our other project with you. We reviewed the Public Works input for storm drainage and civil design for the plat road. He had only a couple of minor comments and will be contacting the engineer to finalize this. I think we have addressed things for our Cloquallum project and it is moving again. I still think that Public Works has a problem as it took a year to get to this point. But I did not want you to unaware that we made some progress. In regards to John's Prairie Business Park I wanted to summarize our discussion this morning: I'm specifically asking to be removed from the regional discussion of water in the Johns Prairie industrial zone and that the project be viewed on its individual merits. We respectfully request that as the County SEPA official,that you consider if we have provided a reasonable response to the concerns expressed by the tribe and have offered sufficient supporting information and mitigation to any impacts,if there truly impacts. If we have been responsive then we would like to request that you return the SEPA determination for this project back to a Determination of Mitigated Non Significance allowing the project to move forward. As discussed this morning the supporting information included: a..The tribe's stated position on this was predicated by their desire to engage WS DOE as a partner in sponsoring a study of the area. It sounds like this is being done. As part of this agreement the tribe's objections to this and other projects should be lifted and the blockade of projects stopped. b.. For our project specifically the tribe is interpreting the use of WA 173-514 in a manner that is inconsistent with stated WS DOE policies. Tom Loranger of DOE(360.407.6058) indicated that their intent with the WAC was to affect "Regulated"waters, specifically those RCW 90-44 refers to that require water rights and/or permits for withdrawal of waters (4/2/2008) Pam Bennett-Cumming- Fwd: Re. Johns Praire Business Park Page 31 exceeding 5,000 gallons per day. All other uses less than this threshold are exempt from "regulation". Even though it may not be definitely stated the WAC 173-514 has several references to this intent and it is being managed by WS DOE in this manner. c..The tribe has noted that the basin was closed and that additional hydrological study is required. In fact the basin is not"closed". The WAC allows the removal of waters for both consumptive and non consumptive purposes. It specifically exempts non consumptive uses and certain other consumptive uses. It further states in 173-514-030 Note(4)that"Future Consumptive water right permits issued hereafter for diversion of surface water in the Kennedy Goldsborough WRIA and perennial tributaries shall be expressly subject to in stream flows established in WAC 173-514-030(1)through(3)as measured at the appropriate gauge,preferably the nearest one downstream. d.. Please note this project does not propose to seek a water right permit but the tribe is considering this WAC as affecting all waters, permitted and otherwise. e.. If this is the way the WAC is to be used I would suggest that this statement would then also serve to define the true measure of a project's impact as opposed to the tribes interpretation that the WAC requires a hydro geological study. f..As we discussed this project is very low in the aquifer near its outlet to Oakland bay, is adjacent to Highway 3 which has undercut the hillside,and is very close the Manke deep gravel mining operation. It us highly unlikely that any exempt waters withdrawn from the aquifer would reach significant flows of John's Creek causing a measurable decrease to flow of John's Creek. g..The use of water on this project is limited to the capacity of on site septic systems. This project has designed 2 systems with a combined flow of 1,300 gallons per day. These are designed using a safety factor assumed to be approximately 30%. As a result the actual maximum operating condition will be approximately 850 gallons per day. The majority of this use is a non consumptive use and is returned to the water table. However it is acknowledged that a small portion is consumed. USCGS studies indicate that consumption is limited to approximately 10%. As a result this project could be determined to have a consumptive use of about 90 gallons per day. Given the proximity of the project as discussed above it is extremely unlikely that the consumptive use of 90 gallons per day would in fact reach the John's Creek flows and result in a measureable reduction in the stream flow as might be measured by the nearest down stream gauge as defined by the WAC 172-514-030 above. h.. Regional water solutions higher in the aquifer have been implemented removing pressure from groundwater flows that do in fact reach John's Creek. Even if this project had a measurable impact the net impact to the stream flow as a whole is improved. The minor impact by this project, if there is any at all,are heavily offset by these actions upstream. The net end condition remains an increased flow for the system as a whole. On its own merits this project poses little if any impact to in stream flows of John's Creek that could be realized on the nearest downstream gauge as required by the WAC. Even so the project has sought to