Loading...
RZ21-00002_Mining_RezoneApplication_MineResourceReport MINE RESOURCE EVALUATION REPORT Good/Avapollo Property Lewis County, Washington For Good Crushing, Inc. December 21, 2021 Project: GoodCrush-4-01 9450 SW COMMERCE CIRCLE, SUITE 300 | WILSONVILLE, OR 97070 | WWW.NV5.COM | OFFICE 503.968.8787 December 21, 2021 Good Crushing, Inc. 265 Rupp Road, Toledo, WA 98591 Attention: Alan Good Mine Resource Evaluation Report Good/Avapollo Property Lewis County, Washington Project: GoodCrush-4-01 NV5 is pleased to submit this report summarizing our mine resource evaluation for the Good/Avapollo property located southeast of the town of Ethel in unincorporated Lewis County, Washington. Our services for this project were conducted in accordance with our confirming agreement dated January 11, 2021. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Please call if you have questions regarding this report. Sincerely, NV5 Erick J. Staley, L.G., L.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist EJS:sn Attachments One copy submitted (via email only) Document ID: GoodCrush-4-01-122121-geor.docx © 2021 NV5. All rights reserved. GoodCrush-4-01:122121 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Surface Conditions 2 3.2 Geologic Setting 2 3.3 Subsurface Conditions 3 4.0 AGGREGATE QUALITY TESTING 5 5.0 MINE RESOURCE ESTIMATE 5 5.1 Mine Extraction Limits 6 5.2 Recoverable Resource 7 5.3 Estimated Value of Resource 7 6.0 MRL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA 8 7.0 LIMITATIONS 9 FIGURES Vicinity Map Figure 1 Property Ownership Map Figure 2 Existing Topography Map Figure 3 Final Topography Map Figure 4 Cross Sections A-A' and B-B' Figure 5 APPENDICES Appendix A Water Well Logs A-1 Appendix B Laboratory Test Reports B-1 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials BGS below ground surface DNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources FPARS Forest Practices Application Review System GCI Good Crushing, Inc. GIS geographic information system H:V horizontal to vertical LCC Lewis County Code LiDAR light detection and ranging MRL Mineral Resource Lands MSL mean sea level USGS U.S. Geological Survey WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 1 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 1.0 INTRODUCTION NV5 is pleased to submit this report to Good Crushing, Inc. (GCI) summarizing our mine resource evaluation for the Good/Avapollo property located southeast of the town of Ethel in unincorporated Lewis County, Washington. Figure 1 presents a vicinity map of the site. The subject property consists of 443.5 acres and includes two parcels owned by Alan and Pamela Good (tax identification numbers 028043004001 and 028043004002; total of 431.4 acres) and three parcels owned by Avapollo Land Corporation (tax identification numbers 028061000000, 028025001000, and 028024001000; total of 12.1 acres). Figure 2 presents an aerial photograph and the parcel ownership for the subject property. Figures 3 and 4 show existing and final topographies, respectively, while Figure 5 shows relevant cross sections. GCI intends to develop a surface mine at the site. All of the parcels are currently zoned as Agricultural Resource Lands. In order to facilitate applying for a permit from Lewis County to mine the property, the landowners must first have the subject property rezoned to be designated Mineral Resource Lands (MRL). This can be accomplished through Lewis County’s opt-in provisions described under Lewis County Code (LCC) 17.30.850 and 17.30.720(2). GCI requested that NV5 prepare a mine resource evaluation of the subject property to determine if the property has sufficient resources to meet the criteria required under the Lewis County landowner opt-in process. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our scope was to conduct a mine resource evaluation of the potential quantity and quality of aggregate resource at the site and to provide an estimated value of the resource. Our services were conducted and managed by a geologist registered in the state of Washington with more than 20 years of experience consulting on mineral resource evaluations and mine planning projects. Our scope of services included the following:  Reviewed readily available geologic mapping, aerial photographs, well logs, and topographic data for the site and vicinity.  