2017 Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project Final Environmental Assessment

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Whatcom County, Washington Department of Agriculture Forest Service | Pacific Northwest Region 8/21/2017 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Cover photo, Swen Larsen Quarry

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795- 3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Contents Overview ...... 4 Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need ...... 1 1.1 Project Background ...... 1 1.2 Proposed Action ...... 7 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 7 1.4 Decision Framework ...... 7 1.5 Tribal Consultations and Public Involvement ...... 8 1.6 Key Issues ...... 9 1.7 Relationship to Forest Plan ...... 10 1.7.1 Land Allocation ...... 11 1.7.2 Selected Forest Plan Laws, Regulations, and Related NEPA Documents ...... 12 1.8 Project Record ...... 14 1.9 Maps and Acres Precision ...... 15 Chapter 2 - Alternatives ...... 16 2.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 16 2.1.1 Alternative A – No Action ...... 17 2.1.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...... 17 2.2 Best Management Practices & Management Requirements ...... 21 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ...... 30 3.1 Physical and Biological Components ...... 31 3.1.1 Fish ...... 31 3.1.2 Minerals ...... 41 3.1.3 Vegetation ...... 44 3.1.4 Water Resources and Soils ...... 49 3.1.5 Wildlife ...... 56 3.2 Human Components ...... 70 3.2.1 Cultural Resources ...... 70 3.2.2 Inventoried Roadless Area ...... 72 3.2.3 Scenic Value ...... 77 3.2.4 Special Uses...... 79 3.3 Other Environmental Components ...... 80 Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination ...... 86 4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 86 4.2 Tribes ...... 86 4.3 Others Involved ...... 87 Chapter 5 - List of Preparers ...... 87 Chapter 6 - References Cited ...... 88

Appendix A: Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan ...... A Appendix B: Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan ...... A Appendix C: Cumulative Effects Information ...... H Appendix D: Middle Fork Nooksack River Water Quality Data (Station: Middle Fork Upstream) ...... M Appendix E: Climate Change ...... Q

Table of Figures Figure 1: Swen Larsen Quarry Site Location Map ...... 3 Figure 2: State Department of Natural Resources Aerial Photo of Swen Larsen Quarry Site in 1970...... 4 Figure 3: Swen Larsen Quarry Site Layout Map ...... 20 Figure 4: Wildlife Species Considered for Project Area Analysis ...... 57 Figure 5: Grizzly Late and Early Core Habitat in South Fork Nooksack Area . Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 6: Swen Larson Road Map ...... 75 Figure 7: Swen Larsen Reclamation Segments Map ...... C

Table of Tables Table 1: Summary of Best Management Practices and Management Requirements ...... 23 Table 2: Forest-wide Wildlife Standards and Relevant Guidelines ...... 69 Table 3: Race and Ethnicity Profile, 2010 Census Data, Whatcom County and Town of ...... 82 Table 4: Reclamation Planning Schedule ...... D Table 5: Ground Cover Seed Mixture ...... F Table 6: Recommended Tree Species for the Revegetation Plan ...... G Table 7: Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable Actions in the Vicinity of the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access Travel Management Project ...... J Table 8: Water quality data collected by the City of Bellingham Public Works at station Middle Fork Upstream from November 2006 through March 2007 ...... M Table 9: Water quality data collected by the City of Bellingham Public Works at station Middle Fork Upstream from March 2013 through November 2013 ...... N Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Overview

The purpose of this environmental assessment is to document the potential environmental effects (consequences) of an estimated 9.98-acre expansion of the Twin Sisters Olivine’s (formerly known as United Western Supply) Swen Larsen Quarry. The expansion would occur on public land in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, which is managed by the United States Forest Service (Forest Service).

The environmental assessment process is a necessary step to renew Twin Sisters Olivine’s existing Plan of Operations and Surface Reclamation Permits. This document acts as a joint environmental assessment to satisfy federal (Plan of Operations) and state (Department of Natural Resources Surface Reclamation) requirements under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region and the State DNR. This document also fulfills the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) Environmental Assessment process, which is required to update a Plan of Operations, and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act’s (SEPA) checklist, which is required to update the State and County Surface Reclamation Permits.

This document is comprised of four main sections:

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – This section provides the background of the proposed project and the general framework that drives the Environmental Assessment process.

Chapter 2: Alternatives – This section describes the options considered under the proposed project and the mitigation measures necessary to follow if the proposed project is pursued.

Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences – This section identifies the environmental consequences associated with each alternative considered for each resource area (biological, physical, human, and other).

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination – This section addresses the consultation and coordination efforts carried out throughout the Environmental Assessment process with federal, tribal, state, and public entities. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need

1.1 Project Background

Introduction

Few sites exist in the world where olivine is found. Olivine is a common Earth forming mineral that derives from the upper mantle, right beneath Earth’s crust. Its rock form, if greater than 90% olivine, is known as dunite (Kogel, 2006). Olivine is utilized in several ways: molding sand in metals casting, a component in refractory lining of combustion chambers, fluid bed material, sand blast media, steel mill aggregate, gemstones, platinum group host, and CO2 sequestration. Predominately, olivine is used in industry. This mineral offers an alternative source to use in materials that contain free silica, a mineral known to create serious health hazards (Moore, 1998).

The Twin Sisters hold an unusually large deposit of olivine, or dunite. This was a result of shifting tectonic plates colliding to form the Twin Sisters Mountain. The Twin Sisters is a part of the uplifted section of the outer mantle exposed at the surface. This mountain is located within the North Cascade Mountain Range, 20 miles east of Bellingham, Washington.

The Swen Larsen Quarry sits at the base of the Twin Sisters Mountain and is a key site where olivine is mined. This quarry is one of a few places in the United States known to have access to olivine (Kogel, 2006). The quarry has been in operation since 1953. Twin Sisters Olivine (formerly known as United Western Supply) has owned this site and Olivine Corporation has consulted on operations since January 27, 2012 to present time. The olivine from this site is mainly used for molding sand in metals casting, a component in refractory lining of combustion chambers, and for artistic use in the community. Current mining operations include excavation of material, crushing and screening on-site, and the hauling of material off-site for further processing and sale to market. The active Olivine Corps Owner and Columbia Steel Castings season is 1 to 2 months a year. Representative assess the Swen Larsen Quarry site in 1973.

Page | 1

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

The purpose of this environmental assessment is to document the potential environmental effects (consequences) of an estimated 9.98-acre expansion of the Twin Sisters Olivine Swen Larsen Quarry on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, which is managed by the United States Forest Service (US Forest Service) Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

Current operations consist of excavating, crushing, and screening. These operations, including past quarry expansions, are previously approved under the current operations plan and past environmental assessments conducted. To continue operations, the quarry needs to expand the footprint of its operations. The quarry’s current footprint makes up an approximate 23.19 acres (13.76 acres of private land and 9.43 acres of US Forest Service land). The 13.76 acres of private land includes 1 acre that has been reclaimed. There are 2.45 acres that exist adjacent to the present quarry site that was disturbed prior to 1971 for road ballast. Figure 2 shows this disturbance area in an aerial photo provided by the State of Washington (State) Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in 1970. This area is not considered part of the ongoing quarry operations. A network of pre-existing roads is utilized to access minerals. See the Project Record for a copy of the 1992 Environ-mental Assessment’s Figures 5 and 6 that show maps of the quarry’s historical road access and the quarry’s disturbed area.1

The site is located in Whatcom County in the Mt. Baker Ranger District, approximately 10 miles east-southeast of the town of Deming, Washington in Sec 34 & 35, T38N, and R6E. The quarry occupies private land currently owned by Weyerhaeuser Corporation and public land in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest managed by the Forest Service. The proposed expansion area includes 9.98 acres wholly located on National Forest System lands. No impact to Weyerhaeuser’s land would take place under the proposed project. Refer to Figure 1 for a map of the site location.

1 The Project Record contains information provided from Forest Service specialists and environmental consultants, as well as technical documents that support the analysis and findings for this environmental assessment. See Chapter 1.8 Project Record for more information.

Page | 2

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Figure 1: Swen Larsen Quarry Site Location Map

Page | 3

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Figure 2: State Department of Natural Resources Aerial Photo of Swen Larsen Quarry Site in 1970.

Page | 4

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Purpose of Document

Since the present quarry site occupies both private and public land, the quarry must meet Forest Service and State DNR requirements to continue operations and to expand the quarry site’s activities. This requires Twin Sisters Olivine to renew their Forest Service Plan of Operations pursuant to Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 228, subpart A and to update their DNR Surface Mining Reclamation Permit in accordance with Chapter 78.44 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) for both the State and Whatcom County before November 1, 2017.

