HomeMy WebLinkAbout071210_ra02
Regular Agenda
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
PWlip Morley, County Administrator () _
AI Scalf, Director, Department of Community Developme~ -
Stacie Hoskins, Planning Manager, DCD ~ _
Michelle Farfan, Associate Planner, DCD ~
July 12,2010
Deliberation and decision re: establishment of the Final docket for the 2010
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
DCD staff requests the Board's adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle final docket
pursuant to Section l8.4S.060( 4)(b), Title 18 of the Jefferson County Code (JCC). A prelirninmy docket
was not required this year as Jefferson County received only one site-specific Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from Miles Sand & Gravel and received no suggested amendment proposals.
BACKGROUND:
At the time of adoption of Ordinance 08-0706-04 on July 6, 2004, it was assumed the mining operations
would be under the direction of a single operator, Fred Hill Materials. A lease for the Wahl and Shine
Hub areas was signed by Fred Hill Materia1s and Pope Resources on July 11, 2008. Subsequently, Fred
Hill Materials assigned the lease to Miles Sand & Gravel Company on April 30, 2009.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application packet
ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALSIPROS and CONS:
All timely site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment's shall be reviewed per the Jefferson County
Code.
FISCAL IMPACT/COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
Cost of the decision to docket: none
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners adopt the Final Docket to include MLAIO-00073,
Miles Sand & Gravel.
REVIEWED BY:
~-
-:P7(/o
Date
1
fi
JEFFERSON COUNTY em ft
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
621 Sheridan street " Port Townsend " WashIngton 98368
36013794450" 3801379-4451 Fax
W'INi.co.jefferson.wa.uslcommdevelopment
~SS:$
@)
Master Pennlt Application MLA: lO - rr3
Projeel Descriptlon (Include separate sheets as necessary):
18-acre Expansion of Minerai Resource Lands Overlay (MRL) & Modlllcatlon to OrdInance 08-0706-04
T':,= 801361001 & 701011001 Pro= 15iHlU8MRL+llHlore..........., (acreslsqusrefeet)
Site Address sndIor DIrections to Property: The_.... Js__"__RoadT_l000....,..."-T... Farm""'""" ..........
Faeslry Road 7.1000 Is aacessecf fn:m Washingtm Sla!& Route 104. The pmposed MRL expansion erua connectl to Ibe nodhem
boundaty fJlftIe Wahl Ex!rallUon AlBa which fa also Qlf:ncIden1 wilh lh:a nD'lIhem boulldaryotfhe exIsflna MRL..
Property Ownar(s) of Record: POPE RESOURCES
Telephone: ~7 -6626 Fax: 360-697-1156 emeD: lImbertands@onnlnc.oom
. MaIIIngAddress: FO_17BO,_WA9837D
AppUcanflAgem (If dJfferem from owner): MILES SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY
Telephone: ~705 Fax: ~748 emall:__
Mailing Address: POBox 130,Aubum, WA98071
What kind of Pennlt? (Check each box lhet applies
OBufidlng 0 VeJlance (MInor, Major or Reasonable Economlo Use)
o DemoDtlon Panni! 0 Conditional Use [C(e~ C(d), or C] -
o Single Family 0 Garage AIlaohed I Detached 0 DIsorelloruuy"O" or Unnamed Use Clesslflcation
o Manufactured Home 0 Modular 0 SpecIef Use (EssenllaJ Pubnc Fscllltles) -
o Commercial" 0 Boundary line Adjustment
o Change of Use 0 Short Plat-
o Address 0 Rosd Approach 0 Binding Site Plan -
o Home Business 0 Cottagelnduslry 0 Long Plat ..
o Propene 0 Planned Rural Resldentlal DeveJopmem (PRRD)/Amendmerrta -
O~n O~~~w~"
o Allowed "Yes" Use ConsIslency AneJysls 0 Shorallna Master Program ExemptiQroPennit RevIsions _
o Stolll1W8ler Managemem 0 Shorallne Msnegement Substantial Developmem"
o SIte Plan Approve! Advance Detennlnetion (SPAAD) " 0 Shoreline Management VeJlance
o Temporary Use II Comprehensive PIanlUDC/Land Use DIstrict Map Amendment
o WIreless Teleoommunlcallon" 0 JeffeJson County Shorefine Mester Program Amendment
o Forest Practices Ac!IReleese of SIx-Yeer Momtorlum 0 Tree Vege1alon Request
" a Pro ContenInce -R a_A ContenInce
Please Identify any other local, state or federal permits requIred for this proposal, If known:
I hereby deslgnste MILES SANe AND GRAVEL COMPANY
-
DESIGNATION OF AGENT
to eel my agent In mattera relatln to thle application for pennlt(s).
Dale: / /0
OWNER SIGNATURE
By slgnfng lhIs app8caUon form. the ownerIagenI_ that the information provltled -. and In any _. Is trua and colTll<:llo the best of
his. her or Ifs knowledge. Any _I faJsehood or any omission of a matllJlal fact made by the owner/sgent wlth respect 10 this applioallon packet
may resullln lhIs permJI being null and void.
I fur1her agree 10..... Indemnlfy and hold harmJesB JefI'eraon County ag_ aU llablllllss. judgments, court costs. reasonable stiomey's fees and
expenses whil:h may In any way accrua against JefI'erson County as a result of or In consaquence of the granting of lhIs parmi!.
I fur1her agree to pI'OVfde lICCBSS and right of entry to JefI'erson County and lis employees, representatives or agents for the sole purpose of app8caUon
- and any I'BqlJIre<! ns. Staffs _ and rfght of entry will be assumed unless the applk:anllriforms the County In wrIIIng a1the
lima of r
SlgnaIure Os
The acllon or actions Applicant will underlBke as a result of the lssuance oflhls permit may negallvaly Impect upon one or more lhreaIened or
endangered specIss and could lead 10 a polenllaI'lake" of an endangered specIss as those terms are delined In the _law known as the
"Endangered Speclss Acr or "ESA." Jeffemon County makes no asaurances to the applicant that the acllona that will be und_ because lhIs
permJI has been Issued wlJI not _the ESA. Any 1ndMduaJ. group or agency can file a /awsui! on behalf of an endangared specIss regarding your
acllon(s) lMllIlf~~.i% ~~ development code. The Appllcanlacknowled.. gas that he, she or ft ho1dsl!1dMlluaJ
~7.7n1'M =-~.. wIlhtheESA. The Applk:anl has read:::r[T'"31"!/far: dales ftbelow.
C\n..-..".",. and Settings\cual\LoaII Settings\ Tempowy _Files\OLKB6\Mastm- PeanitAppIkatina l2-19-2OO6.doc MAR - 1 2010
11I"', ~ .. . ;>
'-J
8m*" e..sss-
@)
JEFFERSoN COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
.,
621 Sheridan street . Port Townsend' Washington 98388
360/379-4450, 3601379-4451 Fax
www.co.je1ferson.wa.ustcommdevelopment
MAR - 1 2010
Application for Formal Slte-Specific
Comprehensive Plan I UDC Amendment1
I M1A# J 0-'73 PROJECT/APPUCANTNAME: MllJ35.\ND~Grma co.
For Comprehensive Plan amendments, applications must be completed and submitterJ to the Department of Community
Development by March 1 of the current calendar year Tn order to be consldared durfng the annual amendment process.
Completed applfcations that are receivad atler March 1 wm be placed on the cJocket for the following calendar year.
Applications for UDC amendments may be considered on a romng basis. Applications that are incomplale (le., that do
not Include all of the fnformation requIred balow) wUl be returned to the appDcant.
SubmlftalRequlrements '* f~E' see ,1r1\1-Cl\a> St.1.9M 1 tJ1ll- na..lS AJ:
1. A completed Master Land Use Appllcatlon. Representative eulhorlzatlon Is required If appllcatlon Is not signed by
owner.
2. A completed and signed Slate Envlronmenfal Polley Act (SEPA) chec!dlst.
3. Comprehensive PlanlUDC Amendment appllcatlon fee (as appllcable), as set forth In the Jell'el1lon County Fee
Ordlnance, as amended.
4. Any additional Information deemed necessary by the Admlnlslrator to evaluate the proposed amendment
5. Please prepare and label as 'Exhlblt A." a vlclJ1ity map showing the following:
a. The location of the area proposal! to be redesignated;
b. The land use designation of all property wllhln five hundred (500) feet of the site; and
c. The uses of all properties located within five hundred (500) feet of tha aile.
6. Please prepare and labal as "exhibit B," a descliptIon of the proposed PIanlUDC amendmant and any assocfatad
development proposel(s), If appllcable. Appllcations for proJect-relaled formal site-spectffc redeslgnations must
Include plans, and informallon or studies accuralely depicting eJdstlng and proposed uses and Improvements.
ApplIcations for such redeslgnations that do not spaclfy proposed uses end potential impacts are assumed to have
maximum impact to the enllfronment and public faollltles end selVlces.
7. Please prepare and label as "Exhibit "C; a map that depicla eJdstlng conditions on the aile and wllhIn the genera'
vIolnity p.e., wllhln a three hundred (300J-foot radius]. The exhibit must deplcl topography, wetlands and buffera,
easements and their purpose, and means of access to the site. The intent of the exhibit Is to clesrly illustrate the
physlcal oppcrtunltles and constnalnts of the site.
8. Please provide an explenation of why the amendment Is being proposed. (AtIach additional sheets, If necessary.)'
1 See JCC Chap1er 18.45.
SITE SPECIFIC APP..ooc REV. 1J13t2O(E
Page 1
11"7 ~.
--
~ .....
The appJJcanl haraby cartifias /hat tha statamants contalnad in this appJlca!Jon are trua and provida an accurata
representation of tha proposed amendmant; and tha appllcant(s) harebyacknowledgas thai any approval fssuad on
this appllr:ation may be revoked If any such statamanl is found to be faIs6.
.tQ~~ 0
gZ~~ ~:
15.
3/1/(0
.
3/ / //t'J
/ "
DATE
PROPERTY OWNERtS SIGNATURE
PROPERTY OWNER'S SlGNAlVRE
DATE
[NOTE: For aD required signatures, representative authorlzatlon Is required If application Is not signed by
the owner.] .
SITE SPEClAC APPDOC REV. 7/13.12003
MAR - 1 2010
Page 3
r,-"
~':, '
~.
Gh'l1t ~9S'5 @
APPUCA nON FOR FORMAL SITE-SPECIFIC
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/ /UDC AMENDMENT
1.
SEE ATTACHED MLA
2.
SEE ATTACHED SEPA
3.
SEE ATTACHED SUBMITTAL FEE
4.
NO ADDI7IONAL INFORMA7TON PROVIDED
5,
SEEATTACHED EXHIBIT "AI
6.
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT"B'
7.
SEE A TTACHED EXHIBIT"C'
8.
The PropoSer requests an Amendment to the Jefferson Colll1ty's ~mprehens;ve Plan and Zoning Mop.
The amendments would allow the Proposer to seek the project-specific approvols for the uses
described below. The proposal is to add 18 acres to the MRL designated through the adoption of
Ordinance 08-0706-(}4 that encompasses the 156-acre Wahl Extraction Area. The geographic oreo
proposed for addition to the MRl. is locoted adjacent to and immediately north of Wahl Extraction
Area. Future uses within the existing 156-acre Wahl MRL and the proposed MRL expansion oreo
include sand and grave/ processing. other future uses within the proposed 18-acre expansion oreo
include an office for a truck scale, a maintenance shop, and concrete and asphalt botching. The main
entrance to the existing processing hub is via Rock-to-Go Road However. if the MRL expansion is
approved and the processing hub moves, the main access is expected to change to Forestry Road
T-l000. The access change would be port of a future project-specffic permit opplicotion.
The MRL and proposed MRL expansion oreo ore zoned Commercial Forest and are locoted within the
Thorndyke Tree form which is owned by Pope Resources. Mining and associated activities within this
arM are operated by Miles.
1 I
MAli - I lulU
" 11
, ~
,
"
In addition to the MRL expansion, the Proposer seeks madificotion to certain conditions imposed by
Jefferson County on property (including the Wahl Expansion Areo covered by Ordinance ()8-0706-04)
and segregation of certain property now leosed by the Proposer, so that each property is independent
of the other as to County requirements.
Backpround:
Thrwglt the Ordinance referenced above, Jefferson County designated 690 acres MRL, subject to J5
conditions. At the time the Ordinance was adopted. Fred Hill Materials held a lease for the entire
690 acres plas additional property. All parties at the time of the Ordinance G$$l/IT/ed that the entire
property would be operated by a single owner as part of a single overall plan. Subsequently, Fred Hill
Materials assigned its lease as to a portion of the 69() acres to Miles Sand & Gravel Company with the
intention that Miles ond Fred Hill Materials would separately operate sand and gravel facilities on
their respective properties.
The original plan at the time of the Ordinance was that all processing of sand and gravel materials
would oCClJl' on a portion of the overall property known as the Shine Pit Hub, and that na processing
would occur on the Wahl Lake property. Based upon that plan, and the single lease of the whole 69()
acres. Jefferson County imposed a variety of conditiO/1$ on the designation of the land through the
Ordinance. Included among those conditions was Condition J() which provides that the Wahl Lake
property would be ased for mineral extraction only and thot no processing would be permitted. All
materials would be transported by conveyor to the Shine Pit Hub where they would be processed. This
condition was not based Of/ environmental factors, and the Proposer seeks to eliminate the restriction
so as to aI/ow processing on the Wahl Lake property.
A number of other conditions were imposed on the entire property through the Ordinance, Since
portions of the affected property are now in different leasehold interest, the conditions that are
applicable to the Proposer's property should be set forth in a separate ordinance, so thot development
and ase of eoch property con OCClJl' on its own schedule and so that the conditions of approval can be
met and monitored for eoch property. The Proposer requests that a separate ordinance be adopted
for its property setting forth the conditions that apply to it, and excluding it from the restrictions
set forth in the Ordinance.
9.
Commercial Forest
10.
Commercial Forest with a Mineral Resource l..ands Overlay
2/
Mt.R - 1 ?mn
-~
"
11.
Commerciol forestry
12.
Future uses within the existing 156-acre Wahl MRL and the proposed MRL expansion area include
sand and gravel processing. Future uses within the proposed 18-acre expansion area include on office
for 0 truck scale, 0 maintenance shop, ond concrete and asphalt hatching.
13.
SEE A TTACHED EXHIBIT "DO
14.
SEE ATTACHED EXHrBIT"C'
3 I
M,.;R - 1 2010
.
~
GmFr ~sss
c0
WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist.
ENVIRONMENTAL cm:CKLIST
Purpose of cheddist:
The State Environmental Polley Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, reqnlres lIII governmental agencies to
consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS)
must be prepared for lIII proposals with probable signlfil:llDt adverse impacts on the qnality of the environment. The
purpose of this ch""kHd is to provideinformatton to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to
reduce or avoid Impacts from the proposal. if it I:lID be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS Is required.
InstructIons for oppllcm1ts:
This environmental checklist asks you to deserIbe some basic information about your proposaL Governmental
agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring
preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the must preeise information known, or give the best
description you can.
You must llDSWer each question accurately and earefuIIy, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you
should be able to answer the questions from your own observattons or project plans without the need to hire experts. If
you really do not know the answer, or If a question does not apply to your proposal. write "do not know" or "does not
apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, sach as zoning, shoreIlue, and landmark desIguatIons.
Answer these questions If you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies I:lID assist you.
The checklist questions apply to lIII parts of your proposal. even if you plan to do them over a period of time or
on dift'ereut parcels of land. Attach any addltlonalleformation that will help deserlbe your proposal or its environmental
effects. The agency to wideh you sabmlt this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additlonal
Informatton reasonably related to determining if there may be olgnifi('8l1t adverse impact.
Use of checklJstfor rumproject proposals:
COmplete this checkl/st for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN
ADDmON, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECf ACI10NS (part D).
For nonproject actions, the references In the checklist to the words "project" "appUcant," aad "property or
site" should be read as "propose]," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Site-Specific ComprehensiYe Pion Amendment:
llHJcre Expansion of Mineral Resource lAnds Overlay (MRL) & ModifiCtltion to Ordinance 08-0706-04
2. Name of applil:llDt:
Miles Sand & Gravel Company (Miles)
3. Address and phone nnmOOr of applicant and contact person:
Mike Schuh
Miles Sand & Gravel Company
PO Box 130
Auburn. WA 98071
(253) 833-3705. Ext. 460
MAR - 1 2010
, .
.
~
~
Contacts:
Williom T. Lynn
Gordon ThDl11fJ$ HonsyweII
1201 Pactlic Avenue, Ste 2100
Tacoma, WA 98402
(206) 620-6416
./
Patrick Raymond.
Olympic Resource Management
PO Box 7
PortGatnbIe, WA 98364
(360) 297-0570
. Bernadette Johnston, PC
Teom 4 Engineering
5819 NE Minder Road
Pou/$bo, WA 98370
(360) 297-5560
4. Date cl1eekJist prepared:
J01IIJt1f'y 26, 2010
5. Agency requesting cl1edd1st:
Jefferson Cotmfy bepartment of Community bevelopment (IXb)
6. Proposed timing or sehedule (including P!U>""'g, if applieable):
Proposal to be processed (J$ part of the 2010 Jefferson Cotmfy Comprehensive PIon Amendment prOC8$$.
7. Do you have any plans for future .m.ntln.... expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal?
Byes, explain.
The Proposer thes not have plans to reqllB$f future additions to the AAR/.. of this time. The geographic tlf'eo
proposed for addition to the MR/.. is p!onned to be the location ftlf' on asphalt botch plont, a concrete botch
p/ont, an office for a truck satIe, a .fTltJintf!/1t117ce shop and sand and gravel procB$$ing etJiIipmenf. AppHaJble
permit$ for the$B proJX1$Bd actMtiB$ tlf'e not part of this propo$O/, but will be obtained prior ta implementing
said U$BS.
8. LIst any llDVlronmentallnCormatlon yon know about tbat has been prepared, or will be prepared, dlrectIy related to
,
this proposal
.Cultural ResourcB$ Survey Technical Memorandum and Unanticipated biscovery Pion, Wahl Expan$ion Area,
JeffBf'$Qn CoIll1fy, Washington~ prepared for MilB$ Sand & Gravel Company and Jefferson ColD/ty /)epartmenf
of Community Development, by GeoEngineet"$, Febf'llt1f'y 26, 2010.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals dlrectIy affecting the
property covered by your proposal? Byes, explain,
None pending.
MAn - 1 2010
2
.
10. List any government approvals or permJIs that wlII he needed for your proposaL iflamwo.
. Site-spedfic Comprehel1$ive Plan Amendment for this proposal
. Cond/tit>>7t11 Use Permit Graall/fl Permit, SEPA, and NPDES for an ospha# batch pion, concrete batch
plont, truck scale, maintenance shop and sand and gravel processing equipment.
. Grading Permit, WSDOT ROW Permit, and SEPA for new site access from SRJ04.
11. Give brie~ complete description of your proposal, inelodlog the proposed uses and the size of the projeet and site.
There are several questions later in this ehecllllst that ask yon to describe certaIu aspeelll of your proposal Yon do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to inelode additiOnal speclfil: information
on projeet description.)
The Propt1$er requests an Amendment to the Jeffers(11/ County's Comprehensive Pion and ZMing Map. The
amendments would allow the Proposer to seek the project-specific approvals for the lISe$ described below. The
proposal is to add 18 acres to the MRL designated through the adoption of Ordinance 08-0706-04 that
encompasses the 156-acre Wahl Extraction Area. The geographic orea proposed for add/ti(11/ to the MRL is
located adjacent to and immediately north of Wahl Extraction Area. Future uses within the existing 156-acre
Wahl AfRL and the proposed MRL 8Kp<Il7Si(11/ arM include sand and gravel processing. other future uses within
the proposed 18-acre expansion arM include an office for a truck scale, a maintenance shop, and ccncrete and
asphalt hatching. The main entrance to the existing processing hub is vk1 Rock-to-Go Road However, if the
MRL expansion is approved and the processing hub moves. the main access is expected to change to Forestry
Road T-1000. The access change would be part of a future project-specific permit application.
The MRL and proposed MRL exponsi(11/ arM are zoned Commercial Forest and are located within the Thorndyke
Tree farm which is owned by Pope Resources. Mining and associated activities within this area are operated by
Miles.
In additi(11/ to the MRL expansi(11/, the Proposer seeks modification to certain conditions impt1$ed by Jefferson
COl81ty (11/ property (including the Wahl Expansion Area cavered by Ordinance 08-o706-lJ4) and segregation of
certain property now leased by the Propt1$er, so that each property is independent of the other t1$ to CoI81fy
requirements.
BackarolU1d:
MAli - J 2010
Through the Ordinance referenced above, Jeffers(11/ Col81ty designated 690 acres MRL, subject to 15
conditions. At the time the Ordinance was adopted. Fred Hill Materials held a lease for the entire 690 acres
plus additit>>7t11 property. All parties at the time of the Ordinance assumed that the entire property would be
operated by a single owner t1$ part of a single overall pion. Subsequently. Fred Hill Materials =igned its lease
t1$ to a portion of the 690 acres to Miles Sond & Gravel Compony with the intention that Miles and Fred Hill
Materials would separately operate sand and gravel facilities on their respective properties.