aid the situation as much as possible by mitigating our impacts, if any,to the greatest extent possible. a..This project will make use of an existing water system operating adjacent to this project. This system has sufficient connections and capacity to to support our domestic use of approximately 850 gallons per day. We are prepared to provide you with a letter of agreement with the owner of the system as well as a letter from the system operator acknowledging the availability of connection and sufficient water availability. b..As proposed and approved in our pre-submission meeting the fire flow for this project will be managed by building size, materials,circulation, use,and monitoring as opposed to maintaining large quantities of water in on site storage containers. c..While the above justification for the projects identifies a minor consumptive use of ground water we trust that we have demonstrated that there is minimal if any impact to John's Creek surface water flows. Even so have tried to provide a short term solution by using an existing water system. In an effort to address a long term solution we would also like to connect to municipal water when it is made available. This project will be designed so that it can be connected to this municipal water source and converted to it when a regional solution to domestic and fire flow is made available. I trust this accurately captures our discussion this morning. I hope we have addressed that the project has a minor consumptive use of ground water,that this minor use is not likely to reach John's Creek surface water flows,and if it were to reach surface water flows that it is so small that it is not likely to be identified in gauges set downstream to monitor and identify such an impact. That we are well within the net gain realized to the system as a whole by changes to regional water uses further upstream. That we have provided a short term solution by using an existing water source and that we have provided a long term solution by agreeing to design the facility so that it can be connected to municipal water when it is provided to the area. I trust this is deemed reasonable and responsive to the concerns expressed by the tribe and that we have mitigated our impacts, minor or otherwise,for both short and long term uses. Thanks for considering this. Dave Mariano 360.701.6623 Thomas M. Pors of Law Office of Thomas M. Pors Speaker 12a: 1 LEGAL AND PRACTICAL ISSUES IN MITIGATION "WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T" By Thomas M. Pors Law Office of Thomas M. Pors 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle,WA 98101 (206) 357-8570 tompors@comcast.net • Manke Lumber v. Ecology, PCHB Nos. 96-102 through 96-106 (1996). This case was decided prior to the adoption of RCW 90.44.055, and was the first precedent in Washington relating to mitigation for ground water withdrawals from a source other than another water right. The case relied extensively on Colorado i precedent, including Giffen v. State of Colorado, 690 P.2d 1244 (Colo. 1984) and R.J.A.,Inc. v. Water Users Assn of Dist. 6, 690 P.2d 823 (Colo. 1984), and Southeastern Colorado W.C. Dist Y. Shelton Farms,Inc., 529 P.2d 1321 (Colo. 1975). i Aquifer recharge resulting from vegetation removal cannot be considered the basis for mitigating or offsetting a water right. i I "A tree does not hold a water right. . . . The amount of ground water they i suck up, and the amount of precipitation they intercept,is ever-changing. The water they leave in the ground at any point in time is merely a portion of the ground water resource that belongs to the people of the State, subject to the rights of prior appropriators. To say that Manke can establish a water right for itself where none would otherwise exist, merely by cutting down trees, would be to gut the statutory scheme by which the Legislature has implemented the principle of first in time, first in right." iI I ! Law Seminars International I Washington Water Law 2008 1 04/11/08 in Seattle, WA i Port Blakely Tree Farm v.Ecology POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON PORT BLAKELY TREE FARMS, LTD., ) PCHB No. 96-66 Appellant, ) V. ) ORDER ON MOTION FOR STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, ) Respondent, ) and ) ) THE TULALIP TRIBES OF ) WASHINGTON, ) Respondent-Intervenors. ) i ) I. BACKGROUND On January 8, 1996, the Washington State Department of Ecology ("Ecology")" issued gY orders denying water right application G1-27548, filed by Port Blakely Tree Farms Limited Partnership ("Port Blakely") for its Ames Lake Plat. Port Blakely timely appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board ("Board"). In response to earlier threshold motions for summary judgment by various parties to water rights appeals, the Board held consolidated briefings and hearing on June 27, 1996, and issued a written Order on Motions for Summary Judgment on July 16, 1996, which order resolved a number of issues in the St. Andrews appeal, and is the law of this case. On November 25, 1996, Ecology filed a motion for summary judgment or in the alternative motion in limine. On November 30, 1996, Port Blakely filed a cross-motion for file:///El/Port%20Blakely%2OTree%2OFarm%2Ov_%2OEcology.htm(1 of 