This environmental assessment serves as a necessary step to complete the renewal process. Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region and the State DNR, this document acts as a joint environmental assessment needed to satisfy both requirements. This document fulfills the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA) Environmental Assessment process required to update a Plan of Operations, and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act’s (SEPA) checklist required to update the State DNR and County Surface Reclamation Permits. Refer to the Project Record for a copy of DNR’s SEPA Checklist.

While this project must comply with a formal environmental review process to renew the Plan of Operations and the State DNR and County Surface Reclamation Permits, management of the mine’s mineral resources falls under the separate authority of the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This law is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

The General Mining Law of 1872

The General Mining Law of 1872 provides the statutory rights of claimants to enter public lands to prospect, develop, and mine minerals, as well as authorize the claimant’s right to reasonable access. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 provides the Forest Service with the authority to manage the surface resources of mining claim areas, but does not have the authority to manage the mineral resource itself. This act also recognizes the statutory right of persons to prospect and mine on National Forest System lands that are open to mineral exploration. Under this law, the Swen Larsen Quarry is open to prospect and mine.

The agency can require that mining activities meet the rules and regulations governing the National Forest; this may include requiring measures to reduce (mitigate) impacts to surface resources. Projects are reviewed for compatibility with standards and guidelines established for surface resources in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest.

Page | 5

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

The Swen Larsen Quarry and the expansion area lie within a municipal watershed and an Inventoried Roadless Area. An Inventoried Roadless Area is a designated area on National Forest System lands that prohibit road construction, road reconstruction and timber harvesting (36 CFR 294, 2001). These designated land allocations by the LRMP, provide a set of specific standards and guidelines to how these areas are managed. Additional, relevant regulations for management guidelines are primarily set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 252; 36 CFR 228, 36 CFR 251) and in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2813.14).

While standards and guidelines exist on how these designated areas should be managed, it is important to recognize that the mining claimant can exercise their statutory right, under the General Mining Law of 1872, to qualify for certain exceptions. Twin Sisters Olivine qualifies for certain exceptions within its designation of being an Inventoried Roadless Area. The Forest Service Forest Transportation System Policy (66 FR, 2001) prohibits road construction or reconstruction in Inventoried Roadless Areas, but allows “road access [if] needed pursuant to reserved or outstanding rights or as provided by statute or treaty.” The General Mining Law of 1872, allows Twin Sisters Olivine to seek this approval from the Responsible Official. For more information on Inventoried Roadless Areas, see Chapter 3.2.2. Throughout this environmental analysis, specific attention to the Proposed Action and its relation to Twin Sister Olivine’s statutory right under the General Mining Law of 1872 are considered.

The Environmental Assessment Process

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a team of specialists conducted an environmental assessment of Twin Sisters Olivine’s proposed project. The team was comprised of a contracted consulting firm and a Forest Service interdisciplinary (shadow) team. They performed the necessary research, assessed the project’s specific proposed action, sought public involvement, considered alternatives to the proposed action, and determined which mitigation measures and best management practices would be required to protect resources.

A thorough analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with expansion activities is required prior to moving forward with plan approval and permitting process. This document provides details for the public and decision makers to better understand the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives considered: No Action or the Proposed Action. Based on Twin Sisters Olivine’s statutory right under the General Mining Law of 1872 (as discussed above), only the proposed action, or a modified version of, can be selected. Therefore, the role of the designated decision maker is to determine if the alternative should be selected as is or modified.

Page | 6

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

1.2 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action consists of a 9.98-acre expansion of the Swen Larsen quarry’s existing footprint. The entire expansion would be on lands managed by the Forest Service. Quarry operations would continue as have been in past-approved plans. The expansion would allow Twin Sisters Olivine to continue quarry operations for an estimated 20 years. Refer to Chapter 2 for a more detailed description of the Proposed Action. 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

Project Summary and Objective

The overall goal of the proposed action is to continue mining operations at the Swen Larsen Quarry by expanding the area where extraction of olivine can be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations. This includes the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan’s goals to have minimal impact on federal resources and to ensure appropriate land management activities are carried out (USDA, 1990). This next section highlights the purpose(s) and need(s) of the proposed action.

Purpose of the Project

The purpose for this project is to minimize adverse environmental impacts to surface resources by regulating impacts connected with the quarry’s plan to remove locatable minerals from National Forest System lands.

Need for the Project

The need for the Forest Service to take this action is to comply with the legal requirements that respond to the claimant’s reasonable Plan of Operations, and to ensure that “operations are conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest surface resources” (36 CFR 228.4, 1974). It is important to note this action also complies with the legal requirements the claimant needs to fulfill to update their DNR State and County Surface Reclamation Permits (78 RCW, 1971).

1.4 Decision Framework

Based on the results of an environmental analysis, District Ranger (Responsible Official) will determine the following:

1. Whether to approve the amended plan of operations as submitted or;

Page | 7

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

2. Whether to modify the amended plan of operations and add additional mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate potential impacts to surface resources.

The District Ranger will document her decision and rationale in a Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact consistent with the requirements of Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) regulations (36 CFR 220.7, 1974). The Decision Notice will determine consistency with the Forest Plan, as amended.

1.5 Tribal Consultations and Public Involvement

On August 23, 2016, Tribal consultation notices were mailed out to local Tribes (Nooksack, Swinomish, Samish, Lummi, Stillaguamish, Upper Skagit, Tulalip, Skagit River System Co-op, and Sauk-Suiattle).

On September 8, 2016, public scoping and comment notices were emailed and mailed to interested citizens, groups, industry, and agencies on the Mt. Baker Ranger District mailing list. Copies of these documents can be obtained from the Project Record (refer to Chapter 1.8 for more information on the Project Record). The District received one tribal comment and 82 public comments on the proposed project. The scoping and comment letters received are available in the Project Record.

On October 11, 2016, the principal of Kulshan Services conducted a site visit with officials from the Nooksack Tribe’s Natural Resource Department to review the proposed expansion area and discuss any concerns related to the project.

On February 15, 2017, the District Ranger met with officials from the Lummi Nation to consult on the Swen Larsen Quarry project.

On February 16, 2017, the District Ranger met with officials from the Nooksack Tribe to consult on the Swen Larsen Quarry project.

On June 2nd,2017 Tribal consultation notices for the comment period were mailed out to local tribes (Nooksack, Swinomish, Samish, Lummi, Stillaguamish, Upper Skagit, Tulalip, Skagit River System Co-op, and Sauk-Suiattle). The District received one tribal comment on the proposed project.

Page | 8

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

On June 8th, 2017, the Forest Service posted the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on the Forest Service website and sent the DEA out to interested agencies, organizations, and individuals on their mailing list. A legal notice was also published in the Skagit Valley Herald’s classified section inviting comments on the proposed action and DEA. The District received 27 public comments and one tribal comment on the proposed project. A table of the pre- decisional public comments received and Forest Service responses can be found in Appendix F and the project record.

1.6 Key Issues

District Ranger Erin Uloth, the Responsible Official for the Swen Larsen Project, reviewed public comments received during scoping and the public comment period. After review, the District Ranger determined if there were any key issues to be addressed based on the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR, 1978). Non-key issues are identified as those:

3. Outside the scope of the proposed action; 4. Already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decisions; 5. Irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 6. Conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. Key issues are used to develop alternatives, identify mitigation measures, or track environmental effects. Issues may be “key” due to the extent of their geographic distribution, the duration of their effects, or the intensity of public interest or resource conflict.

The District Ranger identified the following four key issues based on public comments received during the scoping and comment period:

7. Impacts to Inventoried Roadless areas: Project could violate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001. 8. Impacts to City of Bellingham Municipal Watershed: Project could threaten clean and safe drinking water. 9. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife: Project could impact fish habitat from sedimentation and releasing of minerals, and project could destroy wildlife habitat. 10. Impacts to Old Growth: Project could destroy old-growth forest.

Further discussion on these key issues and whether they played a role in the development of the alternatives selected are addressed in Chapter 2.1 - Alternatives Considered.