The original pion at the time of the Ordinance was that all processing of sand and gravel materials would occur
(11/ a porti(11/ of the overall property known t1$ the Shine Pit Hub, and that no processing would occur on the
3
.
Wahl Lake property. Based upon that plan, and the single lease of the whole 690 acres, .Jefferson County
imposed a variety of conditions on the designation of the land through the Ordinance. Included among those
conditions was Condition 10 which provides that the Wahl Lake property would be used for mineral extraction
only and that no processing would be permitted. All materials would be transported by conveyor to the Shine
Pit Hub where they would be processed. This condition was not bosed on environmental factors, and the
Proposer seeks to eliminate the restriction so as to allow processing on the Wahl Lake property.
A number of other conditions were imposed on the entire property through the Ordinance. Since portians of
the affected property are now in different leasehold interest, the conditions that are applicoble to the
Proposer's property should be set forth in a separate ordinance, so that development and use of each property
can occur on its own schedule and so that the conditions of approval can be met and monitored for each
property. The Proposer reljuests that a separate ordinance be adopted for its property setting forth the
conditions that apply to it, and excluding it from the restrictions set forth in the Ordinance.
12. Location of the proposal Give sufficient information for a person to nnderstand the precise loeatlon of yonr
proposed project, including a street address, If any, and seetlon, township, and range, If known. If a proposal wonld
occur over a range of area, provide the range or bonnl!arWs of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity
map, and topographic map, If reasonably avnIIable. WhDe yon shonld snhmlt any plans reqn1red by the ageney, yon are
not reqnlred to dnplieate maps or detaUed plans snhmltled with any permit applieatlons related to this cheeklist.
The proposed 18-acre MRl. expansion area is located west of private Forestry Road T-1000 within the
Thorndyke Tree Farm owned by Pope Resources. Forestry Road T-1000 is accessed from Washington State
Route 1Q4. The proposed MRl. expansion area connects to the northern boundary of the Wahl Extraction Area
which is also coincident with the northern boundary of the existing MRL
Ten acres of the proposed 18 acres is located within the Northwest J of the Northeast f of Section 1,
Township 27 North, Range 1 West, Willamette Meridian, .Jefferson County, Washington.
eight acres of the proposed 18 acres is located within the Southwest -} of the Southeast -} of Section 36,
Township 28 North, Range 1 West. Willamette Meridian, .Jefferson County, Washington.
MAR - 1 2010
4
,
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENcYUSE ONLY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (clicle one): Flat, ~ ~ steep slopes, mountafnons,
other..... .
b. What Is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
According to LiDAR topography surveyed by the Puget Sound LiDAR consortium, the declivity of the proposed
MRL area is generally from west to east. The terrain ranges between 5 to 30 percent slopes across the site,
with an average of approximately 10 percent.
c. What general types of soIls are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat,
mnck)? 1f yon know the classification of agrlcultnraI soIls, specify them and note any prime
farmland.
The soils are listed in the "Soil Survey of Jefferson County Area, Washington" prepared by the United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service as Everett gravelly sandy loam belonging to Hydrologic
Soil Group A.
d. Are there surface Iodlcatlons or history of unstable soIls 10 the bmnedlote vIcIoity? If so,
describe.
None known at this time. The project-specific permitting process for future uses within the MRL expansion
area will require a geological hazards analysis. If required. a "Geotechnical Report" will be prepared
documenting the geology of the MRL expansion area, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect
of geologic conditions on the proposal. and opinions and recommendations on the suitability for the proposed
uses.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approxImate quantities of any fillIog or gradlog proposed.
Iudicate source of fJI/.
The amount of material to be extracted in the future is unknown. Calculation of fill and grading quantities will
be performed and submitted with the project-specific permit application for future uses within the MRL
expansion area.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or nse? If so, generaUy describe.
Clearing, construction, and future uses of the MRL expansion area could result in erosion. The project-specific
permit application for futures uses would include a "Drainage and Erasion Control Plan" to address best
management practices to prevent or reduce erosion.
M:.R - i 2010
5
,
TOBE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT .
EV AI.UATION IIOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
g. About what percent of the site will be eovered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or bnfidlngs)f
Calculation of impervious area coverage will be performed and submitted with the project-specific permit
applicotion for future uses within the MRL expansion area.
b.Proposed measures to rednce or control erosion, or other Impacts to the lllII1h.lf any:
The project-specific permit application for futures uses wOIIld indude a .Droil/t1ge and Erosion Control Plan' to
address best management practices to prevent or reduce erosion and would be in accordal1ce with the most
recent requirements set forth in Jefferson County Code 18.30.070 .Stormwater Management Standords~ In
addition, future uses would require a .National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System' (NPDES) permit
from the Washington State Department of Ecology.
2. AIr
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Leo, dust, antomobDe,
odors, Indnstrlal wood smoke) during construction and when the project Is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantltles If known.
Construction of future uses could result in dust emissions. Future batch plant and asphalt plant operations
could also result in emissions. Air permits would be obtained during the project-specific permit application
phase as required by the Olympic Region Cleon Air Agency and would include best management practices for
emission controls.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect yonr proposal? If so,
generally describe.
None known.
e. Proposed measnres to reduce or control emissions or other Impacts to air, If any:
Air permitting thrOllgh the Olympic Region Cleon Air Agency would be conducted during the praject-specific
permit applicotion phase for futures uses.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or In the lnunedlate v1e1n1ty of the site Onclndlng
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type
uud provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river It flows Into.
MAR - 1 2010
I
1
I
i
!
,
,
Wahl lake is locoted approximately 400 feet east of the proposed MRL expansion area.
6
,
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
2) wm the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach avaDable plans.
Ftd/Jre uses are not expected to require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) Wahl La/<<J.
3) EstImate the amonnt of fiB and dredge material that wonld be placed in or removed
from snrfaee water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the $Dnree of fill materiaL
No fill and dredge material would be placed in or removed from surface waters or wet/onds as part of
this propasal or with any future use applications.
4) wm the proposal require snrfaee water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
descrlptinn, pnrpose, and approximate qwmtltles if knOWD.
No.
5) Does the proposal lie within a lOO-year floodplain? If so, note lneation on the site pIan.
The proposed MRL expansion orea is not within a lOO-year floodplain.
6) Does the proposallnvoive any discltarges ofwaste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type ofwaste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
b. Gronnd:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to gronnd water? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate qaantities If known.
Future uses would require groundwater withdrawal An opplication for groundwoter withdrawal has been
submitted and is under review by the Washington State Department of Ecology. A new 5000 gpd
exempt well would be proposed to be used an interim basis until opproval of the submitted applicotian.
It is likely that future stormwoter monogement will utilize infiltration as oflowed by Jefferson County
Code 18.3a070 "Stormwoter Management Standards"_
2) Describe waste material that will be diseharged Into the gronnd from septic tanks or
other sources, if auy (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, coutainlng the
following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; ete.). Describe the genel'lll size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable). or the number of auImals or
humans the SYStem(s) are expected to serve.
The future office may require a septic drainfield. This system would be dsigned as part af 0 praject-
spet:ific action onr1 would be permitted as required by Jefferson Ccunty.
Mt.f1 - ] 2010
7
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENC11USE ONLY
Co Water runoff (lncludlng stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff (lncludlng storm water) aud method of collection
and disposal, If any (Include quantitles, If known). Where will thIs water now?
wm thIs water now into other waters? If so, describe.
Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces created for future uses will be evaluated in a .Drainage and
Erosion Contral Plan. and submitted with a project-specific permit application to address best management
practices and would be in accordance with the most recent rer.;uirements set forth in Jefferson County
Code 18.30.070 .Stormwater Management Standards~ In addition, future uses would rer.;uire a "National
Pollution Discharge and Elimination System. (NPDES) permit from the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generaDy describe.
It is unlikely that future uses of the MRL expansion area could result in waste materials entering
surface waters or groundwater. However. potential impacts and mitigation would be evaluated as part
of a project-specific permit application.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water Impacts, If any:
Measures to reduce or control surface, grounct and runoff water impacts from future uses would be
addressed with best management practices to be evaluated during a project-specific permit application.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found 00 the site:
X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
~ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soU plants: cattail, buttercup, buIlrusb, skunk cabbage, otber
water plants: water illy, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
The MRL expansion area will be logged by Pope Resources as part of their commercial forestry business. It
is not expected that future uses will retJtlire additional clearing beyond volunteer vegetation that
establishes between the clearing and construction of the proposed uses.
Co LIst threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
j;J4r)
iYJi;11 - 1 2010
&
I
r
TOBl;:COMPLETEDBY APPLICANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
II. Proposed IandKajl!ng, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, If any:
The MRl. expansion areo will be loggecI by Pope Resources as part of their commercial forestry bllSiness.
Future uses of this area would require a project-specific permit application through Washington
Department of Natural Resources. As part of this permit, the area would require reclamation/revegetation
after completion of mining andassociated activities. per the Revised Code of Washington 78.44.
5. ,AnimAl.
a. Circle any birds and Anlml'l. which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
An evallJation of birds and animals on or near the proposed MRl. expansion area will be provided with a
project-specific permit application for future lIS6$.
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mAmmAl.: d_, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, tront, herring, sheJlflsb, oiher:
b. list any threatened or endangered specles known to be on or near the site.
None known
Co Is the site part of a migration ronte? If so, explain.
Migration rOlltes will be evaluated during the project-specific permit application process for future lISes.
II. Proposed measnres to preserve or enhance wIIdJlfe, If any:
Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife will be evaluated during the project-specific permit
application process for future lIS6$.
6. Energy and natural resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, 011, wood stove, solar) wIIJ be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether It wIIJ be uSed for heating,
manufllcturlng, ere. .
Future lISes of the site will require electrical power (Puget Sound Energy) and fossil fuels for operating
equipment.
b. Would YOUl' project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If sn, generally deserlbe.
This proposal and future uses are not expect to affect the potentiallJSe of solar energy by adjacent
properties.
MAR - 1 2010
9
,
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
Co What kinds of energy amservatlon featnres are Included In the plans of this proposal?
LIst other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impaels, if any:
Future uses will implement best management practices for mining equipment and processing.
7. Environmental health
a. Are there any envlronmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemkals, risk
offlre and exploslou. spill, or hazardous waste, that could oeear as a result of this proposal?
If so, describe.
Fuel spills could be poSSible re/oted to future uses of the MRL expt1l1Sion area. Best management practices
for fuels spills will be part of the National Pollution Discharge and Elimination System permit from the
Washington State Deportment of Ecology.
1) Describe speelaJ emergency services that might be required.
Future uses will retplire fire, mediCi1/' ond /aw-enforcement emergency services typical of Ci1mmercial
sites.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
None proposed.
b. Noise
1) What types ofnolse exist In the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Noise from logging operations within the Thorndyke Tree Form may periodiCi111y affect the proposed
uses within the MRL expansion area.
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, constroetion, operation, other)? Indi-
cate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise from asphalt ond concrete botching processes and from trucks will be created by the proposed
future uses. This will be evall/Oted with a project-specific permit proposal
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impaets, If any:
Best management practices for noise control of future uses will be oddressed in a project-specific
permit appliCi1tion. All equipment and processing will be in compliance with Jefferson County standards.
}/;\;:i - 1 2J1O
10
.
.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSI: ONLY
8. Land and shoreline use
a. What Is the ClIrrent use of the site and adjacent properties?
TIre current use of the prapased MRl expansion errea and the slIT'rollf/ding area is commercial forestry. The
surrollflding area is solely awned by Pope ResoIlT'&eS.
b. Bas the site been nsed for agrieuItnre? H so, describe.
No.
Co Describe any strnctnres on the site.
None.
d. WiD any strnctnres be demoHshed? H so, whot?
No.
eo What Is the CIlITeDt ZOIIiDg classlflcation of the site?
Commerdal Forest.
t What Is the cnrrent comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Commerdal Forest.
g. H appli~ble, what is the current shoreline master program deslgnation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Bas any part of the site been classified as an "euvironmentally sensitive" area? Ifso, specify.
The MRl expansion area is within a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area and will meet the requirements of
Jefferson ColIf/ty Code 18.22.
L Approximately how many people would reside or work In the completed project?
The propased futllT'e uses of the MRL expansion area will employ approximately 8-20 people.
j. Approximately how many people wonld the completed project displace?
The proposed Mure uses of the MRL expansion area will not displace any people.
ig,l - 1 2aJO
11
"
.
TO BECOMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYlJSE ONLY
k. Proposed lI1easures to avoid or reduee dlspJaemnent lD1pae/ll, If any:
Not applicoble.
L Proposed 111_ to ensure the proposal ill COll1patlble with existing and projected land
uses and pJans, If any:
This prapt1St1l is directly adjacent to previOtlSIy approved Mineral Resource Lands designated by Jefferson
County fJI1(/ is surrounded by Commerci41 Forest owned by Pope Resources. The proposed Sl/b$e(pIent use of
the area upon completion of reclamation is to return to Commercial Forest.
9. Housing
a. Approrlm'lfely how III8DY units would be provided, If any? Jndfeate whether high, Dlid-
die. or Iow-lncome housing.
No lwuslng is proposed t1$ port of this proposal or future uses.
b. ApproxlD1ately how III8DY nniIs, if any, would be eliminated? Indleate whether high,
middle, or Jow..Io_ houslog.
Not applicoble.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or eontrol housing ID1pads, If any:
Not applicoble.
10. Aesthetirs
a. What ill the tallest height of any proposed strnetore(s), not Iodudlog antennas; what is
the prlnelpal exterior buiIdiog lI1aterial(s) proposed?
Equipment sizes ond building heights will be addressed in the project-specific permit appliClltion for future
uses.
b. What views In the lJomedlnte vlclnity would be altered or obstrueted?
View impacts will be evaluated during the project-specific permit appliClltion process.
c. Proposed lI1easores to reduce or coutrol aesthetle lD1pads, If any:
Aestlteticimpacts will be evaluated
\:'.'"
Iii",: - 1 2010
12
,
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAm'
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
11. LIght and glare
a. What type of /lgbt or glare wlII the proposal prodnce? What time of day would it mainly
oeenr?
lighting associated with the future uses of the MRL expansion oreo will be evaluated during the project-
specific permit process for future uses.
b. ConId Jlgbt or glare from the flnlshed projeet be a safel;y hazard or Interfere with vlews?
It is not expected that light glore resulting from future uses will be 0 safety hazard or il1terfere with
views.
Co What existing off-site sources of/lgbt or glare may affeet your proposal?
No kttOWf1 existing off-site sources of light or glore ore knoWfl.
d. Proposed measures to rednce or control /lgbt and glare Impacts, if any:
Meosures to reduce or control light and glore impacts will be evaluated during the project-specific permit
process for futures uses.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportonitles are In the immediate vicinity?
The Thamdyke Tree Form is available to the public for f/Of1-motorized recreation ond limited hUl/ting.
b. Would the proposed projeet displace any existing recreational uses? Ifso, describe.
The proposed MRL. expansiol1 oreo (18 acres) would no longer be available for recreafiOl1t:1lus6S.
Co Proposed measnres to rednce or control Impacts on recreation, Inclndlng recreation opportunities to be
provlded by the projeet or applicant, if any:
None proposed.
13. HIstoric and enJtnraJ preservation
a. Are there any places or objects Ilsted on, or proposed ror, national, state, or local preservation registers
known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
According to "Cultural Resources Survey Tecfmical Memoramium ond UllOll1icipated Discovery Plan'
prepared by GeoEngil1eers (February 26, 2010), there ore no previously recortkd orchaeological sites within
the proposed MRL expansion orea, no cultural resources were identified withil1 the proposed MRL exptJI1Sion
orea during the survey for the project, 110 known cultural properties will be affected by the proposed
13
. '''1 '''010
W.,,,I -! L
~
.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
future uses within the MRl. expansion area, ond no further culturol resource action is warronted at the
time.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence ofblstorie, archaeological, sclenlifie, or
cnItoraJ bnportance known to be on or next to the site.
None known.
Co Proposed measnns to rednce or control bnpads, if any:
7he "Treatment Pion for Unanticipated Archaeological and Cultural Discoveri8$" attached as OIl appenaIX to
the dOClllTlent referenced in 130 above should be used in the event that Ctlltural resources be discovered
during implementation of future uses within the MRl. expon$ion area.
14. Transportation
a. Identify publie streets and blgbwnys serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Current access ta the proposed MRl. expansion area is via private logging roads connected to Rock-to-Go
Road that accesses SR 104. Access is OIItidpated to change in the future to Pope Resources Private
Forestry Road T-1000 Which directly connects to SR 104.
b. Is site cnrrently served by public transit? Ifnot, what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?
7he area is not served by public transit. the nearest 10eafion is several milesaway.
Co How many parking spaces wonld the completed projeet have? How many wonld the
projeet eliminate?
Future uses of the MRl. expon$ion will not eliminate any existing parking. Parking ratios would be determined
at the time of a project-specific permit application.
d. Will the proposal reqnlre any new roads or streets, or hnprovements to existing roads or
streets, not Inclndlng driveways? If so, generaDy describe (Indicate whether pnblic or
private).
It is OIItidpated that access to the proposed MRL expansion area will be moved. A new access location would
riN/uire approval by the Washington State Department of Transportation and improvement would be
construction to their standards. the details of a new access would be evaluated during a future project-
specific permit application.
}v'ti - 1 ;:010
14
.
.
TOBE COMPLETED BY APPlJCANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
e. wm the project use (or OOOIr In the immediate vidnlty of) water, ran, or air transportation? H so, generally
describe.
Future uses of the MRL expansion ar<<1 will not use water, rail or air tronsportation.
1. How many vehieular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? Hknown.lndieate when
peak volUDles would oeenr.
The MRL expt11I$ion propOSal will not produce vehicular trips. However, a traffic study would be required
during the project-specific permit application process for future uses.
g. Proposed meBSJmlS to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
Meosure to reduce or control transportation impacts of future uses would be evaluated during the project-
specific permit application process for those uses.
15. PubUe servIees
a. Would the project result in an Increased need for publie services (for exmupIe: fire pro-
tection, pollee protection, health care, sehooIs, other)? H so, generally deserlbe.
Future uses of the MRL expansion ar<<1 are not expected to increase the need for public services.
b. Proposed measures to redoce or control direct lD1paets on pobUe services, If any.
None proposed.
16. Utilities
a. CIrcle otilities eorrentiy available at the site: ~Ieetricltyj, natoral gas, water,lrerose sen{.
~ !telepbonq, sauItary sewer,lseptie system!. other.
-Note utilities that will be provided for future uses**"
b. Describe the otiUtles that are proposed for the project, the otiUty providing the service,
and the general constrnetlon aetlvIties 00 the site or In the immediate vieiulty which m.lght
be needed.
Future uses of the MRL expansion will require electricity [Pugst SolO1d Energy). telephone (Qwest). and
refuse service. These utilities and the need far an on-site septic system will be determined prior to submitting
a project-specific permit application.
C. SIGNATUllE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lend
::":~5~
Date Submitted: ~_
~V,:J - 1 2010
15
.
.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT
EVALUATIONFOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
D. SVPPLEMENTALSHEEI'FORNONPROJEcl' ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, It may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of
activltles likely to resUlt from the proposal, woaId affect the Item at a greater intensity or
at a taster rate tbun if the proposal were not Implemented. Respond briefly aad In general
terms.
1. How wonId the proposal be likely to Increase diseharge to water; emIssInns to air; pro-
duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardons substances; or production of noise?
The geographic area proposed for addition to the MRl. is planned to be the location for an asphalt batch plant
a concrete batch plant, an office for a truck sazle, a maintenance shop and sand and gravel processing
equipment. Applicable permits for these proposed activities are not part of this proposal but will be obtained
prior to implementing said uses. This proposal wwld not increase discharge to water Dr emissions to air;
prodtice, store, ar release toxic or hazardous sub$tances; or praduce noise. Review of potential impocts by
future uses would be evalllOted during the project-specific permit oppliadion process required for permitting
those uses.
Proposed measures to avoId or reduce such Increases are:
No measures are proposed at this time as this proposal is a non-project action. Measures to reduce Dr avoid
such increases from fllfure uses would be evalllOted during the project-specific opplication process required
for permitting those uses.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plnnts, animol.. fish, or marine life?
This proposal would not affect plonts, animals, fish. or marine life. Review of potential impacts by future uses
would be evalllOted during the project-specific permit application process required for permitting those uses.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
No measures ore proposed at this time as this proposal is a non-project action. Measures to reduce or avoid
such increases from fllfure uses would be evalllOted during the project-specific permit oppliadion process
required for permitting those uses.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natnral resources?
This proposal would not deplete energy Dr natural resources. Review of potential impocts by future uses wDilld
be evalllOted during the project-specific application process required for permitting those uses.
M ; LOm
16
~
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPIJCANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are:
No measures are proposed at this time as this proposal is a non-project action. Measures to reduce ar avoid
such increases from future uses would be evaluated during the project-specific permit application process
r~ired for permitting those uses.
4. How would the proposal be IlkeIy to use or afJeet environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or nuder study) for governmental protection; such 8!1 parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic r1ve1'll, threatened or endangered speeies habitat, historic or
caIturaI sites, wet1ands, f1oodplalns, or prime farm1ands?