Reviewed available public information regarding wetlands, streams, and other critical areas mapping.  Analyzed LiDAR elevation data to characterize the site geomorphology and variability.  Conducted surface reconnaissance of the site and vicinity for site conditions, surface geologic exposures, and potential critical areas for permitting constraints.  Collected representative samples from excavated exposures for aggregate quality testing.  Developed a potential mine excavation to maximize the extent of the interpreted resource within the confines of what overseeing agencies would likely permit.  Created a three-dimensional geologic model for the site and calculated an estimated volume of the resource.  Conducted a survey of the local pricing for aggregate in the area.  Summarized our findings in this mine resource evaluation report, including the estimated resource volume, value calculations, and supporting figures. 2 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS The subject property is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Ethel, Washington, and 3 miles southwest of Salkum, Washington. The site is accessed from Brim Road using an existing gravel road that leads to the main area of the site, as shown on Figure 2. There is also an older, gravel access roadway leading northwest onto the lower portion of the site from Spencer Road. The site primarily consists of a broad, flat area oriented northeast-southwest and continuing off site to the north and west. The existing site topography is shown on Figure 3. Elevations across this main area range from approximately 450 to 420 feet above MSL. There is also a moderately steep slope in the northwestern corner leading farther northwest and uphill to another flattened area, which is traversed by the site access road. The main area is covered by grasses, brush, and patchwork tree cover following past commercial tree harvest. One fish- bearing stream (Blue Creek) and a non-fish-bearing tributary are mapped in the northwestern site by DNR FPARS/Lewis County (Figure 3). Dense trees and shrubs are located along these drainages and cover the western main area. Blue Creek ultimately flows into the Cowlitz River approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the site. The main area is bound to the east and southeast by a steep slope that traverses the site. Elevations range from 440 to 280 feet above MSL. The slope is mostly covered with trees and has some bare patches along the uphill side of the gravel access roadway. Road cuts expose gravel and sand deposits. While the slopes are steep, sometimes up to 100 to 200 percent gradient, we did not observe signs of recent slope instability. GCI has explored the subsurface conditions at an eastern projection along the steep slope and exposed gravel and sand deposits for the full exposed slope height (Figure 3). The southeastern lowland below the steep slope is gently sloped to flat and ranges from approximately 220 to 340 feet above MSL. The topography is irregular near the foot of the southern steep slope, likely from past slope instability. The lower area is fully covered with trees, brush, and other vegetation. Lewis County maps several wetlands in this area, and a fish- bearing stream (Jones Creek) is mapped by DNR FPARS/Lewis County east of the steep slope (Figure 3). Jones Creek flows into the Cowlitz River approximately 850 feet southeast of the site. The Cowlitz River itself is located at least 750 feet from the site’s southeastern boundary on the other side of Spencer Road and more than 1,700 feet from the steep slope traversing the site. 3.2 GEOLOGIC SETTING Our understanding of the site geology is based on review of geologic mapping completed by Schasse and the Washington Geological Survey.1,2 The site vicinity is underlain by gravel and sand outwash deposits derived from melting alpine glaciers originating from the Cascade Range. Repeated glaciations occurred in western Washington for hundreds of thousands of years, each leaving behind glacial deposits that were later eroded by rivers or more recent glacial events. The drainage basin of the Cowlitz River includes distinct deposits from past glaciations preserved 1 Schasse, H. W., 1987. Geologic Map of the Centralia Quadrangle, Washington. DNR Open-File Report 87-11, scale 1:100,000. 