Page | 9

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

1.7 Relationship to Forest Plan

This environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), located at 40 CFR 1500- 1508. It is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 1990), as amended. Major plan amendments since 1990 include: 1. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old-growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, as adopted and modified by the April 1994 Record of Decision, which provides additional standards and guidelines (USDA, USDI, 1994) and commonly known as the ROD, or the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). 2. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA, USDI, 2001). 3. Record of Decision to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy Amending Resource Management Plans (USDA, USDI, 2004). 4. Record of Decision for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Invasive Plant Treatment Project (USDA, 2015). The Northwest Forest Plan includes seven land allocations, which amend the allocations in the 1990 Forest Plan.2 There is considerable overlap among some allocations, and more than one set of standards and guidelines may apply. Where the standards and guidelines of the 1990 Forest Plan are more restrictive or provide greater benefits to late-successional forest-related species than do those of the Northwest Forest Plan, those existing standards and guidelines apply. The Northwest Forest Plan amendment also includes Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines, in addition to those in the 1990 Plan, such as the Aquatic Conservation Strategy designed to help improve the health of the aquatic ecosystem.3

2 The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has no Managed Late-Successional Reserve allocations. 3 The Aquatic Conservation Strategy has four components: Riparian Reserves, Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration. Page | 10

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

1.7.1 Land Allocation

The Northwest Forest Plan and the 2001 and 2004 amendments include additional Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines that apply to specific areas within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. This helps guide the management of the forest based on meeting certain land objectives depending on the location. It is important to note that the Northwest Forest Plan’s standard and guidelines do not apply when they are contrary to existing laws or regulations (Northwest Forest Plan, B-34).

Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocation(s)

Riparian Reserves

The proposed project is within a limited Riparian Reserve area. This land allocation type includes the Aquatic Conservation Strategy component that involves areas along all streams, wetlands, ponds, lakes, and unstable or potentially unstable areas. Riparian Reserves are mapped overlaying all other allocations. Silvicultural practices can be applied to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives (see 1994b ROD, p. C-32). This allocation is applied and added to the standards and guidelines of other designated areas (Northwest Forest Plan, B-34).

Matrix

The proposed project also falls within the Matrix land allocation that comprises 16% of federal land within the range of northern spotted owl. This area is where most timber harvest and other silvicultural activities occur. This falls within federal lands outside of the following six categories: Congressionally Reserved Areas, Late-Successional Reserves, Managed Late- Successional Areas, Adaptive Management Areas, Riparian Reserves, and Withdrawn areas (Northwest Forest Plan, C-38).

Forest Plan Land Allocation(s)

Other Municipal Watershed

This proposed project falls within the “Other Municipal Watershed” management area, land allocation 23. The main objective for management in this area is to provide water at a level of quality and quantity that results in acceptable and safe water supply (see Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan p. 4-269). This land allocation overlays all other land allocations (Northwest Forest Plan, C-7) and watershed analysis (given this area is a non-key watershed in a roadless area) must be designated prior to management activities taking place.

Page | 11

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Inventoried Roadless

The proposed project falls within the inventoried roadless area, namely Mt. Baker (West Block, Roadless Area 6041), parcel identifier MR (see Final Environmental Impact Statement). These areas have been identified through Forest Service reviews as being without existing roads and retaining an undeveloped condition. As such, they could be eligible to be designated under various types of conservation allocations. This area was assigned to nonwilderness use during RARE II, although originally inventoried for study as potential wilderness (Mt. Baker Snoqualmie Land and Resource Management Final Environmental Impact Statement pp. C-37). Watershed analysis must be conducted in all non-Key Watersheds that contain roadless areas prior to any management activities taking place.

1.7.2 Selected Forest Plan Laws, Regulations, and Related NEPA Documents

This project is designed to be consistent with the 1990 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The Proposed Action also follows the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. For Chapter 3, each resource concludes with a “Forest Consistency” section. Aside from complying with forest plan guidelines, the project is consistent with the following federal laws and related NEPA documents:

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management of May 24, 1977

This order requires that before taking an action each public agency shall determine if the action occurs within a floodplain and to ensure this information is included in any analyses prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act.

General Mining Law of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91. as amended; 30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.)

This act sets forth the principles of discovery, right of possession, assessment work, and patent for hard rock minerals on lands reserved from the public domain. The law applies to lode, placer, mill site claims, and tunnel sites. Except as otherwise provided, all valuable mineral deposits, and the lands in which they are found are free and open to exploration, occupation, and purchase under regulations prescribed by law.

Page | 12

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600), requires Federal action agencies to consult with the Secretary of Commerce (NMFS) regarding certain actions. Consultation is required for any action or proposed action authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH) for species managed in Federal Fishery Management Plans. The Pacific Coast Salmon Plan, pertinent to the MBS, manages for Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, and Pink salmon. According to EFH regulations, 50 CFR section 600.920(a)(1), EFH consultations are not required for completed actions or project-specific actions with a signed decision under the National Environmental Policy Act, and these regulations enable Federal agencies to use existing consultation and environmental review procedures to satisfy EFH consultation requirements.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of November 16, 1990

This act requires federal entities to return Native American “cultural items” to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations.

National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970

This act requires Federal agencies to use a systematic interdisciplinary approach to ensure the integrated use of natural and social sciences in planning and decision-making. It also requires an analysis of probable environmental effects of proposed Federal actions. Generally, decisions on mineral and energy development are subject to this law.

Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897

This act provides the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to regulate the occupancy and use of Forest Service lands. It provides for the continuing right to conduct mining activities under the general mining laws if the rules and regulations covering Forest Service lands are complied with. This act recognized the rights of miners and prospectors to access Forest Service lands for all proper and lawful purposes, including prospecting, locating, and developing mineral resources.

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977

Gives federal land managers an affirmative responsibility to protect the air quality related values (including visibility) within Class 1 areas, and in other areas not designated Class 1, including National Forests.

Page | 13

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

The Clean Water Act, as amended in 1972

Regulates quality standards for surface waters and the discharge of pollutants into public waters.

The Endangered Species Act of December 28, 1973

Directs federal agencies to conserve Threatened and Endangered Species and their respective habitats. This act requires that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies must not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any Threatened or Endangered species or their critical habitats. If an action may affect a species listed or proposed for listing, or its habitat, federal agencies must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 228, Subpart A

These regulations set forth rules and procedures governing use of the surface of Forest Service lands in conjunction with operations authorized by the general mining laws.

The 1992 Environmental Assessment of the Plan of Operations for the Olivine Corporation

This environmental assessment updated the previously submitted April 29, 1981 environmental assessment, and documented the environmental analysis of continuing quarry operations proposed for the Swen Larsen Quarry.

1.8 Project Record

This environmental assessment incorporates by reference the Project Record (40 CFR 1502.21, 1978) documenting the NEPA process conducted for this permit. The Project Record contains information provided from Forest Service specialists and environmental consultants, as well as technical documents that support the analysis and findings for this environmental assessment. The reports also describe the “affected environment” that provides background for the discussion of environmental consequences summarized in Chapter 3 of this document.

Relying on the Project Record helps implement the Council on Environmental Quality’s rule that agencies should reduce NEPA paperwork (40 CFR 1500.4, 1978). The objective is to provide enough site-specific information to demonstrate a rational consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and how these impacts can be alleviated, without repeating detailed analysis and background information available elsewhere. The Project Record is available for review at the Mt. Baker Ranger District Office in Sedro-Woolley, Washington.

Page | 14

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

1.9 Maps and Acres Precision

Map boundaries and acreage values included in this document or cited in reference are assumed to be approximations based on best information available. Actual field delineations may differ slightly to better reflect on-the ground conditions. Miles of road and acreages are estimates based on aerial photography and map interpretation and may change with final ground verification and project layout.

Page | 15

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Chapter 2 - Alternatives

This chapter discusses the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. These are the relevant options since the quarry site is already determined by the location of the mineral source and Twin Sisters Olivine’s preexisting mining claims (Olivine #20, ORMC 17041 and Olivine #21, ORMC 170742) to the expansion area. The chapter is broken into three sections: a description of each alternative, discussion of best practices and mitigation measures in regard to the Proposed Action, and an evaluation that identifies if each alternative meets the project’s two underlying needs (refer to Section 1.3 – Purpose and Need). The objective of this chapter is to describe the differences between the two alternatives.

2.1 Alternatives Considered

As noted above (Section 1.6) the key issues – impacts to Inventoried Roadless Area, impacts to City of Bellingham Municipal Watershed, impacts to fish and wildlife, and destruction of old- growth forest—did not guide the development of new alternatives. This was determined for the following reasons:

• Impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas: The 2001 Roadless Area Rule includes exceptions for the General Mining Law of 1872, which grants a statutory right for access to locatable minerals on Forest Service land. Impacts to Inventoried Roadless are discussed in Chapter 3 pages 69-74. • Impacts to the City of Bellingham Municipal Watershed: There are no discharge areas within the quarry or proposed expansion site that could contaminate drinking water. A Stormwater Management Plan is also in place that further protects the watershed from sedimentation. Water quality is discussed in Chapter 3 pages 49-56. • Impacts to Fish and Wildlife: No discharge areas into Mae Creek or the seasonal channel (the only tributaries that exist near and within the expansion area) and no Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TE&S) are present within the affected environment. For any alternative considered, proper consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, when needed, and set mitigation measures would be implemented to safeguard species and their habitat. Impacts to fish and wildlife are discussed in Chapter 3 pages 31 - 41 and pages 56- 69, respectively. • Destruction of Old Growth Forest: Consultation with the Forest Service specialists confirmed that no old growth structure exists within the project site, only late- successional forest. Impacts to vegetation are discussed in Chapter 3 pages 44-48.