This proposal would not IJ$e ar affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or lJl1der
study) for governmental protection: such as parks. wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened ar
endangered species habitat historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floor/p/ai/1$, or prime farmlands. Review of
potential impacts by future IISe5 wOtJld be evallJOted during the project-specific permit application process
rerplired for permitting those wes.
Proposed measures to protect such resonrces or to avoid or reduce impacts are:
No measures are proposed at this time (]$ this proposal is a non-project action. Measures to redllCe or avoid
such increases from future uses would be evallJOted during the project-specific permit application process
ref/uired for permitting those uses.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land aud shore1lae use, lacludlng whether It
would aDow or encourage land or shoreDae uses Iaeompatible with existing plans?
This propo$Of wOtJld not affect land and shoreline uses. Review of potential impacts by future wes would be
evallJOted during the project-specific permit application process required for permitting those uses.
Proposed measures to avoId or redace shorellae and land use impacts are:
No measures are proposed of this time as this proposal is a non-project action. Measures to reduce or avoid
such increases from future uses wOtJld be evaluated during the project-specific permit application process
r~ired for permitting tht1Se uses.
6. How would the proposal be likely to lacrease demands on transportation or public
services and atIIitIes?
This proposal wOtJld increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. Review of potential
impacts by future wes WOI/ld be evaluated during the project-specific permit application process ref/uired for
permitting those wes.
2.010
17
~
<
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCYUSE ONLY
Proposed measures to rednce or respond to such demand(s) are:
No measures ore proposed at this time as this proposo/ is a non-project action. Measures to reduce or avoid
SlIch increases from fwure tIS8S would be evallJafed during the project-specific permit application process
rt!l:fuired for permitting those lIS8$.
7. Identify, ifpossible, whether the proposal may confiict with local, state, or federal Jaws or requirements for
the protection of the envlronment. -
This proposal does not conflict with loco/, state, or federal lows or rt!l:fuirements for the protection of the
environment.
- 1 iYG
18
Grnrt- ~sss @J
(
EXHIBIT -A- - VICINITY MAP
ps
"ALL PROPERTY W1lH1N 500
FEET IS ZONED COMMER/CAt
FOREST, OWNED BY POPE
RESOURCES. AND IS ACTIVE
COMMERCIAL FORES1:"
<
PRlVAlE
.FORESlR
ROAD T-1ooo
'---J
,
~ WAHL
EX1RAClION
BOUNDARY AND
156-ACRE MRL
BOUNDARY
\\
~
~
MAf1 - 1 2010 ~ .
~ ,~
G-fY/1t
~5S.s- @
EXHIBIT DBu
7he Proposer ri!(juests on Amendment to the JefferSlJn Coonty's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Mop.
7he amendments WOIJld allow the Proposer to seek the project-specific approvals for the lISes
described be/ow. The proposol is to add 18 acres to the MRL designated thr()(J!Jh the adoption of
Ordinance 08-0706-04 that encompasses the 156-acre Wahl Extraction Area. The geographic arm
praposed for addition to the MRl. is located adjacent to and immediately north of Wahl Extraction
Area. Future IISeS within the existing 156-acre Wahl MRl. ond the proposed MR/. expansion arm
indude sand and grovel processing. Other future lISes within the proposed 18-acre expansion arm
include an office for a trllCk scale, a mointenonce shap, and concrete and asphalt hatching. the main
entrance to the existing processing hub is via Rock-to-Go Road. However, if the MRL expansion is
approved and the processing hub moves, the main access is expected to change to Forestry Road
T-1000. The access change WOtJId be part of a future project-specific permit applicotion.
The MRl. and proposed MR/. expansion arm are zoned Commercial Forest and are located within the
7horndyke Tree farm which is owned by Pope Resources. Mining and associated activities within this
arm are operated by Miles.
In addition to the MR/. expansion, the Proposer seeks modification to certain conditions imposed by
JefferSlJn Collflfy on praperty (including the Wahl Expansion Arm covered by Ordinance 08-0706-04)
ond segregation of certain property now leased by the Proposer, so that mch property is independent
of the other os to County ri!(juirements.
BackllrOfJf1d:
Thr(1l19h the Ordinance referenced above, Jefferson County designated 690 acres MR/., subject to 15
conditions. At the time the Ordinance was adopted, Fred Hill Materials held a lease for the entire
690 acres pIllS additiOf/OI property. All parties at the time of the Ordinance OSS/Jf/1ed that the entire
property would be operated by a single owner os part of a single overall plan. Subsi!(juently, Fred Hill
Materials assigned its lease os to a portion of the 690 acres to Miles Sand & Grovel C(1mpony with the
intention that Miles and Fred Hill Materials would separately operate sand and grovel facilities on
their respective properties.
The original pIon at the time of the Ordinance was that all processing of sand and grovel materials
would occur on a portion of the overall property known os the Shine Pit Hub, and that na processing
w(1uld occur on the Wahl Lake property. eased upon that plan, and the single lease of the whole 690
acres, Jefferson County imposed a variety of conditions on the desi!JfItJtion of the lond through the
Ordinance. Included among those canditions was Condition 10 which provides that the Wahl lake
property would be lISed,for mineral extraction only and that no processing would be permitted. All
materials would be transported by conveyor to the Shine Pit Hub where they would be processed. 7his
MArl - 1 2010
11
l
~5S'5-000~
condition was not based on envirOl1l11entoJ factors, and the Proposer sssk$ to eliminote the restriction
so as to oJlow proCS$$ing on the WoJd Luke property.
A number of other conditiOllS were imposed on the entire property through the Ordil/t117ce. Since
portiOllS of the offected property ore now in different leasehold interest, the conditiOllS thot ore
applicable to the Propaser's property should be set forth in a seporote ordinonce, so that dsvslopment
and use of each property can occur on its own schedule and 50 thot the conditions of approval can be
met and monitored for each property. 71Ie Proposer requests thot a seporate ordinance be adopted
for its property setting forth the conditions that opply to it, and excluding it from the restrictions
set forth in the Ordil/t117ce.
21
11;'1"'1
!\I r,lt
- 1 2010
(yvYItA- ~555 (g)
.'l.~ ",- H I~ ,\I \/1>:"'{ -- L~h "," ~ I,\:~ ~~. .:r
; ~\~~ :'.' 11 . l ~M\;:~ ~1. ... r ~\l . d ~ jP~
iIo .~Jtl 1 \.... (, ~, ." >.:.' -G r- III .
., . : ~ .. ., ,,: . t.""\ : . . . .,
, 1 ,1 .
j1~'/'[~ jJ/!/// f1 ~ . '. p. . 5Jt' ! .~. ;.\"~
jI<;r~'Y(iJtt~ . ~~1 ~./ .1>.~ . P ~ 'D~o ".~'
, ':0 r". .~... ~ ~~. . b' ,h_ '~ \. r~" .r;:,
~ <> 'P"~A~~~ \1 ..., ~\~ ~'~< ~~ :''7).)'.. q ';:-'4.: :QI ~\ :<>1 ,:!t
'-:;>. ~~;;:: ~~.~ ,j!~1,<v..'lJn. }', ,.l 'L!!lf
~~';'M --:~ . ~ ....' .,. .~: ~. , ,( /.-'~
'l" d ~'\ >.. ~'"
.""". '" . ~~, I.'.,. l\ 1
t.' ". r? 0 ~ ?t':.:;\:\~ 0: ~ '1 In~ '
pr:>' I( ~ ()" ~~, [1'~.. ~ In }.~~.
,;.:- ..,.. ~. 7~<"'~ ~:I " "~it '.J1of^ ~..'
~. Col. I/' '&..1)("( . .A. ~~, _': (~. . ',) >
~i!Ii~ i' rJN' .'7 .', . I
t 0~.:' ?< . .; <'. <} r'~,:' to:',':. .'.''\ l ~ ~"
~ ,. , '''''1 ,. '(. re '^ ' ...... .~ ,\ ~ .
1 'l'mtl'MR v v . . . . . :
. . iAR ? .1 . . . \ ~.
. ,.'V"~~ 'r . ;:.:::::::: ~. rmll\( ~ t
.. e-\ __'?f.~j' ...........11. () t)
\ . ..'t.7~ ........... \, .1U~ U lr ~
~. ",c". ~. ~~""f~ ;:::::::::./, ~ ..'::;2.\~~' ~//r"'j~
~ ....7.... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... '", ~ ~' ..~
~ ' ',,7N~' sr. :..:-:-:-:-:' II :"\ -.w .
:;;~.7: Y"'W.z I ~'.'.'.'.'.' IIA~ '" '-"~ .\. ;
~ " D r.PtJ. ~ .~~ :, \'-" :-t'A:il.i:l::l,.l fuI'2 ~
~ b;....orr:};>). ')\o"'~.1 ~ ~.1 :.:-:-:-:-:-:-: ). ~
:: ~f:"~9J'l ~~-~~.:l ~~\ ~ :-li:(.(<-)::-: fjJ!~ ~
~\"'- ~ 0~~~ ~(:. .' .:-:.:.:.:.:-:.: ~l 1
'-;l1l\ . ~ ':'<{" Q O~ ' !> D: ...~."..... <:::
~ ~- l~ . '. .' ,~&>. .{~;". ................ .(
)v-J:y;;;j.<,-tf'>~'/. if. "..,15' '::::::::::::::. I).
~"'> .~ ~~ "0 ~ ...........
y; "'~ . 'a'<('jO" '",~ ~ '" ..... 1,
l)~~ .\ \{a~<;::} .' ~,. <;.8~ ~ ." is. ~:'< . ~ 1
~~~r ~ ~51~0 J""-</ 4 , ~Irl\ 0-- .
1~~~.~<1~.1;(..~',~ O~4~' ~~I
~ '-l~~ ~ I ';",; , . Q {:J/w J.!(:;.
~r ~~). ~. .~~ ~p~ '~(J ,
. ~\?' ~-\(~~~" -v .~ ~ .
~ Ik '~1S$~;~-~?~~:1 U:~ ~.~
,J~fjrm r (I t).~. ~:A ~ .
. r-~.:: <> ~)~ ~"';,,. (?f)t.Lr ~ "';\~ .
\
I.r-f, It r i~ ~;
(: ~:\~~;{
, c.\
'. .
'~.~.Ji!/;" .
. ., . ~
. ~'el-
f. '. . : . "d ~~ f'
')"& . ... ......
"
.
EXHIBIT D
G-m~ ~S~5 C@
,... fjf.~O
!Vi>. --1 LVI
~:555- 0003
.
~
PROPOSED CHANGES TO CONDmONS
OF JEFFERSON COUNlY ORDINANCE 08-0706-04
The following are proposed changes in the conditions of Ordinance 08-0706-04
requested because the Wahl Lake and Meridian areas are now under separate leases and
that Miles Sand & Gravel Company will operate the Wahl Lake property independent of the
Meridian area.
1. Prior to approval and operation of a surface mine in the Wahl Lake or Meridian area
of the Thorndyke Tree Farm, the proponent shall submit and satisfy all requirements
of the Unified Development Code (UDC) IAGluEliAdor that area to be mined. including.
but not limited to:
a. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas per Section 3:
· Mining Is prohibited in Fish and wildltfe Habitat areas or their buffers.
· Mining Is prohIbited in Wetlands or their associated buffers.
· Submission of an Aqutfer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control
Plan, and Grading Plan, the combination of which shall demonstrate that the
proposed activities will not cause degradation of groundwater or surface
waters.
· Submission of a Habitat Management Plan.
b. Performance standards of Section 4:
· Full compliance with the Washington State Surface Mining Act (RCW 78.44)
shall be required prior to any mining activity that exceeds 3 acres of disturbed
area.
· Extraction report prepared by a professional geologist with elements required
pursuant to UDC 4.24.2.a-f.
· All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must
take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
c. Development standards of section 6:
· Stormwater management standards and practices.
MfIJ! - l, ?aJg
-1-110.02.24 616 CPA ExhlbltDChanllesToCond ons.d 1 B19 Y1.dee]
,.
~
. Best Management Practices for drainage and erosion control and
sedimentation control.
. Minerai extraction Best Management Practices in Aquifer Recharge Areas.
d. Jefferson County procedures and policies at UDC Section 8 for
Implementation of the State Environmental Pollcy Act (SEPA).
e. Any failure to abide by Jefferson County regulations shall be investigated and
enforced as provided by the requirements and procedures of Section 10.
2. As a matter of policy, the legal, nonconforming use (i.e., established prior to adoption
of the UDC) at the Shine Pit hub of 144 acres (including an existing MRL overlay of
121 acres) shall be subject to operational standards a. and b. upon adoption of a
Wahl Lake! or Meridian MRL overlay and operational standards c. and d. when (and
if) approval is granted through a permit review process for minerai extraction
activities in the Wahl LakefQr Meridian MRL overlay:
a. The maximum permissible sound level at any and all receMng properties
outside of the Thorndyke Tree farm shall be 57 dB(A) between 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 47 dB(A) on weekends, hOlldays, and between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays. Compllance protocol shall be
established during review of future mineral extraction permit application. Any
planned, temporary exceeding of these standards must be authorized
beforehand by the Administrator and documented in the compliance case file.
b. Outdoor lighting shall meet the specifications of the US National Park Service
Interim Design Guidellnes for Outdoor Ughtlng. Building lighting shall be
located high on the structures and include forward throw optics to direct
lighting away from the sides of the buildings and onto the ground. Ughtlng
required for mineral extraction, proceSsing, and transportation activities shall
be independently mounted (not directly attached to equipment) shall allow for
a more downward throw ofllght to further limit the potential for direct light to
reach offsite areas.
c. Transportation options shall be fully studied in project action environmental
review, including optimum hours for truck access to SR 104. TransDortatlon
of anv materials mined from the Wahl Lake DroDertv off-site shall be bv truck
on Iv.
d. A visua/lmpact mitigation plan shall be a mandatory element of project action
environmental review, Including but not limited to the establlshment of berms,
vegetative plantlngs, and other measures to mitigate offsite visual Impacts.
3. Gravel mining operations shall, prior to approval and operation, obtain from the
Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program a national Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit (NPDES)
for process water, stormwater and mine dewatering water discharges. All activities
- 2 -[10.02.24 616 CPA ExhlbitDChan!!esToCondlt_0c4.16~ \4.doo]
~
.
within the MRL overlays shall be subject to the standards of the latest edition of the
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
4. Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall
demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause degradation of the
groundwater quality below the standard described in Chapter 173-200 WAC (Water
Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of WaShington):
a. The proponent shall prepare a Best Management Practices Report pursuant
to the criteria explained below, describing how the operators will Integrate
other necessary and appropriate mitigating measures in the design,
Installation, and management of the proposed facility or use.
b. The report shall be prepared by, or done under the direction of or designed by,
a qualified person with demonstrated expertise In the indUstry or field as
demonstrated by a statement of qualifications and at least three references
from parties familiar with common business practices In the SUbject field or
known expertise In the field.
c. The report will identify appropriate BMPs and how they will be employed to
prevent degradation of groundwater. Examples of BMPs are available at the
DCD Permit Center. All necessary technical data, drawings, calculations, and
other information to describe application of the BMPs must be supplied.
d. The report shall identify how the applicant will satisfy the requirements of the
Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC, In the event that
hazardous material is released Into the ground or groundwater.
e. The Department of Community development and/or a qualified consultant
contracted by the County at the applicant's expense shall review the report.
The County may consult with the Jefferson County Department of Health and
Human Services, State of Washington Departments of Health or Ecology,
independent revIewer, or any other parties, as determined at the County's
discretion.
5. Establlsh a written agreement with the County providing that all employees at the
mining site will be notified that the operation lies above an Aquifer Recharge Area
and all employees shall receive documented annual training concerning all measures
set forth the BMPs established in the reports required above.
6. Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall at all
times comply with Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority/Olympic Regional Clean Air
Agency permit requirements. Prior to operation, the proponent shall submit
documentation from Olympic Air Pollution Control/Olympic Region Clean Air Agency to
the Community Development Department verifying that the operation is In
compliance with Olympia Air Pollution Control permit requirements.
MAR - 1 20ili
- 3 ,[10.02.24 616 CPA Exhib~DChanl!esToCond~lons.doc1 QOO81Q '/1.099]
fi
.
I
10.
I
7. Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall engage a
third-party, selection of which Is approved In advance by the County, to monitor
compliance with regulations and conditions pertaining to their NPDES/State Waste
Discharge Permit Reports shall be prepared and distributed as required In the
NPDES/State permit, with copies to the County each month unless the permit
requires quarterly reporting In which case copies will be provided to the County
quarterly. The County Deoartment of Community DeveloDment mav waive or reduce
this reaulrement based on the oDerator's Derformance.
Mining operations located within a desIgnated Aquifer Recharge Area shall submit an
annual report to the County evaluating Implementation of the Department of
l'tNaturaJ Resources-approved Surface Mine Reclamation Plan. A qualified,
Independent consultant approved by the County shall prepare the raport. The report
shallldentJfy how restoration of the site compares to the approved Reclamation Plan
and whether any corrective action Is contemplated by the applicant or required by the
Department of Natural Resources. The County DeDartment of Community
Deve/oDment mav waive or reduce this reaulrement based on the ooerator's
oerformance.
8.
9. The proponent shall submit quarterly inspections prepared by a third party selected
by Jefferson County which examines the activities within the MRl overlay to assure
compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures of applicable
codes, staMas and ordinances. FHM, Pepe Resel:ll'OOS, aREI aAny ftrtl:lre permit
holders and/or landowners shall allow unlimited access to Jefferson County or other
governmental agencies for the purpose of inspection and determination of
compliance with applicable conditions of approval and applicable statutes, codes,
and ordinances. The County Deoartment of Community Develooment mav waive or
reduce this requirement based on the ooerator's oerformance.
Uses within the WaAI lalle ama aAEI Meridian area MRl overlay will be limited to
extraction and transportation via a conveyor system to the Shine Pit hub. No heavy
equipment maintenance or crushing operation shall be allowed In tRls-the Meridian
Area MRl overlay. The Wahl lake area mav be used for all oumoses allowed bv the
Jefferson County Code sublect to the aODlicable County oermitting orocesses.
11. Mining will be limited to a maximum depth of ten (10) feet above the seasonal high
water table, which shall be established and monitored pursuant to standard
techniques and verified through independent review as arranged by the County at the
applicant's expense. However. after a hydroe:eoloe:ic analvsis. deeoer minlnll mav be
oermltted on the Wahl lake area throue:h the County site sDeclfic Dermtt DroCess.
12. Maximum "disturbed area" [as that term is defined at RCW 78.44.031(5)] size shall
be determIned in consultation with Department of Natural Resources but shall not
exceed the lessor of 40 acres or the appropriate size for a specific proposed site
according to consideration and Implementation of the 'best management practices'
promulgated by DNR. Reclamation shall be conducted on an on-going basis,
pursuant to progressive segmental reclamation standards and according to the
MAR - da 601Q
- 4 -110.02.24 616 CPA ExhlbltDChane:esToCondillons.docH6 1 " doe]
..
specfflc mining segment sizes and timelines established in DNR-approved
Reclamation Plans.
13. During mining operations, dust shall be controlled by the proponent, through means
of watering or other methods that are acceptable to the SEPA Responsible Official.
14. a.
Transoortation of materials from the Wahl Lake area off-site shall be bv truck
onlv.
b. As to the Meridian area onlv: The application for a conveyor and pier facilitY
for barge loading In the Hood Canal has previously received a threshold
Determination of Slgnfflcance (OS) from Jefferson County, requiring the
preparation of a project action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Transportation of extracted materials to anticipated markets shall be a
component of the environmental review of any extraction permit applications.
Any permit Issued shall be based on the transportation methods and
anticipated rate of transport stated in the project application. Subsequent to
extraction project approval, any substantial change in the rate of extraction
associated with that extraction proposal shall require either a new or
amended permit, and potentially a new threshold determination Issued by
Jefferson County as Is allowed by WAC 197-11-600(3)(b)(I).
15. A periodic review process shall be established in conjunction with any Mure mineral
extraction or related permits granted for activities in or associated with the current
and newly adopted MRL overlays in the Thorndyke Tree Farm. A five (5) year
intervais from permit Issuance, DeD will conduct a periodic review process,
equivalent to a Type II permit process under Section 8 of the UDC, including
applicable public notice provisions and appeal rights, to determine whether the site is
operating consistent with the most current standards and to establish other
conditions as necessary to mitigate identifiable environmental impacts. Written
notice that periodic review is commencing shall be provided to the public and to
agencies with jurisdiction. The notice shall explain the purpose and intent of the
periodic review process and other relevant details. The County Deoartment of
CommunitY Develooment may waive or reduce this reauirement based uoon the
ooerator's oerformance.
