Loading...
SEP21-0039_Mining_Rezone_SEPA Checklist SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 18 SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use “not applicable” or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision- making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non-projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements –that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background [HELP] 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Good/Avapollo Property – Opt-in MRL Designation SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 18 2. Name of applicant: Alan Good 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Alan Good 265 Rupp Road, Toledo WA 98591 360-864-2974 4. Date checklist prepared: December 20, 2021 5. Agency requesting checklist: Lewis County 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Designation of the property would occur as part of a 2022 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process conducted by Lewis County. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Designation of the property as Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) is required prior to eventually establishing a surface mine operation. If the proposed MRL designation is approved, the applicant plans to separately apply for and obtain a Lewis County Special Use Permit (SUP) through a public hearing process with the Lewis County Hearings Examiner. Thereafter, the site would need to obtain a Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Surface Mine Reclamation Permit and a Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Sand and Gravel General Permit. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Mine Resource Evaluation Report completed by NV5 and dated December 2021 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Approval of Rezone and Map Amendment by Lewis County Board of Commissioners 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 18 The proposal is to rezone and amend the Lewis County zoning map to designate the Good/Avapollo Property (5 parcels: #028043004001, #028043004002, #028061000000, #028025001000, and #028024001000) as Mineral Resource Lands (MRL) in accordance with Lewis County Code (LCC) Sections 17.30.850 and 17.30.720(2). Any subsequent proposal to establish a surface mine at the site will be addressed through a separate SEPA review process associated with an SUP application to Lewis County, pending approval of the proposed MRL designation of the Good/Avapollo Property. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The subject property is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Ethel, WA and 3 miles southwest of Salkum, WA. The three main parcels (#028043004001, #028043004002, and #028061000000) are located in all four quarters of Section 21, Township 12 North, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian. Two narrow parcels along the site access from Brim Road (#028025001000 and #028024001000) are located along the north boundary of the NE quarter of Section 20, Township 12 North, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian. The property boundaries are shown on the map figure set provided with the MRL designation application (Figures RZ-1 through RZ-6). B. Environmental Elements [HELP] 1. Earth [help] a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other flat with discrete steep slopes b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? LiDAR elevation data collected in 2017 indicates the steepest natural slopes on the site are approximately 100 to 200 percent, located along a discrete, steep slope that separates an upper, flat area in the northwest (which occupies most of the site) from a lower, flat to rolling area east and southeast of the steep slope. There is also a moderately steep slope in the northwest corner of parcel #028043004001 leading further northwest to another flattened area. See the topographic contours shown on Figures RZ-5 and RZ-6 included with the proposal application. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx) maps soils in the project vicinity. The upper flat areas that dominate the site are mapped as Salkum silty clam loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. The steep slopes that separate the upper flat areas are mapped as Xerorthents, steep. There are narrow bands of Lacamas silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes that roughly follow the streams mapped on the site (see Figure RZ-5). Soils located in the SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 18 east/southeast lowland area below the steep slope are mapped as Winston gravelly loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes; Puyallup fine sandy loam; Puget silt loam; Cloquato silt loam; Lacamas silt loam; and Olequa silt loam. According to the Lewis County GIS Web Map (https://gis.lewiscountywa.gov/webmap/), all of the proposed project area is zoned as Agricultural Resource Lands (ARL). The current proposal does not propose to remove any soils, as the proposal is to designate the property as MRL. Eventual mining of the site, if approved under a Lewis County SUP and DNR Surface Mine Reclamation Permit, would temporarily remove soils from extraction areas during mining but would then replace the topsoil to reclaim the site at the completion of mining in accordance with state requirements overseen by the DNR. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Landslide mapping from the DNR website (https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/) indicates landslide deposits are located southeast of the steep slope that cuts across the property (refer to Figure RZ-6). e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The proposal is to designate the property as MRL to facilitate future permitting and development of a surface mine. The subject property encompasses approximately 443.5 acres. The attached Mine Resource Evaluation indicates the upper, flat areas (i.e., above the steep slope that traverses the site) are underlain by glacial outwash deposits consisting primarily of gravel and sand. The Mine Resource Evaluation includes figures portraying a potential mineable resource at the site over roughly 230.6 acres, which includes approximately 17,987,931 cubic yards of gravel and sand resource extending to a depth of approximately 70 to 100 feet below ground surface. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur along actively mined sections prior to reclamation. Best management practices (BMPs) incorporated into a future application for mine permitting will be used to direct stormwater and any potential erosion toward the incised quarry floor or designed stormwater ponds interior to the site boundaries. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None – If permitted, a future mine plan would likely include scales and a trailer office, but these would be removed at the completion of mining. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, future plans to develop a surface mine will implement erosion control practices as required by Ecology for its Sand and Gravel General Permit. Mining activity will take place such that any potential erosion from disturbance of native materials will be directed back into the active (incised) mining area or designed stormwater ponds. Stockpiles of topsoil and overburden reserved for reclamation will be located around the perimeter of the active mine and away from any steep slopes. These stockpiles and slopes will be seeded with an erosion control mix to stabilize the piles and prevent erosion. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 18 2. Air [help] a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The proposal is to designate the property as MRL to facilitate future permitting and development of a surface mine. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, short-term emissions may occur from sporadic operation of equipment (i.e. dozers, loaders, and haul trucks). Material processing will utilize best management practices to reduce fugitive dust in accordance with Southwest Clean Air Agency (SWCAA) permit guidelines for any portable crushers that will be used at the site. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Mobile equipment used for future surface mining will utilize requisite emission control devices. Processing equipment will use best management practices to reduce fugitive dust from processing operations in accordance with SWCAA permit requirements. 3. Water [help] a. Surface Water: [help] 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. One fish-bearing stream (Blue Creek) and a non-fish bearing tributary are mapped in the northwestern site by FPARS/Lewis County (see Figure RZ-5). Blue Creek ultimately flows into the Cowlitz River approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the site. Another fish-bearing stream (Jones Creek) is mapped east of the steep slope onsite and flows into the Cowlitz River about 850 feet southeast of the site. The Cowlitz River itself is located at least 750 feet from the site’s southeastern boundary and more than 1,700 feet from the steep slope that traverses the site. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The current proposal does not propose any work near these waters, as the proposal is to designate the property as MRL. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, mine traffic would cross over Blue Creek on an existing access road along the north boundary of the site. Mine activity would otherwise observe all County-required buffers from streams in the project area. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 18 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, future plans to develop a surface mine will control stormwater and direct it back into the active (incised) mining area or designed stormwater ponds in accordance with the Ecology Sand and Gravel General Permit. b. Ground Water: [help] 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Two wells already exist on the site and have been used for rural resource purposes. It is not known at this time if water would be used for any potential mining use, other than for dust abatement, if the MRL designation is approved. Stormwater will be directed to the mine floor or to stormwater management ponds and infiltrate into the ground surface. Mining will be limited to extraction of the sand and gravel resource to no deeper than 10 feet above the local groundwater level. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No septic discharge or other waste materials would be associated with the proposed project or with future mining. If approved for mining after being designated to MRL, portable toilets would be used at the site. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff will be limited to stormwater from precipitation and seasonal snowmelt. The runoff will be directed into the active (incised) mining area or designed stormwater ponds in accordance with the Ecology Sand and Gravel General Permit. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 18 There will be no waste materials on the proposed project site. Any potential sediment from runoff will be contained onsite. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, future mining would observe County-required buffers from Blue Creek and the non-fish bearing tributary in the northwest to avoid influencing drainage patterns. The streams and wetlands located below the steep slope in the east/southeast lowland will not be affected by mining disturbance. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Segmental mining/reclamation and best management practices such as onsite infiltration, stormwater detention ponds, ditching, check dams, and topsoil replacement for revegetation will be incorporated to control surface runoff. Runoff from undisturbed areas will be redirected around active mining areas where practical. 4. Plants [help] a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: __X__deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other __X__evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other __X__shrubs __X__grass ____pasture ____crop or grain ____ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ____other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The current proposal does not propose any vegetation removal, as the proposal is to designate the property as MRL. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, grass and trees will be removed as mining progresses across the site. Disturbed areas will be subsequently replanted according to a revegetation plan associated with a future mine and reclamation plan. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 18 If approved for mining after being designated to MRL, future reclamation plans will include revegetating the site according to DNR standards and requirements. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None are known. 5. Animals [help] a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: crows, jays mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: squirrels fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other ________ b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Pacific flyway. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, mining would observe stream buffers and vegetated setbacks from site boundaries to preserve habitat for animals. As mining is completed across the site, areas will be segmentally revegetated in accordance with DNR requirements. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None are known. 6. Energy and Natural Resources [help] a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. If the MRL designation is approved, future mining activity will require use of petroleum products (diesel, gasoline) to power excavation and hauling equipment. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 18 c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Not applicable. 7. Environmental Health [help] a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. The current proposal does not include any environmental health hazards, as the proposal is to designate the property as MRL. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine- related permits are obtained, petroleum products will be used for mobile equipment and portable crushers. Accidental fuel or oil spills would be possible, but a Spill Control Plan (SCP) will be followed and revised as necessary throughout the life of the project according to Ecology Sand and Gravel General Permit requirements. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None are known. The site was formerly used for forestry purposes and growing grass and may have experienced minor spills associated with related machinery. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None are known. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, fuel and oil for mining equipment will be used on the site. Mining equipment will require occasional refueling and maintenance. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, BMPs described in the SCP will be employed to reduce the potential for accidental fuel or oil spills during equipment refueling. BMPs will also be used to quickly and completely clean up any spills and remove any spill-contaminated materials to an approved disposal site. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 18 No adverse impacts are anticipated from rural-resource noise sources in the site vicinity. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, future mining activity will include sporadic noise generated by mining equipment and haul trucks during operating hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: If the MRL designation is approved, onsite noise levels from future mining activity will be in conformance with maximum environmental noise levels established by Chapter 173-60 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Requisite muffling devices will be maintained on trucks and excavating equipment. Processing and loading trucks for sales would be located toward the interior of the site approximately 2,000 to 3,000 feet away from potential offsite residential receivers. 8. Land and Shoreline Use [help] a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The upper, flat area of the site is currently used to grow grass and was previously used for commercial forestry. Other areas are undeveloped and mostly forested. The subject property is primarily surrounded by undeveloped land used for forestry and agriculture in a rural setting. Parcels north and east of the site are used for forestry. Parcels west and southwest of the site are used for forestry and agriculture with some rural residential use further west. A few rural residential parcels are located southeast of the site along Spencer Road. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, future mining activity will generally not impact the surrounding properties, which are mostly undeveloped and used for rural resources, or will be located thousands of feet away from potential offsite residential receivers. Truck traffic will use the existing access road onto the site, which could affect residents located along the site access east of Brim Road. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? The site has been used for forestry and, more recently, for growing grass. The site is zoned as Agricultural Resource Lands (ARL). The proposal is to designate the site as MRL, which would eventually lead to topsoil disturbance focused on the upper, flat portion of the site and away from mapped streams. Topsoil would be replaced over disturbed areas as mining is completed, and the site would be revegetated in accordance with the site’s reclamation plan. The subsequent use of the site could facilitate either forestry or agricultural use. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 18 tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Not applicable. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Agricultural Resource Lands (ARL) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Agricultural g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Refer to Figures RZ-5 and RZ-6 included with this application. Discrete, steep slopes are mapped traversing the middle of the site and in the northwestern corner. Landslide deposits are mapped below the steep slope in the southern site. Two streams are mapped in the northwestern site. Other streams and wetlands are mapped in the east and southeast site below the steep slopes. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Three to ten, in accordance with workforce needs according to future mine plans. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is to designate the subject property to MRL from ARL to eventually develop a gravel and sand mine on land that is currently used for other rural resource use. The site will be reclaimed back to rural resource use (forestry or agriculture) consistent with the current site use. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 18 If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, topsoil will be segmentally removed and stored during mining and will be replaced over completed mine areas to reclaim the site. The site would be reclaimed for forestry and/or agricultural use. 9. Housing [help] a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics [help] a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Not applicable. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The site is surrounded by rural resource land use with some rural residential properties located further to the west and southeast. If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine- related permits are obtained, mining disturbance will be shielded from view by topography and by trees left in setbacks along the site perimeter and along stream buffers on site. The mine itself will be focused on the upper, flat area, further shielding the mine disturbance from view as it is excavated downward. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, vegetated screens will be retained to mitigate visual impacts. Perimeter berms will be vegetated around extraction areas to also screen the mine excavation. 11. Light and Glare [help] a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? If the MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, excavation and hauling would generally take place during daylight hours. Therefore, lighting will not normally be required. Occasional contract orders may require loading and hauling after daylight hours (for public highway projects, for example). Overhead lighting and head lights will be utilized on haul trucks and loading equipment as needed. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 18 b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Should emergency maintenance lighting be required, all temporary sources of overhead lighting will be hooded and directed at the specific area to avoid the escape of glare. 12. Recreation [help] a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Hunting and fishing are likely available within a half-mile of the site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No mining activities will affect existing recreational opportunities. 13. Historic and cultural preservation [help] a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. No. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. None are known. The site was formerly forested and has since been used for growing grass. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. Hillshade GIS mapping from analysis of LiDAR elevation data indicates the site has been modified by previous forestry and agricultural use. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. None - no resources are anticipated due to previous site disturbance and use. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 18 14. Transportation [help] a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by a gravel access road off of Brim Road. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop is located 4.5 road miles north of the site on Gore Road, north of US Highway 12. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? If the proposed MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, at most ten parking spaces would be added. No parking spaces will be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). If the proposed MRL designation is approved, and if subsequent mine-related permits are obtained, the existing private road will provide access for haul traffic from Brim Road. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? This proposal is strictly to designate the property as MRL. Any proposed mining of the property will require a subsequent application and SEPA determination for a Lewis County SUP and other permits. Traffic impacts to local roadways will be evaluated prior to submitting a mine proposal, which will determine the anticipated traffic loads from a proposed mine project. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. None are anticipated. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 16 of 18 D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions [HELP] (IT IS NOT NECESSARY to 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 activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? A future surface mine development is not likely to impact discharge to water since stormwater would be managed onsite and infiltrated to ground in the mine floor and/or into stormwater ponds onsite. Appropriate buffers would be observed from the mapped streams in the northwestern site area, and mining disturbance would not occur where other streams are located in the east/southeast lowland below the steep slope that traverses the site. Air emissions from equipment operating onsite (i.e. dozers, loaders and haul trucks) would occur during operating hours. No hazardous substances would be produced or stored on the site, and accidental fuel or oil spills from fueling mobile equipment would be managed in accordance with a Spill Control Plan (SPC). Sporadic noise would be generated by mining equipment and haul trucks during operating hours. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Water – Mining activity will take place such that stormwater and any potential erosion from disturbance of native materials will be directed back into the active (incised) mining area to infiltrate to ground. Mining will occur no deeper than 10 feet above the groundwater table in accordance with DNR requirements. Air – Operating equipment will be equipped with mufflers and emission control devices that meet regulatory standards. Hazardous substances – The site’s SCP will remain in effect through the project duration. Best management Practices (BMPs) will be employed on site to reduce the potential for accidental fuel or oil spills from occurring during equipment refueling. BMPs will also be used to quickly and completely clean up any spills consistent with the SCP and to remove any spill-contaminated materials from the site. Noise –Setbacks will be maintained from all property lines, including preservation of sight- obscuring vegetation. Requisite muffling devices will be maintained on trucks and excavating equipment. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The site currently has patchwork tree cover and is vegetated primarily with grasses and shrubs following past commercial tree harvest. Mining the site would have a transient impact on this vegetation and animals in the area until the site is reclaimed. Mining would avoid the streams located on the site, including Blue Creek, which is mapped as fish-bearing by FPARS. The site is not located near any marine environments. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 17 of 18 Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Appropriate vegetated buffers will be maintained from streams located in the upper, northwestern portion of the site including Blue Creek. The east/southeast lowland below the steep slope would not be disturbed by mining. At the completion of mining, the site will be reclaimed to rural resource use and restore habitats similar to current conditions. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal will not deplete energy resources. A future surface mine development will produce natural resources, both during the active project (aggregates) and after being reclaimed (forestry or agriculture). Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Mining and reclamation will be conducted to efficiently extract the aggregate resource while preserving topsoil and overburden soils to reclaim the site. Post-mining use of the site for forestry or agriculture will restore the site to rural resource use. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No areas designated for governmental protection area located on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated to the listed sensitive areas. Mining activity would be focused on the upper, flat area underlain by glacial outwash and not disturb the lower east and southeast site and the wetlands contained therein. Appropriate buffers from streams would be observed and protected from mining disturbance. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Mining will be conducted in accordance with State and local permits including a Lewis County SUP, Ecology Sand and Gravel General Permit, and DNR Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The proposal is to designate the subject property to MRL from ARL to eventually develop a gravel and sand mine on land that is currently used for other rural resource use. A future surface mine development would be reclaimed back to rural resource use (forestry or agriculture) consistent with the current site use. No State shorelines are located on the subject property. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: As described above. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The eventual development of a surface mine would result in increased traffic loads to local roads from mine-related haul traffic. Development of the mine is not likely to increase demands on public SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 18 of 18 services or utilities other than possibly routing electrical power onto the site, depending on the specific mine plan. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: A traffic study will likely be completed to inform development of a surface mine proposal for the Lewis County SUP application process. This study would evaluate possible impacts and propose mitigations to address those impacts. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Mining would be conducted in accordance with federal, State, and local regulations and be compliant with requirements from a Lewis County SUP, an Ecology Sand and Gravel General Permit, and a DNR Surface Mine Reclamation Permit.