Based on this reasoning only the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives were carried forward into detailed analysis.

Page | 16

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

2.1.1 Alternative A – No Action

Alternative A is No Action. Under the No Action alternative, the submitted Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry would be denied, no expansion activities would take place on lands managed by the Forest Service: existing operations would remain within the current quarry footprint. Forest management plans would continue to provide direction to minimize impacts in the project area.

The No Action Alternative cannot be selected. This is because the area of proposed mining is legally open to mineral entry. Alternative A is considered solely as a NEPA requirement to complete an Environmental Assessment. The No Action option serves as a baseline to compare impacts to Alternative B.

2.1.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action

Alternative B is the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action is the acceptance of the Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry and a 9.98-acre expansion of quarry operations at the site, all within National Forest System lands. See the Project Record for a copy of the Swen Larsen Quarry Plan of Operations. Expansion would allow for additional mineral extraction at the quarry over an estimated 20-year period. The proposed action involves the following key activities:

• Excavate, crush, and screen approximately 25,000 to 50,000 tons of olivine production rock a year.4 • Removal of vegetation from the expansion area during excavation. • Chip a portion of the removed trees for reclamation activities and retain for slope stability, erosion control, and nutrient enhancement. Disposition of trees will be at Forest Service discretion. • Haul approximately 25,000 to 50,000 tons of olivine production rock a year to the Mosquito Lake Road Reload Site (off-site). This activity is closely related to the action (also known as a connected activity). Excavation

Two-Phase Approach in Excavation

A two-phase approach in excavation would take place due to the presence of a seasonal channel within the expansion site.

4 This tonnage is the calculated amount of crushed and screened rock planned for delivery to the Mosquito Lake Road reload site. This is dependent on market demand and extraction rates.

Page | 17

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Phase 1 The seasonal channel would have a minimum of a 50 -foot buffer in place. Quarry activities would not enter the 50-foot buffer. Phase 2 Quarry operations would continue past the seasonal channel to the expansion area’s boundary line. The seasonal channel would be excavated during quarry operations, and reconstructed post operations. For more information on the two-phase approach, refer to Chapter 3.1.4 Water Resources and Soils. Vegetation Removal

The proposed expansion area is currently forested. Trees would be removed during excavation of the expansion area and set aside for Forest Service approval on how they can be utilized. Most trees that are approved for Twin Sisters Olivine’s use would be chipped for reclamation activities. Remaining trees grated to the quarry’s operations would be retained and used for slope stability, erosion control and nutrient enhancement during reclamation. Wood chips would be stored on site and spread over reclamation areas or mixed with topsoil and fine rock as a revegetation medium. Topsoil and organic material from the proposed expansion area would be stripped in phased efforts as necessary to access mineral deposits for extraction. This material would be contained on site in designated storage areas and mixed with wood chips and fine rock for reclamation.

Stormwater and Erosion Management

To manage stormwater and erosion during the proposed project the Swen Larsen Quarry has a Stormwater Management Plan that derives from their Sand and Gravel General Permit (Facility ID 22214, Permit No. WAG503304). This permit is issued by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). Presently, Swen Larsen has an existing system of stormwater diversion channels, berms and settling ponds designed to reduce erosion, contain sediment and increase infiltration at the project site. Expansion of the existing stormwater system and development of new systems would be completed as necessary during the proposed expansion. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of the Stormwater Management Plan.

Page | 18

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Future Use and Reclamation

Subsequent use of the privately owned component of the site would be forestry. Final reclamation condition of the site would meet the management goals identified in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Refer to Appendix B for more information on the reclamation plan.

The proposed action would either be adopted or modified based on the decision maker’s findings. See Figure 3 below for a map of the site layout of where Alternative B would take place.

Page | 19

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

k

Figure 3: Swen Larsen Quarry Site Layout Map

Page | 20

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

2.2 Best Management Practices & Management Requirements

This section discusses the best management practices and management requirements that would need to be followed if the proposed action was selected.

Best management practices are sourced from the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan and the Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan (see Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively). These practices are in place to mitigate potential negative effects that could occur while the quarry is in operation, both to the quarry site and its surrounding environment. The Stormwater Management Plan derives from the Swen Larsen Sand and Gravel General Permit (Facility ID 22214, Permit No. WAG503304), issued by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). The Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan derives from the recent version of the Plan of Operations that is under Forest Service consideration. A spill prevention and control plan and spill response procedure are also incorporated.

Best Management Practices are previously approved and applied as part of current operations, and are considered as mitigation measures. They would be retained and expanded to address the proposed project.

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1508.20, 1978) states that mitigation includes the following:

• Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action, • Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, • Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment, • Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, or • Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for an in-depth description of the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan and the Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan, respectively, that apply to both the current project site and the proposed expansion area.

Management requirements are items derived directly from the Forest Plan (as amended), the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and the National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands document to provide standard operating procedures.

Page | 21

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

The Best Management Practices and management requirements primarily focus on two primary areas as follows:

• Management of stormwater to control impacts to water quality, and • Restoration of impacted land after quarry activities have ended

The Best Management Practices and management requirements in this project have been identified to address site-specific environmental concerns and to meet recommended practices and applicable requirements from the aforementioned documents. Unless noted otherwise, the Best Management Practices and management requirements identified below would be mandatory if the Responsible Official approves the Proposed Action for implementation.

In Table 1, each practice and/or management requirement is stated, followed by its target resource and objective, the standard and guideline it addresses, and the entity responsible for ensuring that the measures are implemented and maintained. The source of the identified Best Management Practices and/or requirements is identified at the end of Table 1 in the Notes section.

Page | 22

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Table 1: Summary of Best Management Practices and Management Requirements BMP/Management Target Resource and Applicable Responsible Requirement Objective Standard/ Agency/ Guideline Official Fish and Water Resources National Forest Land MOU (See Note 1); DNR Comply with all requirements and Associated Land National Best USFS and maintain a copy of the and Water Quality: Management interagency Memorandum of Preserve designated Practices for Water Understanding (MOU) between watershed areas and Quality the State of Washington and the forest through the Management on U.S. Government requiring identification of National Forest environmental management environmental System Lands for and reclamation of Forest impacts that will Min-3. Minerals Service-administered Federal occur; develop Production (See Lands subject to mining measures to avoid, Note 2) activities. minimize or mitigate adverse effects to resources (soil, water quality, riparian reserves, etc). Minimize erosion and sediment Surface Water See Note 2 (For Washington delivery to streams and Quality: Protect and Min-3. Minerals Dept. of wetlands. During minimize impacts to Operation); Ecology implementation, reduce nearby streams and Stormwater (Ecology); sedimentation by use of erosion to identify suitable General Permit DNR control methods and BMPs such measures to avoid (See Note 3); USFS as vegetative buffers alongside impacts to Best Management streams, silt or filter fabric, silt waterbodies, riparian Practices Guidance or filter fencing, straw bales, areas, and wetland for Surface Mines temporary settling ponds, and habitats through (See Note 4) rain cover. appropriate location design, operation, and reclamation requirements.

Page | 23

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Design on-site road drainage Surface Water See Note 2 (For Ecology features to hydrologically Quality: Protect and Road-4. Road DNR disconnect road surface runoff minimize impacts to Operation and USFS from stream channels and nearby streams. Maintenance) - 4 wetland areas. Cross-drains or water bars will be installed on any new roads constructed within proposed expansion area.5 Operations would take place 2 Surface Water See Note 2 (For USFS months out of the year during Quality: Reduce Min-3. Minerals the dry season/low rainfall surface-disturbing Production) period (summer). activities to the minimum necessary for efficient minerals production activities during periods of heavy runoff to decrease soil compaction and erosion. Dispose of fill waste material Surface Water See Notes 2 (For Ecology generated from implementation Quality: Protect and Min-3. Minerals DNR at a stable location out of the minimize impacts to Production) - 4 USFS flood prone area. Ensure that nearby streams. the waste material is disposed of in a location that will not result in erosion and sedimentation or cause roadway runoff drainage problems.