MAR -, 2010
.5 ,,[10.02.24 616 CPA ExhibitDCham!esToConditlons.doo.1469849 v1.doa]
Gh'\A-
,5),5:5:5" (jj)
~
EXHIBIT-En
14.
a. Circumstances hove cht1/7ged since the adoption of the Jefferson County Comprehensive PIon
and Ordinonce 08-0706-04. Specifia:rl/y, ownership of the operations at the Shine Pit and
Wahl Extraction Are4 hove transferred from Fred Hill Materials to Miles SOlId & Gravel
Company since their adoption. 1he operation pion determined to be more efficient for Miles
SOlId & Gravel company indudes future sand and gravel processing, on office for 0 truck scale,
o maintenance shop, and concrete and asphalt batching in the are4 proposed for MRL
expansion. In order to re4lize these desired future uses, on expansion to the existing MRL is
required.
b. See 140. 1he transfer of SOlId and gravel mining and processing operations from Fred Hill
Materials to Miles SOlId & Gravel Company constitutes new Information not tJIIllilable for
evaluation when the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinonce 080-0706-04 were adopted. 1he
. assumption at the time of Ordinance 08-0706-04 was thot thlJ mining and processing
operations would be llllder the direction of single operator.
c. The need for sand and gravel is recognized by the Growth Management Act and the
Jefferson COIII/ty Comprehensive Pion. SOlId and gravel mining at the existing Shine Pit hos
been met with both positive ond negative response. The gre4fest oppositian was to the
possibility of water-borne transport of SOlId and gravel which is not proposed here. It is likely
thot the proposol to expand the existing MRL and modify conditions of Ordinance 08-0706-
04 could be met with similar mixed support.
d 1his proposal is for a non.project action. However, traffic concurrency will be evaluated as
port of any future project-specific permit applications. It is onticipated that future uses will
meet concurrency rWluirement for transportation.
e. This proposol is a for non-project action. However, level of service standards for public
facilities and services other than transportation will be evaluated as port of any future
project-specific permit applications. It is onticipated that future uses will not adversely
affect adopted level of service standards.
f. 1he proposal is consistent with the goals. policies and implementation strategies of the
various element of the Jefferson Collllty Comprehensive PIon. Of gre4fest relevance are
Comprehensive PIon Chapter 4 Natural Resource Conservation Element
11
MAR - 1 2010
Goa/:
NRG 6.0
Policies:
NRP6J
NRP 6.2
NRP 6.3
NRP 6.4
Goal:
NRG 7.0
Policies:
NRP 7.1
NRP 7.2
'"
.
Conserve ond protect Mineral Resource Londs for long-term economic use.
Adopt a final Mineral Londs Ordinance that includes criteria from the Interim
Mineral Londs Ordinance for classifying ond designating Mineral Resource
Londs of commercial significance based on physicol and topographic
characteristics, distance from populated areas, ond the quality of the
resource.
Adopt a final Mineral Londs Ordinance that includes a process for reviewing
mineral londs designation petitions which assesses the feasibility of
designating mineral resource lands according to Table 4.3. ond considers
compatibility with ac{jacent land uses. economic issues ond environmental
impocts.
Adopt final Forest Londs Ordinance that includes criteria from the inter
ordinance af/owing mineral extraction and the primary processing of materials
an designated Forest Lonas. provided that the extraction is conducted UT1der a
Washington State Deportment of Natural Resources SurfaCe Mining Permit
and/or other applicable permit and is performed in accordance with the
guidelines for best monagement practices established by JefferSof1 COUT1ty.
Mitigate conflicts with adjacent land uses by zoning ond regulations including
operating, siting, buffering and design requirements which minimize conflict
between mineral extraction/primary processing activities and lond use
activities located adjacent to designated mineral lands.
Provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associate with mining
extraction and processing operations.
Require environmental review on aff mineral lands designation requests and/ar
conditional use permits.
Provide for the fof/owing factors in mineral resource land use decisions:
a. The range of environmental impocts, including short-term ond long-term
effects arising over the lifetime of the proposal.
b. The ability of the site to confine or mitigate aff operational impacts.
21
MAR - 1 2010
.f!.
"
NRP 7.3
NRP 7.4
Goal:
NRG9.0
Policies:
NRP 9.1
NRP 9.2
c. The compatibility of operatiD11$ with adjacent land uses when mitigating
meosures are applied.
d. The capacity of transportation facilities to handle safely the transport of
products from the site; and
e. The adUjuacy of plans for reckunation of the site for appropriate future
use.
Develop standards and guidelines to identify on daddress the impact of mining
operations on adjoining properties. Such conditioning should not hove the
intent of rendering mining operations economicolly unfeasible.
Evaluate small mining operations to determine when the cumulative impact of
small operations bBCbmes a significant adverse impact upon the land or upon
adjacent lands.
Preserve water resource quality and quantity in the regulation of mineral
extraction activities.
Regulate mining operatiD11$ to prevent adverse impacts to ground or surface
water quality.
Establish a preference for the protection of aquifers and recharge zones
from the effects of surface mining in the event that adverse impacts CI117I1Dt
be avoided through best management practices.
g. This proposal is for a non-project action. However, it is unlikely that future uses will result in
probable significant adverse impacts to the county's transportation network. capital facilities,
utilities, parks, and environmental feature that cannot. be mitigated. These items will be
evaluated as port of the project-specific permit application process for future uses.
h. This proposal is for a non-project action. However, it is unlikely that future uses will result in
uncompensated burdens upon existing or planned service capabilities. This will be evaluated as
port of the project-specific permit application process for future uses.
i. The site is physically suitable for an MRL expansion ond associated proposed future uses. The
site is located within ond completely surrounded by mineral lands ond commercial forest
owned by Pope Resources, the site can be accessed easily from SR 104, the site topagraphy is
3J MAR -1 2010
"
,
easily graded for the proposed future USBS- the site is directly abtdting the previously-
approved MRL. boanclatr- and the required utilities are available to the areti.
j. It is anlikely that this proposal would creote pressure to change the land use designatian on
other properties.
k In is anlikely that this proposal would materially affect the land use and population growth
projections that are the basis of the Comprehensive Plan.
L The MRL expansian area is not loarted within an urban growth area.
m. The proposed amendment is consistent with:
. The Jeffersan County's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies listed above
. The Growth Manogement Act goals below (RCW 36.70A.020):
(5) Ecanomic development. Encourage economic development throughout the state
that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economlc opportunity
for all citizens of this state, especially for anemployed and for disadvantaged
persons. promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and
recruitment of new businesses. recognize regionol differences impocting economlc
development opportunities. and encourage growth in areas experiencing insufficient
economlc growth, all within the capacities of the state s natural resources, public
services, and publlc facilities.'
(6) Property rights. Private property shall not be taken for publlc use without just
compensation having been mode. The property rights of landowners shall be
protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
(8) Natural resource industries. Maintain and enhance natural resource-hosed
industries. including productive timber, agrlcultural and fisheries industries.
Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural
lands, and discourage incompotible uses.
(9) Open space and recreation. Retain open spoce, enhance recreotional
opportanities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to naturol resource
lands and water, and develop parks and recreation facilities.
41
MAN - I~
f'
.
(10) Environment. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of
life, including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
(11) Citizen participatian and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in
the planning process and ensure coordinatian between commlHlities and jurisdictions
to reconcile canflicts.
(13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites,
and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance.
· The following Countywide Planning Policy for Jefferson COlHlty policies:
(7) Policy on ColHlty-wide Economic Development and Employment
(8) Policy on Rural Areas
5J
MArl
2BW
".,
~.1,
.. ....j' .
, \.
&mlq- ~555 @
CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT COVER SHEET
Author. C. Arrinaton and N. Sikes
Title of Report: Cultural Resources Survey Technical Memorandum and
Treatment Plan for Unanticipated Discoveries for the Wahl Expansion Area
Date of Report: 2-26-2010
County(ies): Jefferson
Section: 25 Township: 28 N Range: 1 W
Seclion:36Townsh~:28NRange:1W
Section: l.Township: 27 N Range: 1 W
Quad: Lofa" and Port Ludlow Acres: 24.2
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) ~
Historic Prooerty Exoort Files submitted'tl] Yes .~
Archaeoloaical Site(slllsolate(s) Found or Amended? ~
MAR - 1 2010
No
Re lace a draft?
No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeoloaical Excavation Permit requirement? 0 Yes # ~
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
· Submission of paper copy is required.
· Please submit paper copies of reports
unbound.
· Submission of PDFs is required.
· Please be sure that any PDF submitted to
DAHP has its cover sheet, figures,
graphics, appendices, attachments,
correspondence, etc., compiled into one
single PDF file.
· Please check that the PDF displays
correctly when opened.
,~,
4
~~.
,
".
Cultural Resources Survey Technical
Memorandum and Unanticipated
Discovery Plan
Wahl Expansion Area
Jefferson County, Washington
FIle No. 1356-036-01
February 26, 2010
Prepared for:
Miles Sand & Gravel Company
P.O. Box 130
Auburn, Washington 98071
and
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Prepared by:
GeoEnglneers, I nc.
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98402
253.383.4940
Cindy J. Arrington, M.S., RPA
Cultural Resource Specialist
Nancy E. Sikes, Ph.D., RPA
CJA:NES:mb
Disclaimer. Anyelectmnic Ionn. _lie orbnrd copy oflbe orfginnl document (emall, text, lBble, endjorffglUll). "provided. end any ettacltmenls ere
onty a copy of the origInal document lhe orfglnaJ dOCllment is stored by GeoEnglneers.lnc. and wUl sem astbe official document of record.
COpyrfght@2010byGeoEngin.....lnc.AllrfgblsreseMld.
M'"':; -', /"'0'
:;;, _l..l
GEoENGINEERS IlJ
~
,
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ........-......-....__..,..__..........._..__...._..._..._.........-............__......_....._...._.........18
ADMlNlSTRAnvE DATA ---.........-...._.............._........._....__............_..........._....~~...._............ ft.
Contract Information_.n...........n.......................................................................................................................... in
Report TItle ............................................................................................................................................................. ili
Authors .................................................................................................................................................................. ill
.Re.port Oate........................................................_._..................................................................................................111
INTRODUCTION.......__......___............._.._......_......._...._...._............................__...................__.....1
Project location and Oescrlptlon..................._................................._..............................................._.._.......1
Regulatory Sattlng and ObJectives......................................................................................................................1
Tribal ConsuJta.tfon ........................................_..............................................................................................._......2
Recorded Cultural.Resources Presen1................__............................_..............._............................................'2
PrevIously Unrecorded Cultural Resources IcJentlfled and Recorded....................................................._.......2
PROJECT 8A.CKGROUND_........._........._.._____........._..........._........._........_....._..._..._2
Environmental Setting .............................................................................:.............................................................2
Cultural SettIng ...................................................................._..._..........................................._............._._.._..3
Uterature Review ..........................................................................................................................................._....5
Archival Sources Checked ..............................................................................................................._._.....5
Archival Data ........................................................_..........................................................................._...........5
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Surveys In or near the Proposed Project ........................5
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS.__...__.............._................._........_.........................._....._6
FIELD WORK.................._................................................................-.......-.............._........_......_..............._.....8
Total Area Examined...................................................................................................._.....................................6
Areas Not Examined ............................................................................................................................................6
Oates of Survey ....................................................................................................................................................6
Survey Methods and Personnel..........................................................................................................................6
RESULl'S............_........................................................._........................................_........_......_.._..................7
Summary...................................................................;.................................................,.................................._...7
Andlngs By Area .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Road Access Improvement Area (6.2 acres) ............................................................................................... 7
Batch Plant Area (8 acres)......................................................................................................................_...8
Aggregate Processing Area (10 acres).........................................................................................................9
PROJECT CONCLUSIONS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................._...................................10
UMITATIONS......._......_..............._............................_..-................................................_.............._....10
REFERENCES..........._......u_................_.........................._....................._................_..._..........11
GEoENGINEERSg
Febnuuy26,2010 Page I
filaND.13SlHI38001
,
LIST OF FIGURES (FOUND IN APPENDIX A)
FJgUre 1. Project Location and Survey Coverage Map
LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS
Photograph 1. OVerview of Road Access Improvement Area (vlew to north) ..................................................8
Photograph 2. Very poor ground visibility (<3%) in 95% of Road Access Improvement Area .........................8
Photograph 3. OVerview of Batch Plant Area (vlew to west) .............................................................................8
Photograph 4. Open area within Batch Plant Area (view to south)...................................................................8
Photograph 5. OVerview of Aggregate Processing Area (view to west).............................................................9
Photograph 6. Moderate ground visibility (45%) In 5% of Aggregate Processing Area ...................................9
APPENDICES
AppendlxA. Project Location and Survey Coverage Map
Appendix B. Correspondence with Local Tribes
Appendix C. Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discovery Plan
Appendix D. Report Umltations and Guidelines For Use
Page II
t
WAHL.EXPANSIONAREA .' _.County, Wasbinglon
,
ABSTRACT
This cultural resources assessment was conducted where Miles Sand & Gravel Company (Miles) plans to
construct an aggregate processing area, concrete and asphalt batch plant complete with truck scale and
truck shop, and a new entry road from State Route (SR) 104 to Wahl Lake Road for their existing mining
and Mure operations area in Jefferson County, Washington. The project area Is located within lands
owned by Pope Resources/Olympic Resource Management, for which Miles has a lease for the mining
and operations areas. Access to the project will be via existing roadways. The Jefferson County
Department of CommunitY Development (DCD) received a request from the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
that a cultural resources survey, Including preparation of a Treatment Plan for Inadvertent Discoveries, be
completed prior to Implementation 01 the nearby Shine Z-Expanslon project, also proposed by Miles.
There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the 24.2-acre project area. One prior
archaeologIcal Investigation was conducted on SR 104 adjacent to the Intersection of the proposed new
access road. No cultural resources were Identified within the project area during the survey for this
project. No known cultural properties will be affected by the project, and no further cultural resource
action Is warranted at this time. Should cultural resources be discovered during project Implementation,
an Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discovery Plan Is attached as an appendix to this report. This report
will be flied with the Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (DAHP).
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA
Contract Information
GeoEnglneers, Inc. was retained by Miles to conduct a cultural resources Inventory for the Wahl
Expansion Area project. The services by GeoEnglneers Included a records search, Native American
consultation, pedestrian survey 01 the project area, and completion of an Unanticipated Cultural
Resources Discovery Plan.
Report TItle
Cultural Resources Survey Technical Memorandum and Unanticipated Discovery Plan for the Wahl
Expansion Area Project, Jefferson County, Washington
Authors
Cindy J. ArrIngton, M.S., RPA
Nancy E. Sikes, Ph.D., RPA
Report Date
February 26, 2010
GEOENGINEERS.B
February 26, 2010 Paga ill
fD&No.1355-D36-01
<
WAHL.EXPANSlONAREA , leffenlo. Collllly, Wasblngton
INTRODUCTION
Project Location and Description
Miles plans to construct an aggregate processing area, concrete and asphalt batch plant complete with
truck scale and truck shop, and an Improved access road from SR 104 to Wahl Lake Road for their
existing mining and future operations area In Jefferson County, Washington. The project area is located
approximately 4 miles south/southwest of the town of Port Ludlow. Access to the project will be via
existing roadways (SR 104 and Wahl Lake Road).
The 24.2-acre project area. is located In Jefferson County, Washington, on lands owned by Pope
Resources/OlympIc Resource Management for which Miles has a lease for the exiSting mining and future
operations areas. The project consists of three areas, of which the batch plant and aggregate processing
areas are contiguous, and the new entry road noncontiguous:
. Road Access Improvement Area (6.2 acres) Township 28 North, Range 1 West, SectIon 25
. Batch Plant Area (8 acres) Township 28 North, Range 1 West, Section 36
. Aggregate Processing Area (10 acres) Township 27 North, Range 1 West, SectIon 1
The Improved access road will replace use of the existing northemmost extent of Wahl Lake Road that
Intersects with SR 104. That section of Wahl Lake Road will ba closed when the Improved access route Is
completed. Subsurface disturbance for construction of the access route will be minimal; surface
vegetetlon will be removed and structural fill will be placed to create the road bed. WIthin the contiguous
batch plant and aggregate processing areas, grading will be minimal on the east near Wahl Lake Road
and will vary on the westem extent depending on approval of final layout, material encountered, and
minor differences in elevation.
The three areas are located on the Lofall 1973 and Port Ludlow 1973 USGS 7.S-mlnute topographic
maps (Willamette Meridian). A figure depicting the project site and surveyed acreage, with an inset map
showing the project locatIon In Jefferson County, is presented in Appendix A (Rgure 1).
Regulatory Setting and Objectives
this cultural resources Inventory for the proposed project was conducted under prevailing Washington
stete laws, which serve to protect from known dlsturbence archasologlcal sites and Native American
graves on both public and private lands. These laws include Executive Order 05-05, Indian Graves and
Records (RevIsed Code of Washington [RCW] 27.44), Archaeological Sites and Resources (RCW 27.53),
Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permit (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 25-48), and
Discovery of Human Remains (RCW 27.44).
This survey was conducted to identify any previously recorded or unrecorded archaeological deposits from
the prehIstoric, ethnohlstorlc, or historic periods that could potentlalll' be present within the project areas.
To determine if prehistoric or historic culturel resources were previously recorded within the project areas,
a cultural resources literature search was performed at the DAHP. The survey Involved review of design
schematics and related project information, correspondenca with cultural resources staff at the
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (see below), as well as background research
and field investigations. This assessment considered previous studies, the magnitude and nature of the
GEoENGINEERS g
February 26, 2010 Page 1
fUaRo.13ss.IJ36.Gl
,
.
undertaking, the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties, and the likely nature and
location of historic properties within the project areas.
,
Tribal Consultation
By letter dated November 24, 2009, addressed to the Jefferson County DCD, the Jamestown S'K1allam
Tribe requested that a cultural resources survey and a Treatment Plan for Inadvertent DIscoveries be
prepared prior to Implementation of another project proposed by Miles (Shine Z-Expanslon), which Is
located approxlmately 1 mile east of the Wahl ExpansIon Batch Plant and Aggregate Processing Araas
(see Arrington and Sikes 2010). In addition, by letter dated December 2, 2009, the Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and the Point No Point Treaty Council provided comments
and concems to the DCD on the potential Impacts on watershed hydrology by the proposed Shine Z-
ExpansIon project. They noted that the proposed project and the exlstlng mining operation are situated
within the tribes' Usual and Accustomed fishing and hunting grounds, which are protected by treaties and
affirmed by the courts.
Letters describing the proposed Wahl Expansion project and requesting comments were sent by
GeoEnglneers to representatives of each of the potentlaily affected Indian tribes, the Jamestown
S'Klallam Tribe and Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe (see Appendix B). A response was received via emall
from Marie Herbert, the Cultural Resources Director for the Port Gamble S'Klallam, expressing their
interest In the project and relaying that human remains and other Items have previously been found in
the vicinll;y of Port Ludlow.
As requested by the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe In their November 2009 lettar for the nearby project, an
Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discovery Plan was prepared for this project The Discovery Plan is
attached to thIs report as Appendix C.
Recorded CUltural Resourcee Present
Background research identified no previously recorded prehistoric, ethnohlstorlc, or hlstoric-era resources
within the project areas.
Previously Unrecorded Cultural Resources Identified and Recorded
No prehistoric, ethnohistorlc, or historic-era cultural resources were located during the pedestrian survey
within the project areas.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Environmental Setting
The project area Is In the Puget Trough physiographic province (Franklin and Dymess, 1973). The Puget
Trough is a basin that lies between the Coast Range to the west and the Cascade Range to the east Tha
geomorphology of the project areas Is largely the result of Pleistocene glaciations. The last advance of a
continental glacier through the Puget Trough began approxlmately 20,000 years ago when the Cordilleran
Ice Sheet moved south from British Columbia. By 15,000 years ago, the puget Lobe of thIs Ice sheet
extended some 19 miles south of the present cll;y of Olympia (Orr and Orr, 1996). During the last 5,000
paga 2
,
WAHl-EXPANSJONAJlEA' _.ColInll',Waadng!o.
years, vegetation patterns In the region have remained comparatively steble, aside from the alterations
due to extensive land clearing In the 19th and 20th centuries (Leopold et aI., 1982).
The proposed project areas are approximately 4 mIles south/southwest of Port Ludlow and 2.5 to 3 miles
west/northwest of Squamlsh Harbor. The project areas and vicinity lie within timberlands logged during
the historic period. Much of this area is currentiy opersted by Pope Resources as part of the Hood Canal
Tree Farm In the greater Puget Sound region.
Freshwater resources near the project areas Include Thorndyke Creek to the west and Shine Creek to the
east, as well as a number of small lakes. The stream watersheds support trout and small runs of coho
and chum salmon. The Hood Canal, a saltwater source In the region, contains salmon, trout, herring,
skate, tomcod, harbor seal, and porpoise (Schalk and Yesner 1988:41, 49).
The proposed project areas have dense vegetation characteristic of the common Tsuga heterophylla
(western hemlock) zone found throughout much of the Puget Trough province (Franklin and Dyrness
1973:16-17,88). This community includes Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menzlesTf), western hemlock (T.
heterophylla), PacIflc madrone (Arbutus menzTesTf), and red alder (Alnus rubra). Understory plants likely
Include Pacific rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), common snowberry (Symphorlcarpos
aTbus), salal (Gaultheria shallon), scotch broom (Cyt/sus scoparius), trafllng blackberry (Rubus ursTnus),
and Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa) (Franklin and Dyrness 1973:76-77). Among the fauna common to
the area are deer (OdocoTleus sp.), elk (Cervus cenadensTs), cougar (Pauma concoJor), bear (Ursus
amerfcanusf), racoon (Procyon Jotor), and a variety of small animals.
Cultural Setting
Occupation in western Washington during the prehistoric period Is estimated to have occurred as early as
12,000 years ago (Ames and Maschner 1999). Prehistoric material culture In western Washington has
been categorized according to "horizons" or "periods" that define technological, economic, social and
Ideologlcel elements (Ames and Maschner 1999). During the Paleoindlan Period (dating to 12,500 BP
and earlier), people are thought to have been highly mobile hunter-gatherers whose toolkit Included flirted
Clovis projectile points. On the Olympic PenInsula, only the Manis site (45CA218), contelnlng a butchered
mastodon skeleton and located near Sequlm, dates to this period.