4)11/29/2007 12:03:17 PM I Port Blakely Tree Farm v.Ecology summary judgment. With regard to the present motions for summary judgment, the Board { considered the following: 1) Ecology's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Motion in Limine and Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment or in the alternative Motion in Limine, dated November 25, 1996, and Written Testimony of Tom Culhane Re: Snoqualmie Subbasin, dated November 13, 1996; 2) Port Blakely's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support of Port Blakely's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, dated November 30, 1996, Declaration of John Adams, and Expert Testimony of Steve Germiat, dated November 18, 1996; 3) Port Blakely's original notice of Appeal; 4) the Board's file on the Port Blakely appeal; and 5) the Board's Order on Motions for Summary Judgment dated July 16, 1996, including i the Board's file concerning motions for summary judgment filed by Coordinated Appellants Group, the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, the Tulalip Tribes, and the Muckleshoot Tribe, including all legal memoranda and declarations filed in support thereof. B. FINDINGS Having considered all of the above, the Board finds that there are no issues of material fact because Port Blakely has not disputed that its proposed withdrawal is in hydraulic continuity with the Snoqualmie River, which is tributary to the Snohomish River. Based on the above finding, the Board makes these i C. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. On July 16, 1996, the Board issued an order determining threshold issues related to a large number of water right appeals. That decision is the law of this case and is binding on Port i j Blakely. Port Blakely participated in the briefing and argument leading to the threshold decision. A number of issues raised in this case are resolved by the Board's Order on Motions file:///El/Port%20Blakely%20Tree%20Farm%20v_%20Ecology.htm(2 of 4)11/29/2007 12:03:17 PM Port Blakely Tree Farm v.Ecology for Summary Judgment, to wit: a) Ecology may deny a groundwater application if necessary to protect minimum instream flows in a surface water with which that groundwater is in hydraulic continuity (Issue No. 4); b) Hydraulic continuity is a scientific fact which, once established in any degree, need not meet any further standard or test to be given full credit in Ecology's water allocation decisions; it is not necessary for there to be a measurable effect on the surface water (Issue No. 5); c) Ecology may not approve an application for groundwater which would impair existing rights, including instream flows (Issue No. 11). 2. With regard to the issues related to impairment of senior rights, the Board concludes i that the proposed withdrawal is in hydraulic continuity with the Snoqualmie River and the f Snohomish River, surface water sources which are subject to minimum instream flows that are not being met. As a matter of law, Ecology may not grant an application to withdraw groundwater, for consumptive use, which is in hydraulic continuity with a surface water in which minimum instream flows set by rule are not being met. Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. i Ecology, PCHB Nos. 96-59 & 60 (1996). i 3. With regard to the issues over whether Port Blakely's proposed withdrawal would return the same or more water to the ground than would result if the property remained in an undeveloped state, and whether mitigation measures proposed by Port Blakely would alleviate any detrimental impact to surface waters, the Board concludes, as a matter of law, that Ecology' may not consider the mitigating effect of any reduction in water used by vegetation resulting' from the replacement of trees with other vegetation at its site.- ,The water that vegetation leaves in the ground at any point in time is a portion of the groundwater resource that belongs to the people of the State, subject to senior rights, including instream flows. Manke Lumber Co. v. Ecology, file:///El/Port%20Blakely%2OTree%2OFarm%20v %2OEcology.htm(3 of4)11/29/2007 12:03:17 PM Port Blakely Tree Farm v.Ecology PCHB No. 96-102 et seq. (1996). Further, the Board concludes as a matter of law, that an-,,, applicant is not entitled to apply any return flow from septic systems -at its site Co mitigate against its proposed groiuidwater'withdrawal. Cedar River Water & Sewer District v. Ecology, PCHB Nos. 96-59 & 60 (1996). 4. Having considered all of the above, the Board concludes that Port Blakely has failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding hydraulic continuity or any other issue, and that Ecology is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, summary I judgment should be granted to Ecology. Accordingly, we enter the following ORDER I The motion for summary judgment brought b Ecology is GRANTED. j �'j � g Y gY i Judgment is entered for Ecology and against Port Blakely on PCHB appeal No. 96-66 DATED this 5th day of February, 1997. POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARJD JAMES A. TUPPER, JR., Presiding RICHARD C. KELLEY, Chairman ROBERT V. JENSEN, Member I I i i I file:///EI/Port%20Blakely%20Tree%20Farm%20v %20Ecology.htm(4 of 4)11/29/2007 12:03:17 PM