5 Determination of the maximum distance apart (feet) where waterbars are placed will depend on the road slope percent. Waterbar spacing will follow Forest Service Timber Sale Administrative Handbook standards.

Page | 24

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

A mist of water is used for dust Surface Water See Note 2 (For USFS suppression during the crushing Quality: Conduct Min-3. Minerals process. Water is sourced from operations in such a Production) the stormwater retention ponds manner as to avoid or on site. The water is sprayed on minimize the the crushing equipment during production and operation. transport of fugitive dust from site. Establish and implement spill Surface Water See Note 2 (For Ecology prevention, control and Quality: Protect and Road-10. USFS response measures and minimize impacts to Equipment maintain spill response supplies nearby streams. Refueling and and equipment onsite for any Soil and Groundwater Servicing) - 4 temporary fuel stored on Quality: prevent forestlands in association with contamination from this project. Covered in releases of petroleum Stormwater Management Plan. and other contaminants. Fueling of machinery shall occur Surface Water See Note 2 (For Ecology out of the limited Riparian Quality: Protect and Road-10. USFS Reserve area, at minimum 100- minimize impacts to Equipment feet away from the seasonal nearby streams. Refueling and channel that exists in the Soil and Groundwater Servicing) - 4 expansion area. Quality: Prevent contamination from releases of petroleum and other contaminants. Heavy machinery and project Surface Water See Note 2 (For Ecology service vehicles shall be free of Quality: Protect and Road-10. leaks. Check heavy machinery minimize impacts to Equipment for leaks prior to nearby streams. Refueling and commencement of daily work. Soil and Groundwater Servicing) and 3 Repairs will be conducted Quality: Prevent before commencement of or contamination from continuing work. releases of petroleum and other contaminants.

Page | 25

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Repairs to machinery or service Surface Water See Notes 2 (For USFS vehicles shall be conducted at a Quality: Protect and Road-10. Ecology location where impacts to minimize impacts to Equipment adjacent surface waters are nearby streams. Refueling and minimized. The location would Servicing) and 3 be at minimum 100-feet from the seasonal channel that exists within the expansion site. When blasting, more than a Fish: Protect and MBSNF Blasting USFS 600-foot buffer would be in minimize impacts to Guidelines (See place between where fish are fish from blasting. Note 5) documented and where blasting would occur within the expansion site. This would exceed the safe distance required to keep fish safe. Vegetation Designated reclamation areas Vegetation: Preserve See Notes 3 and 4 DNR will be seeded with the existing plant USFS appropriate local native species community and or the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie minimize National Forest non-native / introduction and non-persistent seed mix and occurrence of covered with certified weed free invasive species to straw or mulch after ground- the maximum extent disturbing work has been practical. completed and prior to the onset of the wet season. All material brought into the Vegetation: Prevent Mt. Baker- USFS project area such as rock, mulch, the introduction of Snoqualmie straw, seed, soil, etc. must be invasive plants to the National Forest certified weed free. extent possible. Land and Resource Management Plan (See Note 6)

Page | 26

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Revegetate all areas of bare soil Vegetation: Enhance See Notes 3 and 4 DNR exposed by project activities existing native plants, USFS (with genetically appropriate maintain indigenous native species) if there is a risk plant profile, and of noxious weed invasion. minimize invasive plant species colonization and proliferation. If a rare plant is found within the Vegetation: Enhance See Note 6 USFS project area, work is halted and existing native plants the USFS botanist is notified. and maintain indigenous plant profile. Treat known noxious weed Vegetation: Control USFS infestation before ground invasive species to See Note 6 disturbance begins. To be the maximum extent effective wait 2 weeks between practicable. treatment and commencement of ground disturbance. All equipment that will operate Vegetation: Preserve USFS outside of the road prism existing plant See Note 6 requires cleaning prior to community and entering National Forest System minimize Lands. introduction and occurrence of invasive species to the maximum extent possible. Heritage

Page | 27

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

If cultural items or non-recent Cultural resources: Native American Whatcom human skeletal remains, Protect non-recent Graves Protection County specified in the Native American human skeletal and Repatriation Medical Graves Protection and remains and ‘cultural Act (see Note 6) Examiner Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), are items’, as defined in Whatcom discovered, stop work and NAGPRA. County secure find. Make appropriate Sheriff notification & adhere to USFS regulatory process following NAGPRA protocols. If a previously unidentified Cultural resources: See Note 6 USFS resource is discovered during Protect non-recent implementation, or if an human skeletal identified resource is affected in remains and ‘cultural an unanticipated way, stop work items’, as defined in & secure find; notify Forest NAGPRA. Service Heritage Specialist and adhere to NAGPRA protocols. Wildlife

Implement revegetation Wildlife: Restore Revegetation Plan Twin Sisters strategy to return site to wildlife habitat. (See Note 8) Olivine conditions prior to commencement of quarry operations and to restore wildlife habitat. Withhold harvest operations Wildlife: Protect USDI 2002 USFS from March 1st – September annual nesting season Biological Opinion 23rd. for raptors and (See Note 9) and migratory birds. USDI 2012 (See Note 10)

Page | 28

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Table Notes 1. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Geology and Earth Resources, and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (FS 13-MU-11062759-018), May 2013. 2. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Publication. USDA Forest Service, Apr. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2017. 3. Washington Dept of Ecology, Sand & Gravel Stormwater General Permit (effective April 1, 2016); Site-specific ID WAG503304 and permit required site-specific Management Plan (current Plan dated 2005) 4. “Best Management Practices for Reclaiming Surface Mines in Washington and Oregon”, Norman et. al., Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Oregon Department of Geology, revised December 1997. 5. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Blasting Guidelines for Protection for Fish by USFWS (Marc Whisler, Joe Hiss) and NMFS (Joel Moribe). 31 Jan. 2007. PDF. 6. USDA Forest Service. (1990). Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Seattle, WA. (as amended). 7. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest’s Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Protocol for Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains and cultural items. 10.Mar.2017. PDF. 8. Swen Larsen Revegetation Plan, contained in approved Site Operations Plan, June 2016 9. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Biological Opinion of the Effects of Mt. Baker– Snoqualmie National Forest Program of Activities for 2003–2007. FWS Reference Number 1–3-02-F-1583. Lacey, WA. 10. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Marbled Murrelet Nesting Season and Analytical Framework for Section 7 Consultation in Washington. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (WFWO) Lacey, Washington. June 20, 2012.

Page | 29

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences

This chapter identifies the environmental consequences of implementing the No-Action (Alternative A) and the Proposed Action (Alternative B) to each of the identified resources potentially affected. The term “environmental consequences” is synonymous to the terms “effects” and “impacts.”

This section is organized by resource area, beginning with the physical and biological components, and then shifting to the human component, and then to other potential issues of concern. The information under each resource area begins with a summary of the existing condition of the affected environment. This is followed by a summary of the direct and indirect effects, and cumulative impacts the alternatives may have to a reasonably foreseeable extent. Each resource-specific section ends with an assessment of Forest Plan (as amended) consistency.

Direct/Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts

Before evaluating what effects would take place in each alternative depending on the resource area considered, it is important to define direct and indirect effects and cumulative impacts for the reader. For this document, these terms are consistent with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality definitions:

• Direct effects are the effects caused by an action and occur at the same time and place (CEQ Regulation 1508.8 Effects). • Indirect effects are the effects caused by an action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems (CEQ Regulation 1508.8 Effects). • Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment, which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (CEQ Regulation 1508.7 Cumulative Impact).

Cumulative impacts from past activities are represented in the baseline or existing condition for each resource area consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality guidance on the Consideration of Past Action in Cumulative Effects Analysis (June 24, 2005). This guidance

Page | 30

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project states, “generally, agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of the individual past actions.” Refer to Appendix C for a complete record of past, present, and future actions that help determine the cumulative impact these alternatives would have on the affected environment.

Finally, it is important to note that, as identified in Chapter 1, specialist reports and other technical documents such as the Forest Service Plan of Operations and the Swen Larsen 1992 Environmental Assessment were prepared as part of the Project Record to support the analysis that follows. These documents are incorporated by reference and are available in the Project Record.

3.1 Physical and Biological Components

3.1.1 Fish

Affected Environment

For this proposed project, the fish resource area will be evaluated within the Lower Middle Fork Nooksack River drainage, known as Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12 #171100040304. This represents a specific watershed delineated by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that surrounds the proposed project area. While the Middle Fork Nooksack River can support anadromous fish populations, no migration upstream is possible past the diversion dam for the City of Bellingham water supply (USDA, 2006). The water supply diversion dam is located at river mile 7.2.6 The Swen Larsen quarry is located roughly 4 river miles upstream from the diversion dam.7 No 303d listed water bodies are found within the project area; 303 listed water bodies will not be further discussed in this analysis. The Clean Water Act defines section 303(d) waters as “waters for which technology-based regulations and other required controls are not stringent enough to meet the water quality standards set by states.”