The Archaic or Early Period (12,500-5,000 BP) saw an Increase In sedentlsm reflected in more kinds of
stone tool types and evidence of permanent villeges. Within the Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca,
ertifacts from this period are referred to as "Olcott" after the type site in Snohomlsh County (Nelson,
1990). Two sites (45CA426 and 45CA433) on the Olympic Peninsula near Sequim contein artifacts
characteristic of the Olcott complex (Morgan 1999). Increasing populations, an Increase in reliance on
marine resources, and more complex soclo-economic organization, as well as the appearance of ground
stone and bone tools In the archaeological record, characterizes the Middle Period (5,000-2,500 BP) in
the Puget Sound (Ames and Maschner 1999; Matson and Coupland 1995). During the last 2,500 years,
the Late Period Is characterized by the development of craft speCialization and social stratification,
establishment of permanent winter villages, and an Increased reliance on marine resources.
The project area Is located In the traditional territory of the Dabob Tribe who spoke the Twana dialect of
the Southern Coastel Salish language family. Twana speakers occupied the eastern half of the Olympic
Peninsula from Its northern tip south to the Skokomlsh River, and westward to the Hood Canal to
GEoENGINEE~
Februmy26, 2010 Page 3
R1aNu.J355..008.01
approximately the center of Kltsap Peninsula at the time of historical contact (Suttles and Lane
1990:486). The ethnographies indIcate that the Twana generally located their multi-family, plank-house
villages adjacent to river mouths, Including Dosewalllps, Duckabush, Hoodsport, Uttle Quilcene, and
Skokomish rivers, along Hood Canal, and at the head of Dabob Bay. The Skokomlsh River valley was one
of the most densely occupied areas In their territory (Schalk 1988:61). Ash, particularly salmon, plus sea
and land mammals, shellfish, waterfowl, and a variety of plant resources, such as camas and berries, was
the focus of Twana subsistence.
The project areas are also near the northern extent of Twana territory and closely approach the former
Chemakurn territorial boundary; the Klallum occupied Chemakurn territory during the historic period
(Elmendorf 1990:439; 1992:45-46). The Klallum, Suqaumlsh, and probably the Chemakurn used the
shorelines and uplands around and below the entrance of Hood Canal for gathering shellfish and hunting
on land (Elmendorf 1992:267; Gunther 1927:16).
Euroamerican history began In western Washington with the coming of explorers as early as the 16th
century. In 1792, the expedition by British explorer George Vancouver first encountered Twana and other
Southern Coast Salish when sailing up Hood Canal and Puget Sound. U.S. Navy Lt. Charles Wilkes
explored Hood Canal In 1841, and named Suquamlsh Harbor (later Squamlsh Harbor). By 1846, the
United States owned what Is now western Washington as the U.S.-British boundary was moved north to
the 49th parallel. American settlers poured Into the area that was then known as the Oregon Territory,
established In 1848, and the Donation Land Claim Act was passed In 1850. The arrival of the first
transcontinental railroad In the 1880s served to fuel settle'ment and economic development.
By the mld-1850s, Euroamerican settlement of the lower Skokomlsh River resulted In confilcts between
the settlers and Indigenous peoples and In the spread of Introduced diseases that substantially reduced
native population numbers. The Point Elliot and Point No Point Treaties were signed in 1855,
establishing the Skokomlsh Indian Reservation for the Twana, Chemakum, and Klallam, and the Port
Madison Indian Reservation for the Suquamlsh. During the historic period, Southern Coast Salish labored
In the logging mills and hop fields owned by Euroamericans In the greater project reglon. They probably
used the historic trail to Port Ludlow to work at the Port Ludlow Mill or to trade at the company store
(Madson et al. 1995:7).
In 1852, a lumber mill was established at Port Ludlow by John R. Thorndyke and WIlliam F. Sayward on
the shores of the bay near the mouth of the Hood Canal (Swanson 1966:1980; Port Ludlow Chamber of
Commerce 2001). In 1878, Thorndyke and Sayward sold their company to the Puget Mill Company, later
known as Pope & Talbot. Puget Mill Company purchased forested lands throughout Puget Sound for their
lumber operation. In 1925, ail their landholdings were sold to the Charles R. McCormick Lumber
Company, In 1938, Pope & Talbot acquired the lands, but they did not reopen the Port Ludlow mill site.
During the 1940s, Pope & Talbot also operated a farm between the Shine Creek estuary and Squamlsh
Harbor; the farm supplied produce to area logging camps (Williams 2005:9).
After completion of the Hood Canal Bridge in the early 1960s, Pope & Talbot Initiated the first planned
residential community at Port Ludlow (Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce 2001). In 1985, Pope & Talbot
spun off Its timberland and development properties In Washington state, creating Pope Resources (Pope
Resources 2010). Based in Poulsbo, the company owns 115,000 acres of commercial timberland and
nearly 3,000 acres of development property in Washington. Pope Resources operates the Hood Canal
Tree Farrn in the greater Puget Sound region, including the current project areas.
Page 4
.
WAliL.EXPANSION AREA - - Jefferson Collll1;', Washloglon
Uterature Review
Archfw1/ Sources Checked
. DAHP GIS Database: January 2010
. USGS Topographic Maps; Lotall and Port ludlow, WA 7.5-mlnute Quadrangles
Archival Data
. DAHP: DAHP-recorded site files and prior cultural resources studies
. Ubrary: Various historical references (e.g., GLO maps) were consulted
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites and Surve)'9ln or near the Proposed Project
Two cultural resources studies have been completed WIthin a l-mlle radius of the proposed Wahl project
No prior cultural resources study has been completed or cultural resource previously recorded WIthin the
proposed Wahl project areas.
Between April and June, 1999, Larson Anthropologlcel Archaeological Services Umlted conducted a
cultural resources overview for road Improvements by the Washington State Department of
Transportl;ltlon on SR 104 (1.1 miles) and Its junctlon with SR 19 (0.24 mile). A literature review and
Native Amerlcen consultation were completed, but no archaeological field reconnaissance was conducted
for the project, and no prehistoric or hlstorlo.era resources were Identified within the project area
(Madson et al. 1999). This prior study Is adjacent to the proposed- new access road to be constructed by
the current project from SR 104 to Wahl Lake Road.
In January 2010, GeoEnglneers conducted a cultural resources survey for a 24.7-acre project for Miles
Sand & Gravel (Arrington and Sikes 2010). Located approximately 1 mile to the east of the Wahl
Expansion Batch Plant and Aggregate Processing Areas, vegetation coverage was extremely dense within
the majority of the project area. During that survey, subsurface sediments (sand and gravel) In over
20 deep exploration pits (averaging 10-15 feet deep), which had been excavated by the mining
company, were examined for the presence of cultural Items or midden. Transect spacing was no greater
than 15 meters apart, and no cultural resources were identlfled during the Intensive-level pedestrian
survey. The potential for discovery of burled cultural material or deposits was considered low and no
monitoring was recommended.
The closest recorded cultural resource to the Wahl project area Is archaeological site 45JE287, located In
Sectlon 32, Township 28 North, Range 1 East, approximately 2.25 miles east of the proposed project
acreage. Recorded in November 2005, the buried cultural deposit on the south benk of Shine Creek has
two pit features, a charcoal stained layer with a charcoal-filled pit, and a fire pit with charcoal lenses and
oxidized soli (WillIams 2005). The site has been interpreted as a pre-Contact camp site. The site was not
affected by the wetlands project
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPECTATIONS
Based on existing archaeological data for this area, the types of archaeological materials that might be
present In the general vicinity could potentially Include the remains of artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools,
tool-making debris, stone milling tools, flre-affected rock), soli discoloration that might Indicate the
GEoENGINEERS g
Rlbruary 26, 2010 Paga 5
FneNtl.135S-1l36-01
,
presence of a cultural midden, fire pits, soli depressions. and features Indicative of the former presence
of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics).
Historic-period cultural resources, If present, would most likely be related to logging operations, InclUding
roadbeds, logging railroad beds, remnants of logging machinery, and tree stumps with springboard
notches, as well as a variety of historic debris. It Is expected that historic-period logging operations would
have disturbed near-surface sediments within the project areas.
FIELD WORK
Total Area Examined
24.2 acres
Areas Not Examined
None
Dates of Survey
January 13, 2010
Survey Methods and Personnel
All fieldwork for this Investigation was conducted by GeoEngIneers archaeologist Cindy Arrington who Is a
professional archaeologist as defined under RCW 27.53.030(8) and meets the Secretary of the Interior's
standards (National Park Service [NPS] 1983). Cindy Arrington conducted an Intensive pedestrian survey
within the entire project area: 1O-acre Aggregate Processing Area, the 8-acre Batch Plant Area, and the
6.2-acre Road Access Improvement Area (Agure 1 Appendix A). Transects spacing within the 24.2-acre
project was no greater than 15 meters apart. .The 24.2 acres surveyed by GeoEngllJeers within the three
areas comprise the maximum physical footprint of potential ground-dlsturblng activities associated with
the proposed action.
All undeveloped ground surface areas within the current project limits were examined for artifacts (e.g.,
flaked stone tools, tool-making debrfs, stone milling tools, flre-affected rock), soli discoloration that might
indicate the presence of a cultural midden, fire pits, soli depressions, and features indicative of the
former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), the remnants of former logging
operations (e.g., machinery, road or rail beds, tree stumps), or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass,
ceramics). Ground disturbances Including rodent burrows, depressions, roadway cut banks, and slump
walls were visually inspected, and boulders were Inspected for milling features. Considering that no
cultural material or deposits were Identified during careful Inspection of depressions and slump walls In
an open area and of a timber harvested section within the Interiors of the Batch Plant and Aggregate
Processing Areas, and that ground dlsturbanca within the Road Access Improvement Area will be minimal,
no additional subsurface methods were warranted. Knowledge of the lack of cultural material or midden
within more than 20 mine exploration pits located approximately 1 mile east (Arrington and Sikes
2010:Agure 2) contributed to this decision.
Photographs of the current project area, ground surface visibility, and Items of Interest were taken with a
digital camera. Soli color was recording USing a Munsell@ Soli Color Chart. The surveyed acreage was
Page 6
WAHl.EXPANSION AREA " _. County, Wasl1inglDn
recorded with a handheld Trimble GeoXT global posltlonlng system {GPS} unit. Reid notes and
photographs are on file at GeoEngineers. The survey dId not identify any aboveground or subsurface
evidence of archaeologIcal or hfstoric-era resources In the three project areas.
RESULTS
Summary
No prehistoric. etllnohlstorlc, or hIstoric period resources wera identified during pedestrlan survey of the
Road Access Improvement Area, Batch Plant Area, and Aggregate Processing Area.
Vegetation coverage was extremely dense within the majority of tile three project areas. Overall ground
visIbility within approximately 90 percent of the acreage was poor. averaging less than 10 percent
Ground visibf/Ity withIn the ramalnder of the surveyed area ranged from faIr (25-30 percent) to good (60
pereant). In the more open areas, ground dIsturbances, partIcularly slump walls, depressions. and
roadway cut banks. provided a view of subsurface sediments. Although it was overcast and raining during
the survey, the Inclement weather dId not obscure the view of tile ground surface.
The findIngs from the survey are presented below by area.
FindIngs By Area
Road Access Improvemenf Area (6.2 IlC1eSJ
The Road Access Improvement Area Is heavily forested with matura conifers and a thIck understory of
ferns. rhododendrons. mosses, other low-lying vegetation. and dead-faf/ (Photograph 1). The acreage Is
relatively fiat with an elevation of 95 meters (312 feet) above mean sea level (ms/). except to the north
where it rises sharply ~O degree slope) and abuts SR 104. The area Is bounded on the east by a
wetland. on the west by a thick conifer forest, on the north by SR 104, and on the south by Wahl Lake
Road. a wef/-malntalned dirt road. There Is some modern debris (aluminum cans, paper litter, plastic
bottles) along the northern and southern edges of the survey area due to the close proximity of roads. In
additIon. there Is a portion of a small car (trunk and back bumper) in the Interior near the eastern edge.
The car Is completely overgrown with vegetation so make, model. and year could not be discerned.
Ground surface visibility varied throughout tile Road Access Improvement Area: 95 percent of the
6.2 acres had very poor vlslbf/Ity (< 3 percent) (Photograph 2); the eastern edge, adjacent to the wetland.
had good visibility (60 percent). A soil sample from the surface In the Interior of the survey area Is a black
(5YR 2.5/1 wet), sandy-silt with small pebble Inclusions.
No prehistoric, ethnohlstorfc. or historic-era resources were Identified during the Intensive-level
pedestrian survey withIn the Road Access Improvement Area.
GEoENGINEER~
FebrualJ'26, 2010 Page 7
f!laNa1J55.OO6.01
.
Plwtogtaph 1. o.orvlaw of Road Access 1m_meat Area
(vIo. to north)
Phot_ph 2. Vory poor ground _IDly (<3%) Jo 95% of Road
Access Improvement Area
Batch Plant Area (8 acres)
The Batch Plant Area Is heavily forested with mature conifers and a thick undarstory of ferns,
rhododendrons, mosses, other low-lying vegetation, and dead-fall (Photograph 3). The survey area gently
slopes from the west down to the east, with elevations ranging from 95 to 107 meters (312-351 feet)
above msl. The area Is bounded on the east by a well-maintained dirt road (Wahl Lake Road), and on the
west, north, and south by thick conifer forest Several large granite boulders were scattered throughout
the survey area and each was checked for milling features. There is a large, open area (210 feet wide;
169-210 feet tong), with no vegetation or trees, near the northern extent of the survey area and adjacent
to the dirt road (Photograph 4). The area has some recent litter, wood pallets (broken down), a small
propone tank, plastic bindings, and a small wooden boat situated near the eastern edge. In addition to
the debris, there are several stacks of black plastic pipe, measuring 18 inches In diameter and 28 feet In
length. The depressions and slump walls In this open area were inspected carefully for cultural material.
Photograph a. o.orvla.. of Batch Plant Area (view to_I
Photograph 4. Open area wlthIn Batch Plant Area (view to south)
Page 8
WAHL.EXPANSION AREA -. County. Wosblngton
Ground surface visibility varied throughout the Batch Plant Area: 90 percent of the 8 acres had poor
visibility (< 5 percent); small scattered areas, comprising 10 percent of the total acreage, had fair visIbility
(25-30 percent). A soli sample from the surface In the Interior of the survey area Is a black (5YR 2.5/1
wet), sandy-sllt with small pebble Inclusions.
No prehistoric, ethnohlstorlc, or hlstorlc-era resources were identlfled during the intensive-level
pedestrian survey within the Batch Plant Area.
Aggregate ProcessIng Area (10 acres)
The Aggregate Processing Area 15 heavily forested with mature conifers and a thick understory of ferns,
rhododendrons, mosses, other low-lying vegetation, and dead-fall (Photograph 5). The survey area gently
slopes from the west down to the east, wfth elevations ranging from 95 to 113 meters (312-371 feet)
above mst. The area Is bounded on the east by a well-maIntaIned dIrt road (Wahl Lake Road), on the west
and north by thick conifer forest, and on the south by an area from which the timber has been harvested.
Scettered throughout the 1D-acre survey area are several large granite boulders, each of which was
checked for milling features.
Ground surface visibility varied throughout the Aggregate Processing Area: 80 percent of the total area
had poor visibility (3-10 percent), 15 percent of the total area had fair vIsibility (15-25 percent), and the
remaining 5 percent of the total area had moderate ground visibility (45 percent) (Photograph 6). The
depressions and slump walls In the timber harvested area were carefully inspected for cultural material.
There was occasional modem trash (plastic water bottles, aluminum cans) near the dirt road that borders
the area on the east. A soli sample from the surface In the Interior of the survey area Is a black (5YR
2.5/1 wet), sandy-sllt wfth small pebble Inclusions.
No prehistoric, ethnohlstoric, or historic-era resources were Identlfled during the Intensive-level
pedestrian survey within the Aggregate Processing Area.
Photograph S. OVervle.. of Aggregate PrecessIng Area (YIa.. to
-I
Photograph 6. Moderate ground vl$lblllly (45%1 In S% of
Aggragate Processing Area
GEoENGINEE~
February26,2010 Page 9
AI8No.1355-00&-Dl
. i
PROJECT CONCLUSIONS, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
No historic-era, ethnohlstorlc, or prehistoric resources were identified on the surfece or in the exposed
subsurface sediments during cultural resources survey of the project area. No historic properties will be
affected. Considering the results of the literature search, local ethnographic settlement and subsistence
patterns, and the prehistory and history of the area, the project area Is considered moderately sensitive
for prehistoric, ethnohlstorlc, and hlstorlc-era cultural resources. Based on the lack of cultural deposits In
the slump walls, depressions, and roadway cut banks, as well as sandy, gravelly subsurface sediments
exposed In a sarles of exploration pits (averaging 10-15 feet deep, 5 feet wide, and 15 feet long)
approximately 1 mile to the east of the Batch Plant and Aggregate Processing areas and examined by
archaeologists (Arrington and Sikes 2010), the potential for discovery of burled archaeological materials,
features or deposits by Implementation of this project Is considered low. Therefore, no further cultural
resource action Is warranted.
Based on the results of the literature search and pedestrian survey within the project area, GeoEngineers
does not recommend further cultural resources action. However, there Is always the potential for the
existence of burled archaeological materials within the project areas, and an Unanticipated Cultural
Resources Discovery Plan has been prepared for the project and Is attached to this report as Appendix C.
Pursuant to the Discovery Plan, should cultural resources be encountered during construction or ground-
disturbing activities connected with this project, work In the area must be halted and a professional
archaeologist, who meets the definition under RCW 27.53.030(8), should be notified Immediately to
evaluate the resource(s) encountered. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, all activity In the
area must halt, the remains protected from further disturbance, and the county coroner and local law
enforcement notified Immediately (RCW 27.44,68.50,68.60).
Resources within this area that might be encountered might Include prehistoric and ethnohlstorlc
materials such as flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, f1rEHlffected rock, basketry,
culturally modified animal bone, fishing implements or 5011 darkened by cultural activities (midden).
Historic materials might include remnants of logging machinery, tree stumps with springboard notches,
logging road or rail beds, building remains, metal, glass, cans, or ceramic artifacts or debris.
UMITATlONS
We have prepared this report for the exclusive use by the Miles Sand & Gravel Company, Jefferson County
Department of CommunIty Development, and their authorized agents for the Cultural Resources Survey
Technical Memorandum and Unariticipated Discovery Plan for the Wahl Expansion Area Project, Jefferson
County, Washington.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed In accordance
with generally accepted practices In the field of cultural resources at. the time this report was prepared.
No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.
Please refer to the Appendix D titled "Report Umltations and Guidelines for Use' for additIonal
information pertaining to use of this report.
Page 10
WAHL-EXPANSION AREA.' _. COtmIy, IVasbJnglo.
REFERENCES
Ames, Kenneth M., and Herbert D. G. Maschner
1999 Peoples of The Northwest Coast: Their Archaeology and Prehistory. Thames & Hudson. New York,
New York.
Arrington. Cindy J.. and Nancy E. Sikes
2010 Cultural Resources Survey Technical Memorandum and Unantlcipated Discovery Plan for the
Shine Z-Expanslon Area Project, Jefferson County. Washington. Prepared by GeoEngineers.lnc.,
Tacoma, Washington, for Miles Sand & Gravel Company. Auburn, Washington.
Elmendorf. William
1990 Chemakum. In Handbook of North American IndIans, Volume 7: Northwest Coast, edited by W.
Suttles. pp. 438-440. W.G. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. D.C.
1992 The Structure of Twana Culture. Washington State University Press, Pullman.
Frank/In, Jerry F., and C. T. Dymess
1973 Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. Paclflc Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station. U.S. Forest Servlce, Portland. Oregon.
Gunther, Erna
1927 Klallam Ethnography. University of Washington Publications In Anthropology 1(5):171-314.
Leopold, Estella B., R. J. Nlckman, J.I. Hedges, and J. R. Ertel
1982 Pollen and Lignin Records of Late Quatemary Vegetation, Lake Washington. Science 218:1305-
1307.
Madson, Michael J., Leonard A. Forsman arid Lynn L Larson
1999 SR104 Westbound Pass/ng(Truck Lane and Junction SR19 Improvements Projects Cultural
Resource OvelVlew, Jefferson County,Washlngton. Prepared by Larson Anthropological
Archaeological Servlces Limited, Gig Harbor. Washington, for David Evans and Associates,
Bellevue. Washington.
Matson. R.G. and Gary Coupland
1995 Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, Sen Diego.
Morgan. Vera E.
1999 The SR -101 Sequlm Bypass Archaeological Project: MId- to Late-Holocene Occupations on the
Northern OlympIc PenInsula, ClaT/am County, Washington. V.E. Morgan. editor. Eastern
Washington University Reports In Archaeology and History 100-108. Archaeological and Historical
Services. Cheney.
National Park Servica
1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines:
Professional Qualifications Standards. htto:llwww.cr.nos.l!ov/local-lawlarchstnds9.htm
Nelson, Charles M.