2 Washington Geological Survey, 2019. Surface Geology, 1:24,000-GIS data. Washington Geological Survey Digital Data Series DS-10, version 3.1, November 2019, previously released September 2017, scale 1:24,000. 3 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 as terraces approximately parallel to the river valley that gradually step down toward the Cowlitz River. The oldest of these glacial terraces corresponds to the highest portions of the site in the northwestern corner and the access road off of Brim Road. These deposits are mapped as outwash gravel from the Windgate Hill drift, which may be older than approximately 140,000 years. The next glacial terrace corresponds to the main, flat area of the site and the steep slope. This terrace is underlain by outwash gravel and sand of the Hayden Creek drift and is estimated to be older than 38,000 years and possibly up to 130,000 to 140,000 years old. The last glacial terrace located within the site boundaries is mapped in the eastern lowland, corresponding to outwash gravel and sand of the Evans Creek drift, aged between 12,500 and 20,000 years old. Younger river deposits associated with former cut banks and channels of the ancient Cowlitz River are located southeast of the steep slope and occupy the lowest elevations of the southeastern lowland. Erosion of the Hayden Creek outwash by ancient rivers and glacial meltwater created the steep slope and led to localized landsliding and accumulation of landslide deposits at the foot of the steep slope. 3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We conducted a surface reconnaissance of the site on December 22, 2020, and September 21, 2021. We observed exposures of gravel and sand outwash in road cuts along the access roadway and in excavations in the southeastern portion of the steep slope, as shown on Figure 3. We also reviewed well logs for two on-site wells and for residential wells located in the site vicinity.3 The locations for the on-site wells are shown on Figure 3, and well logs for the on-site and off-site wells used to inform our geologic interpretations are presented in Appendix A. 3.3.1 Outwash Deposits The flattened terrace is underlain initially by orange-brown clay with sand and trace gravel extending to a depth of approximately 20 feet BGS. This clay unit may represent late-stage outwash or post-glacial river sediments. The clay soil is underlain by bedded outwash deposits consisting of sand, gravel, and cobbles with silt and clay with a total thickness of approximately 100 feet, based on the southeastern exposures and well logs. Gravel deposits are generally matrix supported with sand interbeds toward the top of the outwash. The gravels and cobbles are rounded to subrounded. The amount of gravel and cobbles increases with depth, so that the outwash eventually is clast supported with fewer sand interbeds. We collected samples of the outwash gravel and sand at several intervals along the steep slope. Table 1 summarizes the approximate sampling depths below the top of the steep slope and provides field descriptions of the observed outwash. The samples were collected by hand and thus under-represent the amount of very coarse material observed in the exposures such as coarse gravel, cobbles, and boulders. Sieve testing of the samples was performed by ACS Testing, Inc. of Tigard, Oregon. Test result reports are presented in Appendix B. The relative grain-size abundances resulting from the sieve testing are also summarized in Table 1. 3 Oregon Water Resources Department, n.d. Well log query. Retrieved from http://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/. 