The seasonal channel and Mae Creek, also known as Seymour Creek, are the two streams in closest proximity to the proposed project area. The seasonal channel flows through the proposed expansion area. The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Forest Practices Application Mapping System identifies the seasonal channel as a Type “N” stream. This indicates that the channel does not meet physical criteria to be used by fish. Mae Creek is located 200 feet to the west of the existing quarry site and exists at river mile 11.1.8 On

6 Estimated by Washington Department of Fisheries Stream Catalogue 1975 7 ibid 8 ibid

Page | 31

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

the lower stem of Mae Creek (estimated at more than a ½ mile away from the project site), bull trout and bull trout habitat have been identified (Salmonscape, 2013). Both tributaries flow north into the Middle Fork Nooksack River. The Middle Fork Nooksack River is approximately .8 miles away from the expansion area (Salmonscape, 2013). The expansion project lies only within the drainage of the seasonal channel.

Existing quarry operations include measures in the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan to prevent sedimentation to Mae Creek. Under this proposed action, they would remain in place and apply to haul activities, generated from the expansion area, adjacent to Mae Creek. The remainder of this analysis focuses solely on the impacts to the seasonal tributary that resides within the expansion area and its potential impact to the Middle Fork Nooksack River that it flows into (.8 miles away).

Fish Species

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are all federally listed under ESA as “threatened” in Whatcom County. In this report, special consideration for these species and their respective habitats are discussed in further detail.

There is designated bull trout presence, bull trout rearing, and bull trout critical habitat within the lower stem of Mae Creek (Salmonscape, 2013 and 75 FR 63898, 2010). This is identified over a ½ mile away from the potential expansion area (Salmonscape, 2013).

Chinook salmon and steelhead have not had designated presence or rearing on the Middle Fork Nooksack River above the diversion dam (Salmonscape, 2013). Critical habitat for Chinook salmon has been designated above the diversion dam (70 FR 52630, 2005). Critical habitat for steelhead has been designated below the diversion dam (81 FR 9252, 2016).

Aside from bull trout, resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are the only species of interest identified by the Mt. Baker Ranger District to use the Middle Fork Nooksack River above the dam (USDA, 2006).

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has identified Essential Fish Habitat to be present for Chinook, pink, and coho salmon, but these habitats exist lower in the watershed (USDA, 2006).

The information used in this analysis was obtained from the following sources:

• Forest Service Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry

Page | 32

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

• 1992 Environmental Assessment for the Swen Larsen Mine (Quarry) • Existing databases and inventories, typically stored electronically at the administrative offices and at other Federal or state entities • Consultations with other resource professionals (Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest South Zone Fishery Biologist K. Chang) • Relevant sources of scientific literature • Personal knowledge of resources based on field visits and experience

For this assessment, threatened, endangered, sensitive, and the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest management indicator species and their respective habitats are of interest in relation to the project.9 The following species are considered threatened: bull trout, Chinook salmon, and steelhead. The following species are considered Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest management indicator species: Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii), and rainbow trout.

Effect determinations will be made for the fish species and habitats of special interest (those with special designations) in the action area. The action area will be the 9.98 acres of disturbed land that makes up the expansion site.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - No Action

No direct or indirect effects on fish or fish habitat are anticipated from the No Action Alternative beyond the effects that currently occur. Conditions and trends associated with fish species in the project area would continue, as outlined in the affected environment section above.

Alternative B: Proposed Action

Under Alternative B, the use of the existing stormwater system and erosion control measures prevents sediments generated from quarry activities from impacting fish populations and habitat downstream of the quarry. Excess sediment levels can impact fish and their habitat through increases of water temperature, reduction in light penetration for plant growth, removal of spawning areas, and reduce visibility for fish to hunt prey.

9 Management indicator species serve as a scale to measure species viability at the Forest level.

Page | 33

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Stormwater and erosion control measures for the proposed expansion area would be managed in an equivalent manner as that in the current quarry boundaries. A system of diversion channels, berms, and settling ponds would be used to treat surface water and stormwater from the expansion. Stormwater that does not infiltrate as part of this system would flow through an extensive vegetated buffer prior to entry into the Type N drainage channel and onto the Middle Fork Nooksack River. Refer to Chapter 3.1.4 Water Resources for more information on sediment and water quality.

Excavation Activities

Blasting may or may not be necessary one or two times per season, though this activity has not occurred at the site in over 10 years. Explosives have the potential to injure fish due to excessive pressure from the vibrations associated with a blast, which can rupture the swim bladder. Vibrations are most easily translated from a bedrock-to-water interface, and have been found to quickly dissipate when translated from air to water.10 Because the expansion area is not on solid bedrock (where blasting would likely occur if needed) and the nearest documented fish species (bull trout) is over a ½ mile away from the potential expansion area, the probability of effects from blasting to downstream/downslope fish and fish habitats that are present are unlikely.11

Two-Phase Approach in Excavation

Due to the presence of the seasonal channel, quarry operations within the proposed project site would take place in a two-phase approach.

Phase 1:

The seasonal channel, not providing fish habitat based on DNR’s stream typing, would have a minimum of a 50 -foot buffer in place. 12 Quarry activities would not enter the 50-foot buffer. This would be implemented on the west side of the channel where quarry operations would occur. The objective would be to protect the seasonal channel’s riparian reserve core zone across the entire length of the expansion area.

10 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest South Zone Fishery Biologist K. Chang 11 ibid 12Buffer is taken from Washington Administrative Code’s Title 222 Forest Practices Board Western Washington Riparian Management Zone estimates

Page | 34

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Under this phase, there would be no impacts to fish or their respective habitats related to the proposed action. Sediment and erosion control measures would be implemented to prevent impacts downstream of the proposed expansion area.13

Phase 2:

Quarry operations would continue past the seasonal channel to the expansion area’s boundary line. The seasonal channel would be excavated. Prior to excavation of the stream, a stream diversion design would be developed and necessary permitting would be undergone (see Chapter 3.1.4 Water Resources and Soils for further details).

The seasonal channel would be diverted prior to the commencement of phase two, and later the original channel would be reconstructed as part of the reclamation plan. The reconstruction of the tributary would help ensure the channel’s flow would stay the same and water quality was preserved. Mitigations and best management practices would be in place to minimize sedimentation during reconstruction and rewatering of the channel. The channel would likely not be flowing for a portion of project activities. Any sediment reaching the Middle Fork Nooksack would be within the range of natural variability for that drainage.

Based on the conservation measures in place, the distance between quarry activities and known fish presence, and habitat that would be connected to the seasonal channel (more than .8 mile away), effects from the project would not likely occur to fish or their respective habitat.1415

Effects Determination for Alternative B – Proposed Action

Federally listed fish and critical and essential habitats

Under the proposed alternatives, the effects determination is as follows:

• No Effect for federally listed fish: Chinook salmon, steelhead, or bull trout, given that the nearest federally listed fish (bull trout) and its critical habitat is over ½ mile away from the project site. • No Effect for critical habitat: designated Chinook salmon, bull trout, or steelhead critical habitat, given that the nearest critical habitat is over ½ mile away from the project site.

13 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest South Zone Fishery Biologist K. Chang 14 Based on estimates from Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Salmonscape

Page | 35

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

• Would not adversely affect for Essential Fish Habitats: Chinook salmon, coho salmon, or pink salmon Essential Fish Habitat. None of these species or their habitats is present in the analysis area and the nearest location is below the diversion dam.

Sensitive fish

Per the updated Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List dated July 21, 2015, the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest no longer has fish species designated as sensitive.

Viability of management indicator species

The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest management indicator species are Chinook salmon, steelhead, bull trout, coho salmon, pink salmon, chum salmon, sea-run cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, and resident cutthroat trout. While there are no specific “effect calls”, for management indicator species, the proposed alternative would not affect the forest wide viability of these populations, nor would it have a measurable negative effect to the quality or quantity of their habitat in the mainstem of the Middle Fork Nooksack River or the seasonal tributary in the project area.

Aquatics Conservation Strategy

Effects of the proposed project activities to Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives are made at various scales, depending on the objective. Projects must be evaluated at both the project and watershed scales.

ESA Consultation

Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the effects of the Swen Larsen Expansion Project on federally listed fish species, designated critical habitats, and essential fish habitats is not required. No consultation is needed when the effect determinations for federally listed species are “No Effect,” or when the determination for Essential Fish Habitat is “Would Not Adversely Affect.”