1990 Prehistory of the Puget Sound Region. In Handbook of North American IndIans, Volume 7:
Northwest Coast, edited by W. Suttles. pp. 481-484. W.G. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington D.C.
Orr, Elizabeth L. and William N. Orr.
1996 Geology of the PacTfTc Northwest McGraw Hili Companies, Inc.. New York, New York.
Pope Resources
2010 Company HIstory. Electronic document, htto:llorminc.com/Comoanv Hfstorv.asox. accessed
January 18. 2010.
GEoENGINEER~
FebruaJ)l26, 2010 pageU
flleNo.135S-lJ3&.Ol
Port Ludlow Chamber of Commerce
2001 Port Ludlow History. Electronic document, htto://www.oortludlowchamber.or1!/27.html.accessed
January 18, 2010.
3~ha'k, Randall
1988 Diversity In 19th Century Land Use Strategies on the Olympic Peninsula. In The Evolution and
DTversfffcatlon of Native Land Use Systems on the Olympic Peninsula: A Research DesIgn, edited
by Randall Schalk, pp. 55-66. Prepared by Institute for Environmental Studies, University of
Washington, Seattle, for the National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Schalk, Randall and David Yesner
1988 The Regional Environment and Food Resources of the Olympic Peninsula. In The Evolution and
DTversfffcatlon of Native Land Use Systems on the Olympic Peninsula: A Research Design, edited
by Randall Schalk, pp. 17-54. Prepared by Institute for Environmental Studies, University of
Washington, Seattle, for the National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Suttles, Wayne, and Barbara Lane
1990 Southem Coast Salish. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 7: Northwest Coast,
edited by W. Suttles, pp. 485-502. W.G. Sturtevant, General Editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Swanson, Arthur
1966 High TIde at Ludlow. In With Pride in Heritage, History at Jefferson County, edited by the Jefferson
Count;y Historical Society. Port Townsend, Washington.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1973 LotaJ/, WashIngton. 7.S-minute topographic map.
. 1973 Port Ludlow, Washington. 7.S-mlnute topographic map.
Williams, Scott S.
2005 Results of Archaeological Survey of the ShIne Creek Wetland Reserve Program, Jefferson Count;y,
Washington. Prepared by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Servlca.
Page 12
,,,'.",y-,
":~;~,,,...,~,
~J-*., ,"',', ~.
. ,."'i.'ilI"~
"l-;'
,'-
l
':,:"
.'"
,,;
),;;:.:...;J:.:"
}'
\.
.,'. ,:,.-.~.:,~
/
~:.,...,-
.
/><~' n, ,'- r
-. ;-~i;~~\
-'~ . ,...-
.--,......
. .
/'
/
"
'.
~':~ ':~~~~~,,~':,~L,;;..
_~.,.r' .
:~.;:;;-:. :h'\~~~~}::
, ,'. ";,-,,': _ - ,~~'~2ii~
,
.'
.,-.....>1"(-'\
,
rJ" ~-,:.
! ,:,,-,'~'-,~
;~1i
,:,;tt}-(;;~.~-'~:~"" -
, .-.>?,"
_ _ ':;;~:-,"';~':l'-
-,'- ~ ~- .,-
"?\
''---:-!"'.1:..;,-1 ,,'
.:- ~~~/,,\\:
,",r:ktl!:?' -
,<~:.
" },"~~\il~~is-"
.
;ii'
,
. ~~-
-I',
'"-"
,~:~
,,,-"'.
.'i-'
'.~'~~~,~f
~ ~,~,.
:.t:;-.Y
'.
I
I
I
i
j-'"
i
I
!
.,j-ij:
f;:
r'l/.
,
~
1i.i
S2
III
C)
'"
III
!:
i T27R01W Section 1
CD T28ROIW SectIon 36
e USGS 7.5' Topographic Map Series, Lofall (1973)
9> T28R01W Section 2S
fJ USGS 7.5' Topographic Map Series, Port Ludlow (1973)
(J) Notes:
~ 1. The locatfons of all features shOWtl are approximate.
;;; 2. This drawing is for information purposes. it Islntended to assislln
~ showing features "'SMSed In an a_ dccument. GeoEnglneers, inc
a. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic meso The master
file is stored by GeoEngineers. Joe. and will serve as the official record of
this communIcatIon.
3. It Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for
U'i psrsonaJ usa or resoie, wlthout permission.
'" Dllf8 Sources: ESRI MapssNice, NGS_Topo_US
8 Trensverse Mett:ator, Zona 10 N North. NotIh Amesican Datum 1983
~ N<<th arrow aientad to grjj north
Legend
II Cultural
Survey Area
M~
;r.."
.LVlu
'~E
S
2,000
.
o
2,000
,
Feel
Cultural Survey Areas
Wahl Expansion Project
Jefferson County, Washington
GEoENGINEERS Q
FIgure 1
. --.J~"''- ~
~ ~-~l?
/"" ~-. ~,
/ '-./ ...-.-- - " \
.- ...... ;
r----.f (' -"--~1 /-", \ \'\
"J...----l , t \.,.-/./,,i
. ./) ---.-
~=-:::~~~:~.:=.:~'~....::.",.
!;~~) 9% ~./ ' ~~ ~~.-
/.:'--~ '" /~/ UV ' . (f j
/ "/ I ;/?:-/) ()
/ / r_-'" ..
(..,'--.-." /., /' 'I'
"- ..-. I I I I
.... , . -. (<----/-:,->",..' /..~." ',\ \~'i
"",- ""--._--~ .' ./ \ \ \ \ \
'--'~'" '- . . - ' ,- ,~. \. \
"-, "\ ./ --. "\ \ '-
............, .....__........~./../---.:::...-;:::;~~..,. "\ ',... ';-~"-
. ........-' /" ...--:oc-..",,~. -....' \ '- '...
"-' "-- ~'''''''''-- /'///:{2;::;;;-"""\ \\ '\ \ ' , <:', ". ",
. - - ~ ",,- ; / , .' \ . ) " ~ ....."... .........
...., ' ... , II I "1 , .. -;-"':.:,,>, .......
..... ", / "/" \.-.........:, '--..
~~. '-\ i i I /~c;. ./.. / \, ,Y:"":--,,
"'-"\ \ ~ \ \ .; / I ,/-,' /" .. ..... ......., ....____._" j
'l, 1, \. . // . , ...., '-.. \ \,
.... I \\,,"-- - __'f/(' / ,/ ./ .. .f J \, \,
"-. '-" --".__._~.' /' . .. - .. . - . . - _.-? .. j \
i .~-.._-~ ~ -"- /...... -,-~" .J' \ '''\
\
) / I j
-'
ApPENDIX B
Correspondence with Local Tribes
/
_1....//
./" //~.
.....
",
.. '. \
/0"" .[
: ;' ,
I /
/
I
~
i
I ,
I . .
\ \ \ (., t,
",', '--,,-' .-.......... "~,_.
" ""'" ..... -',
..... "'~.... ~"''''''''- "" '...
. . i '-'\, ....,~,...,;: .,..... --...-.-.
" 'l '.
\. .... ".,
\
,
\
\
.~,~
/
i
i
/
,
" ~~ .
'-.....
............."
..-......
...... -.~
/
j'
"', .--'
"- ---....
, "\
'\ \ \
i
I
\..
."-.. .....
.' ....
(
.- .......
"-, "..
, .
. ..<0-
" ..'---"~::-'" ,,~ \
c...~.
\
'-
".
'\
'.
.". ..
1Y1.'i1~ -,
',"'11
~Vi\.J
-- .-- '--
:r
i
I
..
1033 Old Slyn Hlijhwl1y,Sequlm. WA 9B38~
RECEIVED
NovetnDer 24, 2009
A1 Scalt DirectOr
Jaff'erson ColJllty Department 0fComtnunity Development
Deve1oprl1e1lt Review Division
621 Sheridan S-
Port Townsetld, W A 98368
. :,\; ::- . :'1;;:..
JEfFERSllN cuum fleD
. .,
RE: MLA09..oo365
Parcel Numbers 721 062001 & 721051001, Section 6 & 5, Township 27,
Range IE, WM, 9858 SR 104. Port Ludlow, 1efferson County,
Was1:ilngtlln
Dear Mr. Soa1~
Thlltlk you fur the tetter of November 10, 2009, regarding MLA09-0036S, Shine Pit. SR
104.
. ..... . .....
. .
The Jamestown SKlallam Tl.'lm requests that a. Cultural Resource survey be done before
tJiere is any ground distntbm1Ce. This area. was used for hunting, and other cultural
Te$ou:teea and has never been surveyed. With the fresh water so cloae and salt water for
Clltloe travel, this area was used by tribal people to hunt and gather.
A inadvertent discovery platuhould be a part of the Cultural Resources survey. If
cultural reso1l1'OSS are uncovered, the Department of Archaeology and Historio
PreserV4tlon and the Jamestown SKlslJam Tn'be need to be contacted.
If you further infonna1iOtt OT should youhlrle any questlqilS, please feel !Tee to oontact
me at 360.681.4638 or by email at ~ttI1CaIl~imnestow:titn;'e.orlt.
Siticetllty;
I(~--,' --
Kathleen Duncan
BntO tlment o-.f!i.ttir/Cultural Resource Spec.
Jamestown S'KIa11am.Tnbe. .
,.. '.
......;........ ".
'. .
Co Stephanie Kramer, DAHl'
'nn
IVi'.,ll
.~. i(;i~l
i~fL~/~~O~ ~o;c~
"OtJ.:J,~r+qf'"
.Jt:J"t' W.1A..U
t"'~ rJ~(fJ'"
~
I
POI't Gtmtb18 S'X/nllllln Tri1Je PolntNo Point :&eaty Cormdl
Jtl11IeitowJJ S'IlloJ1am Tribe
]J.eQember2..2O!*>". .._':~
-.-.:- .~~...::.. ~.;- ~-- --' -',':
'f
Michelle Farfan
Jefferson County Dept. ofCornnu11llty Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port :roWllllend, W A 98368
Shine Pit:&pansion <MLA09-o0365) Comments
Dear Michelle Farfan,
The Port Gamble S'KIalJam and Jamestown S~ralts.m Tribes, and the Point No Point Treaty
Council have reviewed the latest proposed mining expansion of the ShIne Pit (MLA09-o0365),
and we offer the followlug comments and COl1llerns. As you ate aware, the proposed ll1QlilIBion
and the 18l'ge1' tninlng operation occurs withln IlrlQ affects the tribes Usual and AcCllStolned
(lJ&A) flshing Ilrld huntlng groUl'lds. which ate protected by treatles and ai'Rrl-o.I"d by the llOIlI'l$.
The tribes fimdameJ118l1y disagree with the piecenllml approach (La. each proposed expansion
reviewed in Isolation IlrlQ wlthout regqrd for cwnulat.ive &pIltIalllrld tem.lMallmpacts of the
entire Shine Pit mining opermion) to project TeView employed by Miles Sand and Gravel and
]l3ft'erson County. Envlronrnentai impacts assooiated with this latest proposed expansionof24.7
acres (ac.) must be eva.lwrled in co.ntela of the eJdsting larger contiguous 144 an. mining
operation. Cutnulative effects ate ignored when one geo8l'llPmo area is viewed without
considemtlon of watershed-wide hydrologic impacts IlS$Ociated with forest and topsoil retnoval,
topographic grading, and subsequent recbunation, potentially representing mlijor disruption to
watershed processes. At least three salllJon streams ate pctent!aI]y affected by the Shine Pit
mining-relBted activities: Shine, Nordstrom, and Thorndyke Ct'ileks. In addition, the tribes rely
. heavily on productive shellfish beds along the nearshore areas also potentially affected by any
hydrolOgic chIlrlges to 100lI! sIrea1ns and ground waters stenunlng from cwnulated mining
activities.
DEe ~ 2 2lI09
J
. ,.~...~~,. :
". . _....__..J._~:...._..)
.. .- :*.
We ate concerned that this latest proposed elI:pansion of mining activity goes beyond support for
the existing operation and is in anticipation oftlte potential "Pit to ?jet' project. It is important
that we understand the extent of long-term l11Inlng plans on this site and the potential wateIshed-
scale impacts on forest, native soU, wildlife habitat, and groundwater and sur&ce water qUllrltity .
and quality. Recent research from Olympic Peninsula Watersheds shows that even moderate
levels of forest harvest, even when conducted away from riparian areas, ~ In significant
elevations in SIImllJllI' streant temperatDres (pollock tit aI. 2009), a particularly sensitive measure
for coho sallllon and resident trout in the watersheds affected by the Shine Pit mining activities.a
PrIor to .tiIrther expansion of mining activities in the Shine Pit, we need to fully unllerstand
potential impacts on groundwater Ilrld particularly the interactions between groundwater,
Ml~:'-
,f.,"
"...:.J
.LI.OILVV~ .~.U.
.:)OU.:Jt~......,.;J
.....::.rr VU JAJU
r~
~
ShIne Pit:&pansjon OOA09..oo365)
December 2, 2009
'.-
wet1ands, and streams in these watersheds. The lli'lIes l'llqUeSt that ground and surfltce water
monitoring be conducted in the drainages potentially aft'ectcd by this 1IOtIvi11. Monitoring of
surfaoe waters should Jnclllde. at minimum, stream flows and te!llpeIatu.res throughout the year.
The tribes mlt9t be inoluded in the review and 8DIllysis of flUs critical hydrologic and
environmentaJ data. FinalJy. the tribes would Uke to engage in disllllSSions of mitlsatfon plans
for impacts assoc.lated with the llI1tfre Shlne Pit minfng operation. We trust that you will fltke
these CO!DJl]ellts into your IlOJISidemtlon of the latest Shine Pit expansfon.
Sincerely,
/2t~
Paul McCollum, Natural Resources Oirector
Port Gllmble S'KJaIIam Tribe
Scott Phitwood, NaturIl1 Resources Dlrector
Jamestown S'KlaJ1am 'llibe
~
Randy Harder. Executive Db:eotor
Point No Point 'I'telIty Coll1lClI
Co;
Michael .Blanton, Waslrlngton Department ofFish /ll1d Wildlife
Rick Mraz, Washington Department ot&olo8'1
Randy LUJJ:iper, Envlronmentlll Planner. Skokomish Tribe
Doug Morrill, Fisheries Manager. Lower Elwha K/all'llll Tribe
MIke McHemy.llabitat Biologist. Lower Elwha Klallam Trlbe
Alison O'Sulliv/ll1. Biologist, Suqmunlsh Tribe
Reference
Pollock, MM., T J, Beechie. M. Liermann, /ll1d R.E. :Bigley. 2009. Stream temperature
relationships to forllSt llaxvest in western Washington. Journal of the AlnerlC!Ill Water RIlSOtll'CeS
Association VoL 45, No.1. Pages 141-156.
2
M.<..;'1 -
0..;,,'0.:1 ~,
I
,/
I
!
[
I
j
I
I
,.
,
GEoENGINEERS a
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, SUIte 200
Tacoma, Washington 98402
253.383.4940
JanuaJy 11, 2010
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
1033 Old BIy Highway
Sequlm, Washington 98382-9342
Attention: Kathleen Duncan
SubjeQt; Cultural Resources AasessmElllt
Miles sand and Gravel Company Expansion Project
Jefferson County, Weshlngton
Rle No. 1355-036-01
I am writing to Inform YOIl of a cultural resources assessment that Is planned for the allove-referencad
project. GeoEngJneers Is conducting this assessment at the request of Miles sand and Gravel Company.
The project Is 10000ted approximately 4 miles south/southwest of the town of Port LUI;1I0W, In Jefferson
County, Weshlngton (Township 27N, Range 1E, Sectlons 5&6 and T28N R1W 5actlons 36 & 25 of the
W1l1amatte Meridian). The project will consist of six separate, noncontiguous pedestrian survEl)'S for a
totalof 49 acres.
Miles sand and Gravel Is requesting this assessmant to expand theIr gravel mining production within their
existing operations. A map (Rgure 1). Is attached to this letter depicting the areas to be surveyed.
GeoEnglneers Is In the process of reviewing avellable background Informetlon. Background research will
Include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(DAHPl, review of previoUSly recorded cultural resourca sites, reports, and review pertinent published
literature and ethnogrephles, Results of our Investigation wlU be presented In a technical report.
We are aware that all Information regarding culturel resources Is within published sources. Should the
Tribe have additlonallnformatlon concerning cultural resources, we would like to Include it In our study.
Please contact me should you wish to provfde any comments or additional Information. I apprecIate your
assistanca In this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
L,'~l '1{\";,
iVU-' I .t.\.iIV
"t'-:'~'~~'1~~1i<J'{f"l~,\~5.i,;;;:'.~~~j.1" "-~'," >~::;;iHt(;~.~\~;>. ;- ." ::;,,~,~,,'i,'_ .',~;,;:~;,~,,;;-;;-:-....;,~t;')';;'~..~,~;< '~i
;Jt:~-~~~y ~1;'~\"..~i$~€{~i;~i~~~~~';;",~" 'l<i~\'~---~'~~",':: }:,;,":~;';'];"~~;-,~:':.i'~i(t:,;;;:::~~:;.." .::1,~
,:Ci.:;,::,:r'ii.:s.~(,w,:;J;:~~:~'~'i..,...'.,...;\<,:.;;"Y:'i:-~1~.::~::'f;:..,,:../h -: '.j';-:: d''!~.~:t:.' ':~;.'i'1. ';':,~"?i ~)
.
Jamestown S'K1allam Tribe January 11, 20m
Page 2
If I can answer any questions you may have. please do not hesitate to contact me at
carrlnl!ton@ll'eoenll'lneers.com or at 916-765-9381.
Sincerely,
GeoEnglneers, Inc.
c~~
Cultural Resource Specialist
list of Agures
Agor. 1. V1cfnl!y Map
Disclaimer: PJry electronic form. _mD. or herd copy of the OIIgInaI documenl(emall. text. tabl.. and/or figure). n provided. and any attachments am only .
copy of the original docemenL 1be original docement Is stored by GecEngtneers.lnt. and wDlserw as the oDIc1el dccoment of moord.
COpyrigbt@2010byGecEngtneers.lnc. All rigb!s reseMld.
GEoENGINEERS a
FDe No. 1355-036-()1
,
~
~
.c
'"
g
~
:ll
1;;
i
Ii! Cultural
~ T27R01E SectIons 5, 6 II Survey Area
..... 127RO:1W 5ectlon 1
~ T28R01W sectIon 36
e USGS 70S' TopographIc Map Series, lofall(1973)
g, T28R01W 5ectlon 25
I USGS 70S' TopographIc Map Series, Port Ludlow (1973)
!!1 No1es'
.. 1. The locations of an features shown are approxfmata
2. 1l1ls drawing Is for Informatlon purposes. It Is Intended to aaslslIn
~ sh~ _ discussed In an attacl1ad documant GeoEnglneers, lne.
D.. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic meso The master
fIla Is storad by GeoEngln...., Inc. and wlll serva sa the oflldal racord of
this communlcalloo.
3. n Is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof. whether for
Iii paraonal usa or rasala, wlthout pennisslon.
~ Data Sources: ESRI MapservIce, NGS3oPD_US
~ Transverse Mercator. Zam 10 N Ncrth, Nt:ltthAmerh::an Datum 1983
is Natharrr.Niorientedtogklnorth
1\
1.;,
<.
.i
Legend
N
w~,
s
2,000 0 2,000
. .
Feet
Cultural Survey Areas
Shine Z and Wahl
Jefferson County, Washington
GEoENGINEERS CJ
Agure 1
4 ,
GEoENGINEERS tiJ
11.01 South Fawcett Avenue. SUite 200
Tacoma. Washington 98402
253.383.4940
January 11. 2010
Port Gamble S'Kfallam Tribe
Marie Hebert
31912 little Boston Road
Kingston. WA 98346
Attention: Marle Hebert
SUbject:
CUltural Resources Assessment-
Milas Sand and Gravel Company Expansion Project
Jefferson County. Washington
Ale No. 1355-036-01
I am writing to Inform you of a cultural resources assessment that Is planned for the above-referenced
project. GecEnglneers Is conducting this assessment at the request of MIles Sand and Gravel Company.
The project Is located approximately 4 miles south/southwest of the town of Port Ludlow, In Jefferson
County. Washington (Township 27N. Range iE. SectIons 5&6 and T28N R1W SectIons 36 & 25 of the
W1l1amette Meridian). The project will consist of six separate, noncontiguous padestrlan surveys for a
total of 49 acres.
Miles Sand and Gravel Is requesting this assessment to expand their gravel mIning production withIn thalr
existIng operations. A map (Agure 1) Is attached to this letter depIcting the araes to be surveyed.
GecEngineers Is In the process of reviewing available background Information. Background research will
include a site files search at the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(DAHP). review of previously recorded cultural resource sltas, reports, and revIew pertinent publlshad
literature and ethnographies. Results of our Investigation will be presented In a technical report
We are aware that all information regarding cultural resources Is within published sources. Should the
Tribe have additlonallnformatlon concemlng cultural resources, we would like to Include It in our study.
Please contact me should you wish to provide any comments or additlonallnformatlon. I appreciate your
assistance in this matter and look forward to hearing from you.
~A:~ -
.
_own S'Klallam Tribe January 11, 2010 Page 2
If I can answer any questions you may have, please do not hesitate to contact me at
carrinltton@E!eoenE!lneers.com or at 916-765-9381.