4 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 Table 1. Outwash Sample Intervals, Field Descriptions, and Results of Sieve Testing Sample Depth Below Top of Slope Field Description Sieve Analysis Results (percent) Cobble Gravel Sand Fines S-2 20 feet Orange-brown clayey gravel with sand and cobbles (30 percent)5 42 37 16 S-3 50 feet Light brown gravel with clay, sand, and cobbles (30 to 40 percent) 11 52 30 7 S-4 80 feet Brown gravel with clay, sand, cobbles (30 to 40 percent), and boulders (5 to 10 percent) 0 55 39 6 S-5 20 feet Brown gravel with clay, sand, cobbles (20 to 30 percent), and boulder (trace) 5 53 38 4 Based on the results of the sieve analyses, the outwash deposits are mostly gravel with sand and a variable, minor amount of silt and clay fines. Note that these results are slightly biased toward finer grain sizes due to the under-represented coarse fraction. 3.3.2 Groundwater Based on the topography and review of well logs located in the site vicinity, we anticipate the groundwater table descends to the southeast toward the Cowlitz River. We measured water levels in the on-site wells on September 21, 2021. The water levels reported on the well logs and measured during our field work are summarized in Table 2 below, which also presents the ground surface elevation of the wells and the resulting water level elevations based on the measured water levels. Table 2. Static Water Level Measured in On-Site Wells Water Well Log Approximate Surface Elevation (feet above MSL)1 Static Water Depth From Well Log Measured Static Water Depth (feet BGS) Elevation of Measured Water Level (feet above MSL)1 W-1 445 82 80 365 W-2 442 172 168 274 1. Based on 2017 LiDAR data The on-site water level measurements are consistent with those reported on the water well logs and indicate a declining water table toward the Cowlitz River. The interpreted water surface underlying the site is presented on the cross sections shown on Figure 5. 5 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 4.0 AGGREGATE QUALITY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on two samples to test the aggregate quality of the glacial outwash deposits. Sample S-3 was selected to represent the middle of the exposed outwash in the southeastern corner of the main area. Sample S-6 was sampled from a pile of crushed aggregate that GCI produced to test a crusher on the outwash material. This sample is representative of a partially crushed product versus the raw pit run sampled in S-3, although not processed to an extent typical for a mine facility. Testing was performed by ACS Testing and included the aggregate quality tests described below. The results of the quality testing are presented in Appendix B.  Los Angeles Abrasion (AASHTO T 96): Used to evaluate the abrasion resistance of an aggregate. This test measures the toughness of an aggregate and provides an indication of how readily a crushed aggregate may further break down through transport and handling.  Degradation Value (WSDOT T 113): Used to determine the susceptibility of an aggregate to degrade into plastic fines when abraded in the presence of water.  Sand Equivalent (AASHTO T 176): Used to determine the amount of plastic fines in an aggregate material. Plastic fines and dust are typically undesirable in an aggregate. Based on the results of the testing, the pit run outwash material (sample S-3) meets WSDOT standard specifications for common borrow material but not for most other specified products.4 This is without any of the processing, such as crushing and washing, to remove weak material and fines from the tested product. The sample that was partially crushed and screened (sample S-6) showed improvement in quality test results. The Los Angeles abrasion results improved from 32 percent loss to 18 percent loss. Typical WSDOT specifications require materials to have no more than 30 to 35 percent loss; therefore, the test results indicate that the crushed outwash material would meet this requirement. 5.0 MINE RESOURCE ESTIMATE The aggregate resource at the site consists mostly of gravel, sand, and cobbles with some fines representing glacial outwash deposits. Quality testing of the outwash indicates it has value as common borrow material and has potential to meet other WSDOT specifications if it is processed to remove weaker fragments and fines. Besides some use for WSDOT-specified materials, the site has potential value as a commercial fill or gravel and sand source for local developments. We understand GCI has had discussions with local developers and contractors who observed the material and indicated it could be used on their projects for general fill or embankments. Based on our review, it is our opinion the glacial outwash has commercial value as an aggregate resource for borrow and fill material if mined as a pit run product and potentially for more durable aggregate products if fully processed. The site has the potential for economically viable production of extractive materials for the foreseeable future. 