Cumulative Effects

This section considers the potential effects associated with the proposed action along with past, present, and future projects having effects that overlap in both time and space to fish. This is based on the vicinity of the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access Travel Management Project’s cumulative effects analysis, which has already taken place, and a time frame of 20 years.

Page | 36

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

No cumulative effects are associated with future actions or present actions. For future actions, there is no overlap spatially with future quarry operations on private and state lands and the expansion area. For past actions, there is no overlap in time of past projects with present projects that would contribute to cumulative effects.

To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact fish. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects. `

Forest Plan Consistency

The proposed action is consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA 1990), as amended. With implementation of the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan and BMPs, activities proposed in the unnamed seasonal tributary would meet water quality regulations and standards. While there would be short-term effects to habitat conditions for plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species, and to natural processes at the project site, ACS objectives would be maintained in the long-term after the channel has been reconstructed and stabilized, and at the watershed scale.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is a primary component of the Forest Plan, as amended, and is intended to maintain and restore ecosystem health, preventing further degradation and restoring habitat over broad landscapes instead of small watersheds or individual projects (USDA, 1994). This would protect aquatic and riparian-dependent species and resources, and restore degraded habitats. Nine objectives make up the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. These objectives are listed below.

Each objective is followed with a brief description of how the Proposed Action relates and meets the set target.

1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

In the Proposed Action, the expansion is anticipated to have little disturbance on watershed features that would threaten aquatic systems. Excavation activities would modify some landscape features that currently exist, but the implementation standards and guidelines from the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan and the Swen

Page | 37

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Larsen Reclamation Plan that would reconstruct the channel would further maintain the aquatic systems.

➢ The Proposed Action would maintain this objective at the watershed scale.

2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic riparian-dependent species.

For Phase 1, excavation activities would cross onto limited sections of riparian reserve area adjacent to the seasonal channel within the expansion area. 16 A 50-foot buffer would be established to protect the channel and the channel’s limited riparian reserve core zone. This would include a barrier (silt fence, sediment filter, or straw bales) that would be placed along the designated buffer for further protection. Although activities could take place within limited riparian reserve areas, the absence of fish, as well as the small proportion of flow relative to the Middle Fork Nooksack River drainage as whole, indicates that these activities would not likely obstruct routes to critical areas for aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

For Phase 2, excavation activities would remove the entire seasonal channel that exists within the expansion area. This would obstruct the existence of this waterway for the short term. However, proper measures would be undertaken to divert the upper stream of this channel prior to these activities taking place. A full reconstruction of the channel post-quarry operations would follow. The absence of fish in this channel and the temporary nature of its removal suggest that quarry operations would cause minimal obstruction of aquatic and riparian-dependent species to critical areas and would have minimal if any impact at the site level. This seasonal channel represents a minimal contribution of water volume/flow to the overall watershed, making potential watershed-scale impacts negligible.

➢ The Proposed Action would disrupt connectivity at the site at some level until the channel is reconstructed. It would maintain this objective at the watershed scales.

3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations.

16 Limited riparian reserve area exists due to the primary function of the channel being seasonal, where it only flows after snowmelt or extended rainfall events.

Page | 38

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

During Phase 2 a short-term effect to the seasonal channel’s physical integrity would occur when the tributary is excavated. Long-term the physical integrity of the channel would be maintained after the channel was reconstructed to match the existing channel type and configuration.

➢ The Proposed Action would affect physical channel integrity during Phase 2 operations and until the channel is reconstructed and stabilizes. It would maintain this objective at the watershed scales.

4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Required mitigation measures, the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan’s measures, and best management practices such as seasonal work constraints would inhibit potential for changes to water quality of nearby aquatic habitats.

➢ The activities of the Proposed Action would maintain this objective at the site and watershed scales.

5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate and character of sediment input, storage, and transport.

For phase 2, the sediment regime would be altered when the seasonal channel is diverted and excavated. The project would implement management requirements and best management practices from the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan to minimize sedimentation. But the sediment regime and sediment transport processes would be interrupted in the short-term at the project site. With the reroute of the seasonal channel’s flows and the reconstruction of the channel after the project activities, the objective would be maintained in the long-term at the watershed scale.

➢ The activities of the Proposed Action would interrupt the sediment in the short-term at the project site. They would maintain this objective at the watershed scales.

6. Maintain and restore instream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected.

Page | 39

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

During Phase 2, the site would not maintain flows or patterns due to diversion of the seasonal channel and reconstruction. But similar to Q5, the reroute of the seasonal channel’s flows and the reconstruction of the channel after the project activities, the objective would be maintained in the long-term at the watershed scale.

➢ The activities of the Proposed Action would disrupt flows and routing patterns during Phase 2 activities and until the channel is reconstructed and stabilizes. They would maintain this objective at the watershed scales.

7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

All activities of the Proposed Action are not located in areas of floodplain inundation, meadows or wetlands.

➢ The Proposed Action would maintain this objective at the site and watershed scales.

8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability.

Wetlands are not present in the area, and riparian habitat is limited. Phase 1 activities would maintain a 50-foot buffer, and together with the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan would have incremental effects on this objective.

Phase 2 activities would disturb the limited riparian area around the seasonal channel and while individual plants in the expansion area would be disturbed, the composition and diversity of the population, which extends beyond the expansion area, would be maintained. The Swen Larsen Stormwater Management plan would address erosion during activities, and reconstructing the channel to the same configuration would maintain patterns of sediment and wood transport in the long-term.

➢ The Proposed Action would disturb riparian plant communities at the site during Phase 2 activities and until the channel is reconstructed and vegetation is re- established. It would maintain this objective at the watershed scales.

9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Page | 40

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Phase 1 activities would maintain a 50-foot buffer, and together with the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan would have incremental effects on this objective.

Phase 2 activities would disturb native plants and low-mobility invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species that might be present in or near the seasonal channel in the expansion area during project operations and afterwards until the site has been reconstructed and riparian vegetation and flow patterns become reestablished. The reclamation plan includes reconstructing the channel and planting native vegetation to help re-establish the limited riparian conditions that existed prior to disturbance.

➢ The Proposed Action would disrupt habitats for native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species at the site during Phase 2 activities and until channel is reconstructed and vegetation is re-established. It would maintain this objective at the watershed scales.

3.1.2 Minerals

Affected Environment

The project area is located on the northwest flank of the Twin Sisters range, which contains one of the largest Dunite mineral bodies in the world (Twin Sisters Dunite). The Twin Sisters Dunite is a piece of the upper mantle that was uplifted by plate tectonics pre-tertiary age. This upper mantle intrudes into the Bell Pass mélange, a terrane that exists in the North Cascades. The site is steep and mountainous, with the steepest slope at a 100% slope.

While ultramafic mantle rocks are obviously abundant where they reside below the Earth’s crust, they are rarely found in large sizes within continental mountain systems. A portion of the mineral body is being mined at the Swen Larsen Quarry. The USGS Geologic Map of the Mount Baker 30 by 60 Minute Quadrangle, Washington describes the rock type as Twin Sisters Dunite of Ragan (1961, 1963) of the Welker Peak and Excelsior nappes. Olivine, when 90% or more, is given the rock name “Dunite.” The ultramafic rock is hard. Ultramafic rocks are igneous rocks composed primarily of magnesium and iron. Olivine is a chemically inert mineral, which does not generate inorganic contaminants other than silt.

Serpentinite zones do exist within the vicinity of the Swen Larsen Quarry’s project site and twin sisters. According to a DNR report in 1963, these areas are primarily composed of antigorite, with “pods of chrysotile”(DNR Report, 1963).

Page | 41

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Mineral Commodities

Mineral commodities are classified by law into three distinct groups: leasable, salable, and locatable. Leasable minerals are those mineral commodities that may be acquired under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, and the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, as amended by the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Salable minerals are common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, cinders, and clay and are of relatively low unit value. Locatable minerals are those minerals which, when found in valuable deposits, can be acquired under the General Mining Law of 1872 (as amended). At this time, Olivine is the only locatable mineral and mineral commodity present within the Swen Larsen Quarry or expansion area.

Soils

Soils in the proposed expansion area are thin gravelly loams derived from highly fractured rock or sandy silt derived from glaciers and the northern face of the North Twin Mountain. There are outcroppings of rock throughout the area and within the vicinity of the quarry. From a plant nutrition perspective, Dunite is the least likely to cause deleterious substances of ultramafic substrates because of the weathering products of the rock (the soil) contain less heavy metals and more nutrient materials such as calcium (Ca) and potassium (K) than the other serpentine minerals (Pentec, 1991). There are no surface indications or history of unstable soils. Unstable rock may exist on talus slopes where rocks slide down and form piles from naturally occurring erosion.