SIncerely,
GeoEnglneers, Inc.
~:1~
Cultural Resource Specialist
list of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
IlIscIabner. Any eIsolmnlciorm, _lie or hard copy oIlIJe original docwnenl (emall.1mII. table. and/or tIgu..), If pmvldad, end eny atlachments... only a
copy 01 the orlglee' document The odgleel document Is slolOd by GeoEngleeeJs, IIIll. end will """" as the olIlcJel document 01 record.
Copyrlgltt@2010 by GeoEngJ......Inc. All rigJ1Is reseMld.
,
i::,.
"
FDa No. 1355-036-01
GEoENGINEERS (ij
.
Ii!
~
if!
52
!ll
~ T27R01E Section,S, 6
~ T27ROIW SectIon 1
tl T28R01W Section 36
E USGS 75' Topographic Map Serles, LololI (1973)
g. T28R01W Secllon 25
I USGS 7.5' Topographic Map Serles . Port Ludlow (1973)
Noles:
.. 1. The locatlons or aD faaluras shown ara approxlmala.
;:: 2. ThIs drawing Is for information purposes. ills intended 10 assislln
.;; showing faaluras discussed In an attached dOQJlllanL GeoEnglneers. Ine.
" cannot guarantee !he accuracy and content or electronic files. Tha master
a. file Is atored by GeoEnglneOlS. Inc. and will serve as !he oIIldal racerd 01
this eommunlcatfon.
3. It Is unIawluJ to copy or reproduce all or any parllheraol, whether for
iIi personaJ use or resale. without pennisslon.
'" Data Sources: ESRI Mapserv!ce, NGSJopo_US
j Tl'SltSVEIfSe Marcator,Zone 10 N Noeth, NorthAmariean Datum 1983
o Nath arrow oriented to gId north
/~ .
,.
>''1
Legend
II
Cultural
Survey Area
N
W~E
,
2.000 0 2,000
. .
Feel
Cultural Survey Areas
Shine Z and Wahl
Jefferson County, Washington
GEoENGINEERS a
Figure 1
.
.E!!!!!Y J. Arrington
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Marie Hebert [marleh@pgst.nsn.usj
Monday. January 11. 20103:36 PM
Cindy J. Arrington
Re: Cullural Resource Assessment 1-11-10
Hi Cindy, Thank you for the letter and IlIap showing where your cultural assessment will
happen. I am very interested in what happens here. We have found remains and other items in
the Port Ludlow area. I just need to knllW exactly where you will be. In fact, I'd like to
visit the area to see it and talk with you about it.
Marie Hebert
Cultural Resources Oirector
Port Gamble S' Klallam
. Cindy J. Arrington wrote:
> Good Afternoon Ms. Hebert:
>
>
>
> Attached is a letter and map describing a cultural resource assessment
> planned for the Mind Sands & Gravel Company in Jefferson County,
> Washington. ShOUld you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
> contact me.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Cindy J. Arrington, M.S., RPA
>
> Associate
>
> Cultural Resource Specialist
>
>
>
> *GeoEngineers** *
> *t:
> f:* *
> *c *
> *e: *
*916.444.5825
916.441.2532
916.765.9381
carrin2ton~geoengineers.com <mailto:carringto~geOen2ineers.com>_
>
>
> 3301 C Street, Suite 200 A
> Sacramento, California 95816
> www.geoengineers.com <http://www.geoengineers.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
M,"~
1
.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>--
> Confidentiality: This message is confidential and intended solely for
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are
> not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and
> notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to
> anyone else.
>
f.j,;'
2
t
,
CIndy J. ArrInpton
From:
Sent:
To:
SubJeot:
Cindy J. ArrIngton
Friday, JanUllly 15, 2010 8:04 AM
'MarIe HebeJf
RE: CultUlal Resource .Assessment 1-15-10
Good Morning Marie:
My apologies for the tardiness of this email, but I left for the field Monday afternoon. I
have cOllIpleted the surveys and Will be wr1ting up the rePorts next weel<. I am sorry that we
did not have a chance to meet.
Best Regards,
Cindy J. Arr1ngton, M.S., RPA
Associate
Cultural Resource Specialist
GeoEngineers
t: 916.444.5825
f: 916.441.2532
C 916.765.9381
e: carrinaton@Reoenaineers.com
3301 C Street, Suite 200 A
Sacramento, California 95816
www.eeoenaineers.com
-----original Message-----
From: Marie Hebert [mailto:marieh@pgst.nsn.us]
Sent: Monday, January :1.:1.. 20:1.0 3:36 PM
To: Cindy J. Arrington
Subject: Re: Cultural Resource Assessment
Hi Cindy. Thank you for the letter and map showing where youI' cultuI'al assessment will
happen. I am very intel'ested in what happens here. We have found I'8mains and other items in
the Port Ludlow area. I just need to know exactly wllel'8 you will be. In fact. I'd like to
visit the area to see it and talk with you about it.
Marie Hebert
Cultural Resources Director
Port Gamble S'Klallam
Cindy J. Arrington wrote:
> Good Afternoon Ms. Hebert:
>
>
>
> Attached is a letter and map describing a cultural I'esource assessment
> planned for the Mind Sands & Gravel Company in Jefferson County.
> Washington. Should you have any questions. please don't hesitate to
> contact me. p,'.
>
>
,
1
1
,
. I
i
I
I
I
I
:
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Cindy J. Arrington, M.S., RPA
>
> Associate
>
> Cultural Resource Specialist
>
>
>
> *GeoEngineers** *
> *t:
> f:* *
> *c *
> *e: *
*916.444.5825
916.441.2532
916.765.9381
carrinRto~Reoeneineers.com <mailto:carrinRto~eeoenRineers.com>_
>
>
> 3301 C Street, Suite 200 A
> Sacramento, California 95816
> WWW.Reoeneineers.com <htto:!!www.ReoenR1neers.com>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------~------------
> --
> Confidentiality: This message is confidential and intended solely for
> use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are
> not the person for whom this message is intended, please delete it and
> notify me immediately, and please do not copy or send this message to
> anyone else.
>
.1'
2
I~
"" ,r..-/ / ,,\
_.~-:---.../ /__~ J \. ..-....
--........... '\...'-.....--..........
"._..-....-.......~-::---....
...., !/
(: /
IJ
/ ' \~
-.. ". /--' \\
...."..... "
...-- ! '. . \, \'"
'-_ I ~'..j (--.... ""
-' _/-_..J '- - ..-" ','. '.
~___.-_.._--) J"'~ :\~~<:>
.... - - _..- ~-' .-~-- ---. .-.......'
""
,
....,---.......-
-""......
-. ..../.
-
".-. /.~_...-.
/
-, .-- "':'../
/
J
,/
i
)
,,_.. - ~.
.-,.-
l
i I
\
'..
,
. ..'
~ ..... ':~:~::~~,~' -""- -.~~,
~ '~ -', " "-
<t >'. '" --'" .....
'.,.....
I
\. '\
\
(. -. ~ ." .. ~ ....... .
,-'
.../'....
,./ ./,,\
. ..-." \)
.,.-...,. .
.'--.J .
-"'.
o / i
.'
. ~~-~
\.
.....
/
"ee',
,..../;V!t".1
-__._:.J
Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discovery
Plan
The Wahl ExpansIon Project
Jefferson County, WashIngton
for
Miles Sand & Gravel Company and Jefferson
County Department of community Development
February 26, 2010
GEoENGINEERS t:J
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98402
253.383.4940
It,~: _
1V1 '"'~ I
Unanticipated Cultural Resources
Discovery Plan
Wahl Expansion Area
Jefferson County, Washington
File No. 1355-03EHl1
February 26, 2010
Prepared for:
Miles Sand & Gravel Company
P.O. Box 130
Aubum, Washington 98071
Attention: Mike Schuh
and
Jefferson County Department of Community Development
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Prepared by:
GeoEngineers, Inc.
1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200
Tacoma, Washington 98402
253.383.4940
Cindy J. Arrington, M.S., RPA
Nancy E. Sikes, Ph.D., RPA
CJA:mb
Disclaimer. Any electronic fonn, facsimile or bard copy of the original document (arnall, text. table, and/or figure), if provfded, and any attachments are
only a copy of the original document The original document Is stored byGeoEnglneel'R, IDe. and will serve as the official document of record.
Copyrtgb\@2010byGeoEngln..rs.lnc.A1ltlgll\srnseMld.
il~ ~ n
IV' - ~ -,
GEoENGINEERS a
Table of Contents
INTRODUcnON .___..._..__....._.._
...............___.._...._......._.1
Project History ........................................................................................................................................1
Intent of Discovery Plan .........................................................................................................................1
Project Location .....................................................................................................................................2
DISCOVERYPROCEDURES...__._...._............._.....__......._..............__.._...._...._2
Protocol 1: Unanticipated Cultural and Archaeological Discoveries................................................... 2
Steps to Protect Unanticipated Discoveries .................................................................................. 3
Notification Regarding Unanticipated DIscoveries........................................................................ 3
Verification of Potential Discovery by Professional Archaeologist ...............................................3
Initial Documentation and Assessment of Cultural Discovery .....................................................4
Dlsoovery Record Review Process ................................................................................................. 6
Treatment of Eligible CUltural Discoveries..................................................................................... 6
Letter Report of Treatment of Unanticipated Discovery ............................................................... 7
AddltlonalTreatment......................................................................................................................8
AuthoritY to Resume Work.............................................................................................................. 8
Protocol 2: DiSCOvery of Human Skeletal Remains ............................................................................8
Work Stoppage and Immediate Protectlon ...................................................................................8
Expeditious Notification of Human Remains.................................................................................9
Jurisdiction over Human Skeletal RemaIns:..................................................................................9
Protection of the And...................................................................................................................... 9
Photographs ..................................................................................................................................10
Treatment of Human Remains.....................................................................................................10
AuthoritY to Resume Work ............................................................................................................10
~j.;
.
f.;,;i'J
GEoENGINEERSg
February 26, 2010 I Page I
R1&No.1J55.Q38.(jl
IlIscow1y Plan - WaI1l ExpansIoD Project . _ ColmIy, Woshlogtoo
INTRODUCTION
Project History
Cultural resources Investigations for the Miles Sand & Gravel Company (Miles) - Wahl Expansion
Area project was conducted under prevailing Washington state laws: Executive Order 05-05, Indian
Graves and Records (Revised Code of Washington [RCW] 27.44), Archaeological Sites and
Resources (RCW 27.53), Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permit ['NAC 2548), and
Discovery of Human Remains (RCW 27.44). The study Included background research,
correspondence with cultural resources staff at the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe and Port Gamble
S'Klallam Tribe, and an archaeological survey and examination of surface and exposed subsurface
sediments In the. project area. No cultural resources were ldentlfled and the potential for discovery
of burled archaeological materIals, features or deposits by Implementation of this project Is
considered low. Monitoring of construction activities during project Implementation was not
recommended.
Intent of Discovery Plan
this Discovery Plan presents the approach that Miles will use to ensure the protection of cultural
resources and to address emergency discoveries of cultural and archaeologIcal resources during
ground-dlsturblng or construction activities for the proposed Miles expansIon. this plan provides for
the Identlflcatlon, protection, and treatment of cultural resources discovered by the construction
workforce during project activities either inside or outsIde designated project boundaries.
Miles Is committed to the protection and preservation of cultural resources, in accordance with
federal, state, and county legislation. To the greatest extent possible, Miles will avoid disturbances
to all such resources. However, Miles recognizes that, despite Intensive cultural resources survey
investigations that were performed, it Is possible that cultural resources could be discovered during
the expansion effort. Miles also recognizes the requirement for strict compliance with federal and
state regulations and guidelines regarding the treatment of human skeletal remains, if any are
discovered.
This Discovery Plan Is Intended to provIde guidance to Miles personnel and any contractors or
subcontractors so they can:
1. Comply with applicable federal and state laws and regulations, particularly:
.
Federal: 36 CFR 800 (as amended August 5, 2004) of the regUlations that implement
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Washington Stata:
. Indian Graves and Records (RCW 27.44)
. Archaeological Sites and Resources (ReW 27.53)
. Discovery of Human Remains (RCW 27.44, 68.50, 68.60)
. Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permit (WAC 25-48)
[. ..
.:'1. <
.:;,
.
GEoENGINEERSg
February 26, 2010 I Page 1
FJJeIlD.~J
. ,
Illsclwmy Plan - Wabl fxpansJon Prnjnol " .IeIfeJSon CnImly, Wasblngtnn
2. Describe to regulatory and review agencies the procedures Miles will follow to prepare for and
deal with unanticipated discoveries; and
3. Provide direction and guidance to project personnel on the proper procedures to be followed
should an unanticipated discovery occur.
The following subsections under Discovery Procedures detail the procedures to be used to address:
. Discovery of archaeological and cultural resources: Protocol 1
. Discovery of human skeletal remains: Protocol 2
Project Location
The 24.2-acre project area is located in Jefferson County, Washington, on lands owned by Pope
Resources/Olympic Resource Management, for which Miles has a lease for the existing mining and
future operations areas. The project consists of three areas, of which the batch plant and
aggregate processing areas are contiguous, and the new entry road noncontiguous:
. Road Access Improvement Area (6.2 acres) Township 28 North, Range 1 West, Section 25
. Batch Plant Area (8 acres) Township 28 North, Range 1 West, Section 36
. Aggregate Processing Area (10 acres) Township 27 North, Range 1 West, Section 1
The improved access road will replace use of the existing northernmost extent of Wahr Lake Road
that Intersects with SR 104. That section of Wahl Lake Road will be closed when the improved
access route is completed.
The three areas are located on the Lofall 1973 and Port Ludlow 1973 USGS 7.B-minute
topographic maps (WllIamette Meridian).
DISCOVERY PROCEDURES
Protocol 1: UnantIcipated Cultural and Archaeological Discoveries
If any Miles employee, Its contractors or subcontractors believes that he or she has inadvertently
uncovered any cultural resource, then all work adjacent to the discovery shall cease, and the
construction foreman, Inspector or Miles contact will immediately notify a professional
archaeologist (who meets the definition under RCW 27.53.030[8]), The area of work stoppage will
be adequate to provide for the security, protection, and integrity of the discovery, as detailed below.
A cultural resource discovery could consist of:
. Prehistoric and ethnohistoric materials such as flaked stone tools, tooi-making debris, stone
milling tools, fire-affected rock, basketry, culturally modified animal bone, fishing implements
or soil darkened by cultural activities (midden).
it!::: ._""
Page2 February26,2010 GeoEnginaers,lnc.
FneND.1355-0J&.01
Dlscov8ty Plan - Wahl ExpallSlon Projeol 1effellIon Cotmty, Washington
. Historic materials might Include remnants of logging machinery, tree stumps with springboard
notches, logging road or rail beds, building remains, metal, glass, "cans, or ceramic artifacts or
debris older than 50 years.
Steps to Protect UnanticIpated Dlscoveties
Work stoppage. If an unanticipated discovery Is encountered, construction activity will halt
Immediately at the discovery location, followed as scon as possible by the cessation of all other
ground-dlsturblng activity within 30 meters (100 feat) of the discovery.
Immediate ProtectIon. The construction foreman will ensure that an area at least 10 meters (30
feet) around the discovery Is fenced with orange safety fencing or a similar material. These
individuals will also be responsible to prevent traffic through the area of the resource disturbed by
project activities, beyond that necessary to remove vehicles and equipment already within the area
Immediately surrounding the discovery. Work In this Immediate area will not resume until
treatment of the discovery has been completed (see below).
NotItIcat1on Regarding UnanticIpated D1scoveties
Persons Involved In the discovery wlll Immediately notify the construction foreman or Inspector
who, In turn, will Immediately notify the appropriate Miles contact, who wm then contact a
professional archaeologist to assess the discovery. Individuals who will be notified In the event of
unanticipated discoveries are listed below.
Miles Sand & Gravel Company
Mike Schuh
253-833-3705
Professional Archaeologist
Meets definition under RCW 27.53.030(8)
To Be Determined
In the event that a discovery involves human remains or suspected human remains, expeditious
notifiCation must include the County Coroner and local law enforcement (see Protocol 2 below).
Ver1f1catIon of Potential Discovery by Professional Arcllaeolog/st
After halting construction and fencing the area of the unanticipated discovery as described above,
Miles will have the discovery verified by a professional archaeologist. A professional archaeologist
shall meet the definition under RCW 27.53.030(8), which is a person with qualifications meeting
the standards specified under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and GuIdelInes for
Archaeology and HIstorIc Preservation (36 CFR Part 61). For archaeology, the minimum
professional qualifications are a graduate degree In archeology or anthropology plus:
1. At least 1 year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training In
archeological research, administration or management;
2. At least 4 months of supervised field and analytic experience In general North American
archeology, and
H~ r> .) 'il'.:::
flI!,~:-i - - ::.v;u
GEoENGINEERS g
February26,2010 I Page3
fDet&J355.tJ36.lJl
DlscoveJy Plan - Wabl ExpansIon ProjaCl '. Jeffan;an CoanfJ. Wasbblll!Da
3. Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion.
If the archaeologist determines that the discovery is non-cultural, Miles will be notified, and the
halted constructlon actlvfty can resume.
If the professional archaeologist determines that the find Is cultural, the archaeologist will notify
the Miles contact of the discovery and the procedures for the evaluation and treatment of
unanticipated discoveries will be implemented. During verification of the discovery, the
archaeologist will have the authority to probe and shovef-skim the potentIal unanticipated
discovery to the extent necessary to determine whether It qualifies as cultural. If the unanticipated
discovery Is something other than human remains or suspected human remaIns, the treatment
procedures outlined below will be followed. If human remains or suspected human remains are
dIscovered, addltlonal procedures outlined below (Protocol 2) will be followed.
The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) will be
consulted by the archaeologist on evaluation and treatment of all confirmed cultural discoveries
occurring within the project area.
InItIal Documentation and Assessment of CUltural Discovery
A professional archaeologist will verify all potential unanticipated discoveries (excapt for human
remains or suspected human remains: see Protocol 2). Upon verifying that the find is cultural, the
archaeologist will promptly:
1. Notify the Miles contact to begin the official notification process (see below).
2. Complete a Discovery Record (see below).
3. Determine, In consultation with Miles and DAHP, as appropriate, whether or not the discovered
resource can be avoided.
4. If Impacts to the discovery cannot be avoided, evaluate the potential signlflcance ofthe
resource and determine appropriate mitigation measures In consultation with DAHP.
Notiflcatlon of Unanticipated Discovery. After the archaeologist notifies Miles of a verified
unanticipated discovery, Miles will Immediately contact DAHP, as appropriate, by telephone. The
notification will include a brief description of the discovery and Its location.
Miles Sand & Gravel Company
Mike Schuh
253-833-3705
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP)
360-586-3065
Discovery Record. The Investigating archaeologist will prepare a Discovery Record of the
unanticipated discovery.
b<"
Page4 Februal)l26,2010 GeoEnglneelS,lnc.
FDeNo.l35S-{l36.01
-..y Plan - Wahl E'xpaIllllon ProJacl. _n ColmIy, Waahlnglon
If the discovery is a previously unIdentified archaeological site, the following steps will be taken by
the archaeologist, in consultation with DAHP:
1. The area around the discovery including the periphery of disturbance of the construction
activitY will be examined for any surface manifestation of the site. The appropriate records from
the Washington State Archaeology Site Inventory Form (ASIF) and/or the Historic Property
Inventory Forms (HPIF) will be completed. Recording will Include GPS coordinates, plotting the
location of the site on a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' topographical map, producing a
sketch map, and photographing the site.
2. Unless the project can avoid the site, further site evaluation In consultation with DAHP will be
Initiated to determine the significance of the site. if avoidance Is possible, this will not be
undertaken and further site evaluation will be unnecessary.
3. If avoidance cannot be achieved, a permit must be obtained from DAHP before any
disturbance to further evaluate the significance of the site (e.g., shovel testing) can be
Implemented (RCW 27.53.060; WAC 25-48 [Archaeological Excavation and Removal permltJ).
If the discovery consists of qualitatively distinct materials within a previously recorded site, the
archaeologist will Initiate the following steps In consultation with DAHP:
1. The archaeologist will make a detailed sketch map of the area containing the discovery. It will
show the location and known extent of the discovery, areas that have been disturbed by
construction, and micro-topographic features. Any features will be mapped In plan view and/or
profile, as appropriate. Stratigraphic profiles will be made of a selected trench wall In which
cultural materials are exposed.
2. The archaeologist will also prepare a summary description of the nature of the discovery and
Its environmental context and will describe any features or artifacts. This record will also
include photographs, with overviews showing the location of the discovery, the extent of
disturbance resulting from construction in the surrounding area, and any feature or features.
An update or supplement to any existing ASIF/HPIF or other record will be prepared If
appropriate, and will be forwarded to DAHP.
3. The archaeologist will not collect any artifacts or otherwise disturb the site without consulting
with DAHP and without obtaining the appropriate permit (RCW 27.53.060; WAC 25-48
[Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permit)).
Determination of Whether Resource can be Avoided. The preferred approach to any discovered
cultural resource is avoidance. Once the site has been documented and the boundaries
delineated, the archaeologist, Miles, and DAHP, will consult to determine whether Impacts to the
site can be avoided through such measures as project reeng/neering or redesign. If the site cannot
be avoided, It either will be evaluated or will be assumed to be significant and will be treated as
such, as described below.