4 WSDOT, 2020. Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, Division 9 – Materials. Publication M 41-10. 6 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 5.1 MINE EXTRACTION LIMITS To estimate the potential quantity of resource material, we first developed a three-dimensional model using AutoCAD-Civil3D software. The following sections discuss the mining extraction limits we incorporated into the model. The final topography and excavation limits are shown on Figure 4. 5.1.1 Setbacks In accordance with LCC 17.142.200(2)(a)(i), the potential mineable resource observes a 50-foot excavation setback from property boundaries adjacent to other landowners. 5.1.2 Stream Buffers As previously discussed, several streams run through the site, including a fish-bearing stream and non-fish-bearing tributary in the main site area, and other streams and wetlands in the southeastern lowland. For this analysis, we do not consider any mineable resource that may be located in the southeastern lowland area. The limits of excavation in the main area observe stream buffers in accordance with LCC 17.38.420 according to whether they are fish-bearing or not. Specifically, the potential mineable resource observes a 150-foot buffer from the fish- bearing stream and a 75-foot buffer from the non-fish-bearing stream. These buffers are conservative, since the fish-bearing stream appears to be less than 10 feet wide in the field, which would allow mining to observe only a 100-foot buffer per LCC Table 17.38-6. Also, the tributary is not mapped as a critical area on Lewis County’s GIS website, but our analysis conservatively considers it to be a Type Np or Ns stream.5 5.1.3 Cut Slopes DNR typically requires a maximum permanent cut slope of 2H:1V be used for surface mining unless a geotechnical report can demonstrate that steeper permanent slopes can be safely excavated. For glacial outwash gravel and sand deposits, and from a geotechnical perspective, we used permanent cut slopes at 2H:1V in our resource analysis. 5.1.4 Bottom of Excavation and Groundwater Table The potential mineable resource extends to an elevation of 350 feet above MSL (Figures 4 and 5). Based on measured water levels in the two on-site wells and review of water well logs in the site vicinity, groundwater likely underlies the site at depths ranging from approximately 80 feet BGS in the northwest to greater than 170 feet BGS in the southeastern extraction area. Our interpretation of the groundwater table underlying the site is presented in the cross sections shown on Figure 5. The bottom of the potential mine resource is significantly higher than 10 feet above the water table over most of the extraction area, which is a typical requirement for DNR for surface mining. While some of the potential resource area may be below the water table in the northernmost site (i.e., the left side of cross section A-A' on Figure 5), there is significant resource volume between the model final floor and the water table that would not be mined, much more than what may be encountered below the water table. For simplicity in estimating the mineable resource volume, we used the flat mine floor at 350 feet above MSL as a conservative parameter. 5 Lewis County, n.d. Lewis County GIS web map. Retrieved from https://gis.lewiscountywa.gov/webmap/. 7 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 5.2 RECOVERABLE RESOURCE The final cut topography resulting from these mining limits is presented on the map shown on Figure 4 and in the cross sections shown on Figure 5. The resulting gross cut volume of material is estimated at 27,056,757 cubic yards. This gross volume is reduced by non-resource materials as described below, then converted to a tonnage. 