Evaluation of Slgnlflcance of Resources whIch cannot be AvoIded. If the professional archaeologist
and Miles in consultation with DAHP determine that there is no feasible way to avoid impacts to the
>.' .,
M,~: i'._~:;:
GEoENGINEER~
fabrual)f26,2010 I Page5
FIl8No.J.35S.038-01
DIscoveiy Plan - Wahl ExpansIo. Projact, JeII'anioJJ Conoly, Wasb/JJglDo
.
cultural resource, one of two evaluatlon options will be carried out. DAHP will be consulted by the
professional archaeologist retaIned by Miles during this process:
1. Assume that the site Is significant and treat and mItIgate as If It were significant. ThIs option
will be used where time constraints do not permit the full evaluation of the site using standard
archaeological evaluation methods, and will be applied In consultation with DAHP. Generally
this option could be applied if the proposed mitigatlon consists primarily of recordation or
monitoring measures, which would not result in project delays. These measures would be
reduced or elimInated, after proper notificatlon, if subsequent work Indicates and DAHP
determines that the site In fact is not significant.
2. Evaluate the nesource using standard archaeological evaluation methods. In consultation with
DAHP, the archaeologist will develop and carry out site evaluatlon, using archaeological testing
as appropriate. A permit must be obtained from DAHP before any dlsturbanca to the resource
for eligibility evaluation can be Implemented (RCW 27.53.060; WAC 25-48 [Archaeological
Excavation and Removal Permit]). In most cases, the site will be evaluated with respect to
eligibility under federal or state registers (National Register of HIstoric Places [NRHP];
Washington Heritage Register. [WHR]) for Its potential to answer questions important in
prehistory or history, In accordance with regIonal research questions. If the testing program
determines that the site cannot yield Information Important In prehistory or history or other
NRHP or WHR criteria, if the site has no potential for human remains, and if DAHP concurs with
this decision, then no further management is required. If DAHP determines that the cultural
resource Is signiflcant and Impacts to the slgniflcant qualities of the site cannot be avoided,
recommendatIons will be made concamlng the appropriate treatment and mitigation
measures, such as archaeological data recovery or construction monitoring (see below).
Discovery Record Review Process
The InvestigatIng archaeologist will submit a Discovery Record to Miles within 48 hours of the Initial
examination of the discovery. For any site that cannot be avoided, Miles will submit the Discovery
Record to DAHP, as appropriate, within 72 hours of the Initial examination of the discovery.
DAHP will revIew the Discovery Record, determine whether the Identification and assessment
measures are adequate, and will notil)' the Miles contact reg!!rdlng the determination by telephone
followed by written confirmation. If a response Is not received within 10 calendar days, Miles will
consult with DAHP to determine an appropriate course of action. Miles will maIntain a written
record of all DAHP decisions with regard to cultural resources encountered by the project.
Should DAHP determine that the discovery requIres no further action, DAHP will prepare a written
Notice to Proceed (NTP); an email communIcation can suffice as an NTP. The written NTP will be
sent to Miles. Miles may resume construction immediately upon receipt of the NTP.
Treetment of Eligible Cultural Discoveries
DAHP will be consulted by the professional archaeologist retained by Miles regarding assessment
and evaluation of all archaeological or cultural dlscoverles within the project area for the eligibility
of each resource for listing on federal or state registers (NRHP or WHR), or the potantlal of the
resource to provide additional data that may be Important in prehIstory or history. All verified
Ivi.:::
,.
Pago 6 Fobru8lY 26, 2010 GooEnglnoolS, loe.
m&No.1355-D36-01
"
DiscaVllIyPlaD - WnbJ ExpnDSlDD Project _D Connly, WnsIIiDgIDD
archaeological site discoveries will be protected and assumed eligible under Criterion D for
Inclusion In the NRHP until DAHP makes a flnal determination or until mitigation (treatment) is
complete. If a number of sites of the same type are encountered, a programmatic approach may be
developad In consultation with DAHP and other appropriate parties.
Avoidance of archaeological/cultural resources Is the preferred mitigation for potential Impacts by
the project If avoidance cannot be achieved, a permit must be obtained from DAHP before any
disturbance to the prehlstorlc or hlstorlc resource for mitigation of Impacts by the project can be
Implemented (RCW 27.53.060; WAC 25-48 [Archaeological Excavation and Removal Permit]).
Mitigation or treatment measures for resources evaluated as eligible for the NRHP or WHR (I.e., as
significant resources) may Include protection In place, data recovery, detailed documentation,
mapping, photography, limited probIng and sample collectlon, or other treatment deemed
appropriate in consultation with DAHP. The compiled Information must be submitted to DAHP for
review and acceptance before any work occurs on the site of the historic resource. The flnal
documentation will be retained by DAHP and other appropriate archives.
Data recovery treatment would not halt constructlon except at the specific site(s) subject to
treatment and an area around the site(s) adequate to proVide for the security, protection, and
integrity of the cultural resource as determIned In consultation with DAHP. Protectlon of the slte(s)
undergoing data recovery might Include the use of barrlcade fencing, restrlcting the width of the
construction right of way, constructlon monitoring, or similar actions. Construction would continue
outside of those areas. If, at any point during Implementation of a treatment plan, human remains
are discovered, the separate provisions for discovery of human skeletal remains will be Invoked
and instituted.
Lstfer Report of Treatment of Unanticipated Discovery
At the conclusion of the archaeoioglcal treatment data recovery, the archaeologist will prepare a
letter report summarizing preliminary results of the investigation. This report will Include a
description of the nature and extent of the Investigations, a brlef summary of the results, an
evaluation of the find, and any recommendations for additional treatment.
The archaeologist will submit the letter report to Miles within 48 hours of the completion of the
data recovery fieldwork. Miles will submit a copy of the preliminary report to DAHP within 72 hours
of the completion of fieldwork. DAHP has up to 10 calendar days from receipt of the preliminary
data recovery report to determine whether additional treatment decisions or recommendations are
Justified.
If DAHP concurs that no additional treatment Is Justified, DAHP will prepare a written NTP and fax,
mail. or email to MUes.
Miles may resume construction Immediately upon receipt of the NTP. Miles will not resume
construction at the location of any unanticipated discovery until It has received the written NTP
from DAHP. Miles will keep a record of ail such decisions and will retain the related documentation
(NTP or signed reports).
Mti;.
GEoENGINEER~
Febrlll1l1'26, 2010 I Page 7
FlIalltn.135!HI38-OJ
DIsccvety Plan - Wahl Expa_ Project ;; .IeIfomon Connly. WashJnglDn
Additional Treatment
The professional archaeologist will undertake additional archaeological data recovel)' or other
related Investigations during or after construction or maintenance If DAHP, as appropriate,
determines that this Is necessal)' for adequate mitigation. The specific nature, scope, and timing of
any such investigations will be negotiated by DAHP and Miles and specified In a written agreement
signed by all parties, as appropriate. If necessal)', this work will be completed prior to the
resumption of construction, and then DAHP will grant authorization for construction to resume at
the location of the discovel)'.
The arChaeologist will submit a Data Recovel)' Report to DAHP and other agencies, as appropriate,
after completion of the fieldwork or as negotiated In conjunction with more extensive data recovel)'
Investigations. The final report will be consistent with accepted professional and Washington State
standards.
Authority to Resume Work
Work may not resume until the unanticipated dlscovel)' has been documented and mitigated to the
satisfaction of the DAHP. Permission to resume work must be received by Miles from DAHP, who
will notify the archaeologist and the construction foreman. In the case of all discoveries, the
construction foreman must ensure that work does not proceed until safa to all personnel.
Protocol 2: Discovery of Human Skeletal Remains
Any human remains that are discovered during this project will at all times be treated with dignitY
and respect. Human remains may Include intact burials or Isolated bones, Including teeth or
fragmental)' pieces of bone. Under law, the following procedures apply. Notification and treatment
procedures (If any) will conform with state laws and federal statutes, as applicable to public, tribal,
or private lands.
For this project on non-federal and non-trlbel lands in the State of Washington, prOcedures and
actions for the inadvertent discovery of human skeletal remains or suspected human remains must
comply with RCW 27.44, RCW 68.50 and RCW 68.60. If ground disturbing activities encounter
human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity must cease that may
cause further disturbance to those remains and the area of the find must be secured and
protected from further disturbance. In addItIon, the finding of human skeletal remains must be
reported to the County Coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner
possible. The remains should not be touched, moved, or further disturbed.
Work Stoppage and ImmedJate Protectlon
in the event of a discovery of suspected or pOSSible human bone. work at that Immediate location
and within a 30-meter (100-foot) buffer must hait until a determination has been made as to
whether the bone is human. Except to ensure safety, the location of the find will not be backfilled.
Further, If the bone Is suspected to be human, no spoils shall be moved until a determination of
the source of the find has been made.
The construction foreman will ensure that an area at least 10 meters (30 feet) around the
discovery is fenced with orange safety fencing or a similar material. This individual will also be
t~t.,:..
Paga8 Fabrua1)f26.2010 GeoEnglneelS,lnc.
fileNo. 1355-036-01
--.:
; i:J
IlIscovaiy Plan - Wahl eq,aDSloD PrDjDCt " _ CDDIlll'. WDsbIDgIDD
responsible to prevent traffic through the area of the resource disturbed by project aotMtJes.
beyond that necessary to remove vehicles and equipment already within the area Immediately
surrounding the discovery. Work in the immediate area will not resume until treatment of the
discovery has been completed (see below).
ExpedJtJous Notification of Human RemaIns
PerSons Involved In the discovery of human remains or suspected remains will immediately notify
the constructlon foreman or Inspector who, In turn, will immediately notify the appropriate Miles
contact, who wliI then contact the County Coroner i!.!lQ local law enforcement Immediately by
phone:
JeffelSOn County Coroner
Juene DalZen, Prosecuting
Attorney/Coroner
PO Box 1220
Port Townsend, Washington 98368
Telephone: (360) 385-9180
JeffelSOn County Sheriffs Office
79 Elkins Road
Port Hadlock, Washington 98339
Telephone: 911 or (360) 385-3831
JurlsdlctIon over Human Skeletal RemaIl/S
The County Coroner will assume Jurlsdlctlon over the human skeletal remalns and make a
determinatIon of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic. If the County Coroner
determines the remains are non-forensic, then he or she will report that finding to DAHP who will
then take jurlsdlctlon over those remains and report them to the appropriate cemeteries or
affected tribes. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the
remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to the affected partIes. The DAHP will
then handle all consultation with the affepted parties as to the future preseryatlon, excavation, and
disposition of the remains.
Protection of the Find
UntIl the assessment and appropriate treatment of the human skeletal remains or suspected
remains 15 completed, work must remain stopped and no spoIls will be removed from a 3D-meter
(100-foot) radius around the find. After the find has been determined to represent human remaIns,
excavation work and vehicular traffic may not come within 30 meters (100 feet) of the discovery
location. After ail such activity has been halted, appropriate steps wliI be taken to ensure that no
further disturbance occurs to the discovery until the assessment and appropriate treatment has
been completed. At a minimum, the constructlon foreman will ensure that no ground-disturblng
activity by Miles or Miles' agents, contractors or subcontractors resumes within 30 meters (100
feet) of the discovery in all directions, and wliI prevent the resumption of vehicular traffic within the
buffer zone. Other steps to secure and protect the discovered remains will be taken, depending on
the nature and particular cIrcumstances of the discovery and In consultation with DAHP, potentiaily
GEoENGINEERSg
MAr. -- J1Q
Februa1Jl26.2010 I Page9
R1eNu.J.355..roS.(IJ
. t i
DIscoIeIyPlaa - Wahl.~ Project Joffemon ConnIy, WasIIIDgInn
Including measures such as the posting of a securlty person, placement of a securlty fence around
the area of concern, or a combInation of these measures. Measures take.n to protect the remaIns
and any assoclatedartifacts wllJ remain In effect until Miles has received formal notice from DAHP
to proceed with construction In the 3O-meter (iOO-foot) buffer zone.
PhotDgraphs
No photos wllJ be taken by Miles or Miles' agents, contractors or subcontractors of human bone,
suspected human bone, or burlals or associated grave goods found In a burlal context.
Treatment of Human Remains
DAHP will handle all consultation with the affected pertles as to the future preservation,
excavation, and disposition of the remains. DAHP may provide recommendations for the recovery,
treatment, and disposition of the human remains and any associated grave goodS; and shall
consult on the time perlod within which any analysis, treatment, or subsequent reburial shall be
completed. Any analyses or reports resulting from this examination shall be made available to the
approprlate Native Amerlcan trlbes.
If the discovered human skeletal remaIns are determined to be of Native Amerlcan ancestry, It Is
acknowledged that concemed Indian Trlbes are extremely sensitive about such burials, and that
the find must be treated confidentially by Miles or Miles' agents, contractors or subcontractors.
For securlty reasons, no news releases, InCludIng but not limited to photographs, videotapes,
wrltten articles, or other such means that contain Information about human remains or burlal-
related Items of Native Amerlcan orlgln shall be released by any pa~ durlng the discovery;
recovery, and reburlal unless approved by DAHP.
Authority to Resume Work
Work may not resume until permissIon to resume work has bean received by Miles from DAHP. The
constructIon foreman must ensure that measures taken to protect the unanticipated discovery of
human skeletal remaIns and any associated artifacts wllJ remain In effect until Miles has recalved
formal notice from DAHP to resume work withIn the establlshed buffer zone.
MA"
....
'jl'
Page 10 FebruaJY26,2010 GeoEnglneers, Ine.
RlttltO. J356.U3S.01
,
.
J-.......,
(.,,/.- .......'-..
. r'--'/)"
.::~:,:-':::-:/r~- J ~''':~.~::::::.---=-~'':.~.__
'" "
./
/i
II
.I i
~/~--.... ':, (
./' '" /--"" ,\
,j~""') f' '-, -"C.., \ \
/---J "--~ -... ,.- '. \ \,
'1 " \ \'
) \ ~._j'
:::~-:::::::==-..::::=::::./) '. --.--/
~.-::...-~;.~-':'''~-:~~''':'''''
~~2JJ)/ /i/!/V;~>
_~'/ JJ .'!, '/ -;../>....- .._~-:._~
/ -.__._fr /' ///) ) (('''-__.r--.........>''
/ ~:~j/ ((,~;,!I ~. '. ") )) ,
, (<~ j .. // / ./ ',1'1 I
'-... -..-. ///.), j/
.... - _._, ) /;' ' I 1/ I
, . - (/' // // / . / I; !
. "'."_ ~.// ,/ I I 41, i //
'_ .... /' I I' .
..... .~:::...'" /'\, ',\ \\ (
,.....r \'" \... \', \,
/'- /..- \\ \
._~..'. -" -..' \. ~ \\ \\ \,
/"I>~?(2;'C/'.o')~.>., \ ' :<~>..
. , / //' . ..... ~ ....':>::...... ".
": i'i', /// ...... .
\"\\"'----..-.-./.?/ \ :' :>'>~..'
- - " ...,.......
Report LImitations and G Id ApPENDIX D
u ellnes For Use
~'.
-....._----.....
~.... .'",
....--'" ".....
"-", \'" "~.,
~" ........'-.~..
j"
'.
\,
I
\
.....:.-..
..-
-"'....-
I
./
..- ..
-'
--
~
o
.
\
,
!
\ .. \
. \ \,
'" "'-..
...... ""-"~-"
, '.
~
'''.
'.
--* -'-' -".
\
,
I
,
!
\.
"
\
I
I
,/
\
-~.
(., -....-.' -..,
'-
""',
~ - .. - ......
'./
/)'1
r?:C../"\
c::::,
.-:-
,
.......~.
'.....
"
. \
) M .
. A'"
. '1
r:.''t'~
'H,;
,
WAIlLEXPANS1(/l/ AREA , Jetrettson County, 1I11s1dllglDa
.
APPENDIX D
REPORT UMITAnONS AND GUIDEUNES FOR USE1
This appendix provides information to help you manage your rIsks with respect to the use of this reporl
Our Services are Performed for SpecifiC Purposes, Persons and Projects
this report has bean prepared for the exclusive use of the Miles Sand & Gravel Company, Jefferson
County Department of Community Development, and their authorIzed agents. this report Is not Intended
for use by others, and the Information contained hereIn Is not applicable to other sites.
No other party may rely on the produot of our servIces unless we agree in advance to such reliance In
writing. this Is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third
parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations
of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with
the Client and generally accapted geotechnical practices In this area at the time this report was prepared.
this report should riot be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
A Consulting Report
This report has bean prepared for the Cultural Resources Survey Technical Memorandum and
Unanticipated Discovery Plan for the Wahl Expansion Area Project, Jefferson County, Washington.
GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of
services for this project and reporl Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on
this report if it was:
. not prepared for you,
. not prepered for your projeot,
. not prepared for the specific site explored, or
. completed before important projeot changes were made.
If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEnglneers should be given the opportunity
to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as
appropriate.
Umltatlons of thIs Assessment
No cultural resources study can Wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for prehistoric sites,
historic properties or traditional cultural properties to be associated with a project, Should cultural
resources be encountered during construction or ground-disturbing aotivities connected with this project,
work in the area must be halted and a professional archaeologist, who meets the definition under RCW
27.53.030(8), should be notlfled Immediately to evaluate the resource(s) encountered.
1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional FIrms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org.
MAR-
GEoENGINEER~
Janua1Y20,2010 I PageOl
FlIeNo.1355-036-01
r
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
This report Is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and
conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man made events such as
construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope Instability
or ground water fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it
remains applicable.
Read These Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices
(geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science
disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unresllstlc expectations that could lead to
disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers Includes these explanatory "limitations' provisions
In our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEnglneers if you are unclear how these
"Report Umitatlons and Guidelines for Use' apply to your project or site.
This Report Does not Address Envlronmental Contamination
The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ slgniflcantly
from those used to perform a cultural resources study and vice versa. For that reason, a cultural
resources report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants.
Cultural Resources Assessment
Culturel resources assessments are based on a record of historical activitIes complied by a wide variety of
sources and are subject to interpretation and mapping over time. Knowledge of site-speciflc activitIes
that may have occurred over time and the slgniflcance of those actions are difficult to assess without
exploration. The opinions and recommendations presented In a culturel resources assessment are based
on this compllatlon of data by others and In no way represents absoiute conditions regarding the
existence of cultural resources. Rather, this report .only attempts to recognize the potential of cultural
resources being located on the subject property.
M~P
.'1-....
,'..1.
Page D.2
'<
2010
--'"
--
4:30 pm
Mardl 1.2l'J10
Marctl12.2010
AprlJ2010
May 10. 2010
JUly5,2010
Ju/yIAug:u$t2010
_2010
0d0ber2010
_2010
Decembe:r13,2010
Februa1y2011
Gmft
a, s:;s-
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Cycle Process Flpwchart
OldIdD8llentlsr2,1lD>>8I1dUJec:l1a1lil'iillcln
~_nolldlrltl8ll~1tlf8altl,...
JC018.4!.04O(2J(a)
Stid~PltlimlnaIJ~P*&lrrre.tlf..tnllortlle-.:lUblll/l'lBlll
~dWallhot-.:h}'tIW.
.--
.--
..~Juse:utnantPiltRCW38.1QA.'\30{7"lQld8llItl2OClll)1!ilit9IdelJotGllll"
J<X:1......
OCD6IdRepoltflllllllgwtlitJll~"""'bdl.plIiaedCllo.hl
.....
="""""">
1
OpbJaIl3oCCtPIlnl!nQCol:m:l!abn~
1ftvb~Io~t:I/'15lltlul1peach
JX:18.48JlEIO;a)
1
j
f>I8r'mIgClmtliRkrlHect1g0ll8u;gelled~CInP1llm\llarJOOCbt
JCC18.401JtIO(3)
8oCC~~dl;lC:/l:Illt.yllll~""'8oCO#lI8lllvlnWfl1
JCC18.4G.OllO(4)
F'llmlng~l8pOJt""'- .ltI8oCCCIl~~
"'--
$:C'\a~
~BoCCpUhlkr~CIl~lIIlBI'dmenlIlf~d8oCC
"'101llldQ(aUllracl~~
bbehetdllOlIll8I'~o.lIntlloCOlIRllrVln.llll1
JCC1a~4){'J
8QCC8CIopl:tA'lllltbdc8t
JCC la4$~4)(bl
I
.!
OCDmleWand~o1R1la1J:locttt.~s!p,.19tle8
JOe 1B.4U7D
P'Ililm;~"""(lfFhllCur:allt'.leI$lO/lltPt.tJlGHGamg
JCCt8.4ll.Olll:{fJ
1'lIlrwlIr:v~'.A-'-""""QllFlnlllOoctelb8oCO
.cct8.45.OElO(1)
0pIl0nal8oCO"IICIIPhoplom!llWlIwPlaJwqCc1lllnialcn. Al4:...
J001.\I.4&.OSIJOO{a)
aoccMinBCPAsBla~~~rac..-'_~lonRrllllDclikeito
-
JllC_
-~--
JCC1a.~)
I
i
.J
"""-
Tr.tIneIldIon"'U.dooblmuslllelBbn
t!'Iu.~fegltIttawdlllll8llniln
~oflMlCltl.,..
JCC18.45.IISu(2)(d}
L-1~AJlpeabIhalJb$lIed~=~bJ'M\'mJHSPllf~'
CD