5.2.1 Overburden Thickness Based on our observations of clay soil overlying the outwash gravel and sand, and from review of well logs, we reduced the gross cut volume by an average overburden thickness of 20 feet over the entire extraction area. This results in an overburden volume of 7,440,693 cubic yards and an outwash cut volume of 19,616,064 cubic yards, as shown in Table 3 below. 5.2.2 Reduction From Fines Sieve testing of outwash samples resulted in a range of 4 to 16 percent fines content with an average of 8.3 percent. While the fines likely could be sold as part of the pit run material, we reduced all of the outwash volume by the average percent fines as a conservative step in estimating the potential resource volume. The resulting fines volume is 1,628,133 cubic yards, with a resulting net resource volume of 17,987,931 cubic yards, as shown in Table 3. 5.2.3 Resource Tonnage Using an average density of 1.7 tons per cubic yard results in a resource tonnage estimate of 30,579,483 tons. This conversion is based on standard conversions provided in industry manuals, such as the Caterpillar Performance Handbook, and our experience with a variety of gravel deposits in the Northwest.6 Table 3. Resource Estimate Summary Material Estimated Quantity Gross cut volume 27,056,757 cubic yards Less overburden at 20 feet -7,440,693 cubic yards Outwash cut volume 19,616,064 cubic yards Less fines content at 8.3 percent -1,628,133 cubic yards Net resource volume 17,987,931 cubic yards Resource tonnage 30,579,483 tons 5.3 ESTIMATED VALUE OF RESOURCE To estimate the potential value of the resource, we researched regional pricing for aggregate materials at commercial mines within an approximately 20-mile radius of the site. We contacted and received pricing from four commercial mine sites, including GCI’s Goods Quarry, for common rock products used in the area. Operators provided price lists or verbal quotes of their product pricing on a per-ton basis as summarized in Table 4. Materials included the following: 6 Caterpillar, Inc., 2018. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, 48th ed. 8 GoodCrush-4-01:122121  Pit run: Excavated material without processing; may be used as general and embankment fill.  1¼-inch-minus: Typical crushed product used for base rock and foundation base for road construction and other developments.  5/8-inch-minus: Finer crushed product; may be used for final grading in construction and asphalt concrete mixes. Table 4. Regional Aggregate Prices Product Price (per ton) Mining Operation Pit Run 5/8-Inch- Minus 1¼-Inch- Minus L Rock – Foster Creek Pit $12.00 $11.00 $11.00 Wallace Rock Products – Mandy Road Pit -- $12.50 $12.50 Lakeside Industries – Centralia Pit -- $15.00 $15.00 GCI – Goods Quarry $8.75 $11.00 $10.75 -- : not received The only pit run pricing we received besides Goods Quarry was from Foster Creek Pit, which apparently sells a pit run (“Coal Creek Black Rock”) priced higher than its crushed products. This is not typical; pit run is often equal to or cheaper than crushed rock products. While there is potential to fully process the outwash to produce crushed aggregate products that meet a range of WSDOT specifications, for a conservative consideration of the site’s value, we assumed all of the resource tonnage would be sold as general fill. This corresponds to pit run material in terms of price comparison. Again, to keep our analysis conservative, we used the lowest quoted price from regional mines – the pit run price of $8.75 per ton from Goods Quarry. The resulting estimated value for the potential mineable resource is $267,570,476. 6.0 MRL CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA Based on our analysis, and considering the location of the site in Lewis County, the subject property meets the classification criteria for being designated as an MRL in accordance with LCC 17.30.720(2):  The subject property has a potential gravel and sand resource at least $1,000,000 in value.  The subject property has the potential for economically viable production of this resource for the foreseeable future.  The linear frontage of the subject property does not have any abutting parcels less than 2.5 acres in size.  The subject property is outside any designated urban growth area. 9 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this mine resource evaluation report for use by Alan Good and GCI for the Good/Avapollo property. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as warranty of the subsurface conditions and are not applicable to areas other than the subject site. Our interpretations of the mining and geologic conditions are based on discussions with the client, review of publicly available information, exposures of soil and rock within the site area, and subsurface information obtained from others. The accuracy of outside information is beyond our control. Our interpretations do not necessarily reflect soil, rock, or water level variations that may exist at the site. If subsurface conditions differing from those described are noted during the course of excavation, re-evaluation may be necessary. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.    We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Please call if you have questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services. Sincerely, NV5 Erick J. Staley, L.G., L.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist Signed 12/21/2021 FIGURES DIRECTIONS TO SITE GOOD/AVAPOLLO PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST OVER 2 MILES EAST-SOUTHEAST OF ETHEL, WA. FROM ETHEL, DRIVE EASTBOUND ON HIGHWAY 12 FOR APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE. TURN RIGHT (SOUTH) ONTO BRIM ROAD. DRIVE SOUTH ON BRIM ROAD FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.1 MILES. TURN LEFT (EAST) ONTO GRIFFIS ROAD. GATED SITE ACCESS ROAD (UNIMPROVED) TO THE QUARRY IS DIRECTLY AHEAD, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF BRIM ROAD AND GRIFFIS ROAD. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN PORTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING QUARTER-QUARTER SECTIONS: ·NW, NE, SE, AND SW QUARTERS OF THE NW QUARTER OF SECTION 21 ·NW, NE, AND SW QUARTERS OF THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 21 ·NW QUARTER OF THE SE QUARTER OF SECTION 21 ·NW, NE, SE, AND SW QUARTERS OF THE SW QUARTER OF SECTION 21 ·NW AND NE QUARTERS OF THE NE QUARTER OF SECTION 20 SITE SITE COORDINATES: LATITUDE: LONGITUDE: 46° 30' 34" N 122° 41' 33" W Printed By: mmiller | Print Date: 12/21/2021 1:15:02 PMFile Name: G:\E-L\GoodCrush\GoodCrush-4\GoodCrush-4-01\Figures\CAD\GoodCrush-4-01-VM-AP02.dwg | Layout: FIGURE 1WESTERN WASHINGTON WHATCOM SKAGIT SNOHOMISHCLALLAM JEFFERSON KITSAP PIERCE THURSTON KING MASON CLARK SKAMANIA WAHKIAKUM COWLITZ LEWISPACIFIC HARBOR GRAYS SAN JUAN ISLAND DECEMBER 2021 GOOD CRUSHING, INC. GOODCRUSH-4-01 LEWIS COUNTY, WA SECTIONS 20 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 12N, RANGE 1E, W.M. GOOD/AVAPOLLO PROPERTY VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 0 (SCALE IN FEET) N 2000 4000 NOTE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAPS REPRODUCED USING MAPTECH TERRAIN NAVIGATOR PRO®. 31 36 16 R 1 E T 12 N SUBJECT PROPERTYGATED SITE ACCESS ROAD BRIM ROAD SP E N C E R R O A D 028024001000028061 0 00 000 COWL I T Z R I V E R SITE ACCESS0280250010000280430040020280430040010(SCALE IN FEET)N8001600NOTES:1. PROPERTY PARCEL BOUNDARIES AND OWNERSHIPINFORMATION OBTAINED FROM LEWIS COUNTY GIS WEB MAP.2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (JULY 15, 2018) OBTAINED FROMGOOGLE EARTH PRO.Printed By: mmiller | Print Date: 12/21/2021 1:15:06 PMFile Name: G:\E-L\GoodCrush\GoodCrush-4\GoodCrush-4-01\Figures\CAD\GoodCrush-4-01-VM-AP02.dwg | Layout: FIGURE 2 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP MAP GOOD/AVAPOLLO PROPERTY LEWIS COUNTY, WA SECTIONS 20 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 12N, RANGE 1E, W.M. GOODCRUSH-4-01 DECEMBER 2021 GOOD CRUSHING, INC. FIGURE 2 LEGEND:SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY(443.5 ACRES)PROPERTY PARCEL BOUNDARYASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER (SEE TABLE BELOW)SUBJECT PROPERTY INFORMATION TABLEPARCEL NUMBER OWNER NAME OWNER ADDRESS028043004000028043004001ALAN AND PAMELAGOOD265 RUPP ROADTOLEDO, WA 98591028061000000028024001000028025001000AVAPOLLO LANDCORPORATION10552 BONCHESTERHILL STREETLAS VEGAS, NV 89141028043004000 250'250'250' 300' 300 ' 300'350'350'350' 4 0 0 ' 400'400'450'450'450'500' SP E N C E R R O A D SITE ACCESS200'200' 250'250'300'300'350'350'3 5 0 '350'4 0 0 ' 400' 4 5 0 ' 450 ' 450' 450'500'500' COWLITZ RIVER W-1W-2S-1S-2S-3S-4S-6S-550 FT150 FT75 FT50 FT50 FT150 FTAA'B B '0(SCALE IN FEET)N6001200NOTES:1. PROPERTY PARCEL BOUNDARY AND LANDSLIDE AREAOBTAINED FROM LEWIS COUNTY GIS WEB MAP.2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (JULY 15, 2018) OBTAINED FROMGOOGLE EARTH PRO.3. ELEVATION DATA OBTAINED FROM DNR LIDAR PORTAL,COLLECTED 2017.Printed By: mmiller | Print Date: 12/21/2021 1:15:28 PMFile Name: G:\E-L\GoodCrush\GoodCrush-4\GoodCrush-4-01\Figures\CAD\GoodCrush-4-01-SP05.dwg | Layout: FIGURE 3 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY MAP GOOD/AVAPOLLO PROPERTY LEWIS COUNTY, WA SECTIONS 20 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 12N, RANGE 1E, W.M. GOODCRUSH-4-01 DECEMBER 2021 GOOD CRUSHING, INC. FIGURE 3 LEGEND:SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY(443.5 ACRES)LIMITS OF EXCAVATION (230.6 ACRES)SITE ROADEXISTING TOPOGRAPHY(10-FOOT INTERVALS; 50-FOOT INDEX CONTOURS)FISH-BEARING STREAM (DNR FPARS)NON-FISH-BEARING STREAM (DNR FPARS)LANDSLIDE DNR 100KWELLSAMPLE400'W-1S-1 250'250'250' 300' 300 ' 300'350'350'350' 4 0 0 ' 400'400'450'450'450'500' SP E N C E R R O A D SITE ACCESS200'200' 250'250'300'300'350'350'3 5 0 '350'4 0 0 ' 400' 4 5 0 ' 450 ' 450' 450'500'500' COWLITZ RIVER 400'400'400'400'50 FT150 FT75 FT50 FT50 FT150 FTAA'B B '0(SCALE IN FEET)N6001200NOTES:1. PROPERTY PARCEL BOUNDARY AND LANDSLIDE AREAOBTAINED FROM LEWIS COUNTY GIS WEB MAP.2. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (JULY 15, 2018) OBTAINED FROMGOOGLE EARTH PRO.3. ELEVATION DATA OBTAINED FROM DNR LIDAR PORTAL,COLLECTED 2017.Printed By: mmiller | Print Date: 12/21/2021 1:15:34 PMFile Name: G:\E-L\GoodCrush\GoodCrush-4\GoodCrush-4-01\Figures\CAD\GoodCrush-4-01-SP05.dwg | Layout: FIGURE 4 FINAL TOPOGRAPHY MAP GOOD/AVAPOLLO PROPERTY LEWIS COUNTY, WA SECTIONS 20 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 12N, RANGE 1E, W.M. GOODCRUSH-4-01 DECEMBER 2021 GOOD CRUSHING, INC. FIGURE 4 LEGEND:SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY(443.5 ACRES)LIMITS OF EXCAVATION (230.6 ACRES)SITE ROADFINAL TOPOGRAPHY(10-FOOT INTERVALS; 50-FOOT INDEX CONTOURS)EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY(10-FOOT INTERVALS; 50-FOOT INDEX CONTOURS)FISH-BEARING STREAM (DNR FPARS)NON-FISH-BEARING STREAM (DNR FPARS)LANDSLIDE DNR 100K400'400' ELEVATION IN FEET (VE = 3X) ELEVATION IN FEET (VE = 3X)DISTANCE IN FEET0'50'100'150'200'250'300'350'400'450'500'550'600'0'50'100'150'200'250'300'350'400'450'500'550'600'500'1000'1500'2000'2500'3000'3500'4000'4500'5000'5500'ELEVATION IN FEET (VE = 3X) ELEVATION IN FEET (VE = 3X)DISTANCE IN FEET200'250'300'350'400'450'500'550'600'200'250'300'350'400'450'500'550'600'500'1000'1500'2000'2500'3000'3500'4000'4500'5000'5500'6000' 6200'AA'BB'PROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYLIMITS OF EXCAVATIONCOWLITZ RIVERSPENCER ROAD STREAM STREAM STREAM PROPERTY BOUNDARYPROPERTY BOUNDARYLIMITS OF EXCAVATIONB-B'INTERSECTA-A'INTERSECT1212W-1W-2 W-2 ????0(HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET)0(VERTICAL SCALE IN FEET)6001200200400LEGEND:EXISTING TOPOGRAPHYFINAL TOPOGRAPHYWATER TABLEWELLPrinted By: mmiller | Print Date: 12/21/2021 1:15:48 PMFile Name: G:\E-L\GoodCrush\GoodCrush-4\GoodCrush-4-01\Figures\CAD\GoodCrush-4-01-CS01.dwg | Layout: FIGURE 5 CROSS SECTIONS A-A' AND B-B' GOOD/AVAPOLLO PROPERTY LEWIS COUNTY, WA SECTIONS 20 AND 21, TOWNSHIP 12N, RANGE 1E, W.M. GOODCRUSH-4-01 DECEMBER 2021 GOOD CRUSHING, INC. FIGURE 5VERTICAL EXAGGERATION = 3XEXCAVATION VOLUME = 27,056,757 CUBIC YARDS APPENDIX A A-1 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 APPENDIX A WATER WELL LOGS Water well logs available from the Washington State Department of Ecology were reviewed in the site vicinity. Logs that informed our analysis are presented in this appendix. APPENDIX B B-1 GoodCrush-4-01:122121 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST REPORTS Laboratory tests were conducted by ACS Testing of Tigard, Oregon, to perform sieve analyses and test the resource quality potential of select samples. Test reports from the laboratory are presented in this appendix. Delivering Solutions Improving Lives