Stability and Erosion Potential

The quarry and expansion area are located within a geological hazard area identified by Whatcom County. Some key features of this hazard area include steep slopes greater than 15%, the site existing in a landslide zone, and the site existing within the lateral blast zone of Mt. Baker.

The reclamation plan, a key component of the Swen Larsen Quarry’s Plan of Operations, helps to protect slope stability, a main concern in steep slope and landslide zone areas. For potential hazards that arise from existing within a lateral blast zone, these hazards such as ashfall have a remote potential to impact the site. These potential hazards are not possible to mitigate for or regulate by County code.

Erosion could occur because of operation activities, but a valid stormwater permit and plan is used to treat stormwater run-off.

Page | 42

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

The information used in this analysis was obtained from the following sources:

• Forest Service Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry • 1992 Environmental Assessment for the Swen Larsen Mine (Quarry) • Minerals Specialist Report • Existing databases and inventories typically stored electronically at the administrative offices and at other Federal or state natural heritage administrators • Consultations with other resource professionals (Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Minerals Resource Specialist T. Griffin) • Relevant sources of scientific literature • Personal knowledge of resources based on field visits and experience

Direct/Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

No direct or indirect effects on minerals are anticipated from the No Action alternative beyond those effects that currently occur. A No Action alternative would deny the Plan of Operations submitted for the Swen Larsen Quarry, and mining activities could not take place on National Forest System Lands. However, the No Action alternative cannot be chosen if the area of proposed mining activity is open to mineral entry. The proposed project area is not withdrawn from mineral entry, so the No Action alternative would not be appropriate.

➢ Current conditions and trends associated with minerals in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section above.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

For quarry operations, excavation activities would occur on a total of 9.98 acres. It is projected that one million cubic yards of minerals and soil will be excavated – a quantity similar to what is excavated at the current site. Minerals will not contaminate any exisiting surface waters near or within the project site. No impervious surface will cover the ground post-project. Upon conclusion of operations, the site will be reclaimed per the requirements of the DNR Surface Mining Reclamation Permit.

The lone impact to mineral resources from the proposed action would be an irretrievable loss of rock from the forest ecosystem. However, the minerals are being disposed of by law (General Mining Law of 1872) (as amended) and are being placed into use by man.

Page | 43

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

There are pending geothermal leases that overlay existing mining claims (Olivine 1-6). None of the potential leases are within the existing mining operations or the proposed expansion area. Therefore, there would be no impact to geothermal leasing.

➢ As there are no oil and gas leases in or near the project area there are no impacts expected to these resources.17

Cumulative Effects

For this analysis, a cumulative effect is the result of the accumulation of impacts from past, present, or future projects that may affect mineral resources (locatable, leasable, and saleable). Since there were no other projects found within the project area that would contribute to the irretrievable loss of rock resources from the forest there would not be any cumulative effects from future, past, or present projects to minerals.

To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact minerals. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Consistency

All Alternatives would meet the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990) standards and guidelines for minerals and geology, and would therefore be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994).

Specialist Report

This environmental assessment hereby incorporates by reference the Minerals Specialist Report. The Minerals Specialist Report is in the Project Record and contains detailed data, tables, Affected Environment, analysis, references, reports, and technical documentation that the project Mineral Specialist relied upon to reach the conclusions in this section of the environmental assessment.

3.1.3 Vegetation

Affected Environment

The project area is in Whatcom County in the Mt. Baker Ranger District, approximately 10 miles east-southeast of the town of Deming, Washington, in Sec 34 & 35, T38N, and R6E. The vegetation in the proposed expansion area is within the Mt. Baker West Block

17 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Minerals Resource Specialist T. Griffin

Page | 44

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Inventoried Roadless Area, known as parcel identifier MR (see Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Assessment). An inventoried roadless area is a designated zone under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 (also known as the Roadless Rule and promulgated in Forest Service regulations as 36 CFR 294, 2001) to control the amount of road-building activities undergone by the Forest Service to protect roadless areas. The MR wraps around the Twin Sisters Mountain range; on the west side, the ridgeline is the Wilderness boundary (USDA, 1990). For more information, refer to Chapter 3.2.2 Inventoried Roadless Areas.

The vegetation within this zone is influenced by the ultramafic rock formation known as Twin Sisters Dunite (USDA, 1992). Vegetation associated with the ultramafic rock is often thinly dispersed but of a unique nature. These “serpentine” habitats are known for their high percentage of endemic and consequently rare species. Also patches of sparse and bare vegetation within this area exhibit logging activities that took place pre-1970.

The forested slope along the eastern margin of the quarry and into the expansion area supports fully vegetated multi-canopy coniferous forest. The dominant tree species in this area is mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). There is also infrequent occurrence of Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), Alaska cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata) (USDA, 1992). The large mountain hemlock trees in the area range from approximately 20” – 24” diameter at breast height (DBH) (USDA, 1992). Most of the trees are relatively short despite their age. Stunted growth is characteristic of trees growing on a serpentine substrate.18 Elevation at the quarry and proposed expansion area ranges from 2,750 feet to 3,350 feet. This likely contributes to the short stature of local trees.

A site visit on March 17, 2017 by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Service Wildlife Program Manager identified the present expansion area to meet late-successional forest classification (Van Norman, 2012; USDA 1993; USDA, 2006). Further consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Ecologist verified the proposed area to be late- successional forest, but not old growth. Old growth encompasses the later stages of land development that typically differs from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics which may include large overstory tree size, accumulations of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species, composition, and ecosystem function (Van Norman and Huff, 2012).

Understory vegetation is generally sparse except where dominated by thickets of Alaskan huckleberry (Vaccinium alaskense) (USDA, 1992). Other plant species found in the understory include salal (Gaultheria shallon), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), five-leaf

18 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage

Page | 45

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

bramble (Rubus pedatus), twinberry (Lonicera involucrate) and bunchberry (Cornus canadensis) (USDA, 1992).

Growth potential in the Pacific silver fir zone found in the expansion area varies mostly with temperature and amount of soil drought (USDA, 2001). Appendix D of the Forest-wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA, 2001) describes stand age for old growth development for the two silver fir plant association groups area as being 250-500 years and 225-500 years. The silver fir zone occupies the middle elevations on the forest and includes moderate to low productivity land. The trees in the silver fir zone are generally small and slower growing than in the lower western hemlock zone, though often older (USDI, 2001).

Although the current stand age in the expansion area is approximately 300-315 years and some of the larger trees have dead tops, other characteristics of old growth have not yet developed. As described above, the overstory trees are generally stunted, with the larger trees being about 24 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and many smaller understory trees under 12 inches DBH. In addition, the understory is sparse and there is a lack of large dead woody material typically found in old growth. Due to local conditions, development of old growth conditions found in the proposed expansion area is expected to take closer to 500 years.

Also, it is important to note vegetation exists on matrix lands. Therefore, vegetation in this project area is not protected by the same standards and guidelines that protect vegetation in late-successional reserves or managed late-successional reserves. Those areas are designated to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old-growth forest (Northwest Forest Plan, C-8 and C-22). Instead matrix land is where most timber harvest and silvicultural activities occur.19 As discussed in Chapter 1.7.1, the project area also falls within the municipal watershed, riparian reserve, and inventoried roadless land allocation.

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Rare Plant Species

No federally Threatened, Endangered, or Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Sensitive plant species or Northwest Forest Plan Survey and Manage plant species have been identified in the proposed expansion area. The Rare Botanical Assessment conducted in 2008 by Wetlands Incorporated confirmed there are no Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plants within the expansion site.

19 Standards and guidelines for unmapped Late-Successional Reserves and Managed Late- Successional Areas prohibit or limit activities that otherwise appear to be within the matrix. The Swen Larsen Quarry project site does not meet the criteria for unmapped late-successional reserves or managed late-successional areas.

Page | 46

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Most of the vicinity was surveyed for rare plants in October 1991 as part of the 1992 EA process. The final report (Olivine Mine Rare Plant Survey, Pentec 1992) found no ETS species in the survey area. The classic “serpentine barren” and associated rare serpentine indicator species were not present at the site.

Invasive Plant Species

Two “noxious or invasive” species from the Forest Service Invasive Plant List were identified as being present within the active areas of the quarry. These species include reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) and common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare). The surrounding plants are predominately native (Element Solutions, 2016).

The information used in this analysis was obtained from the following sources:

• Forest Service Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry • 1992 Environmental Assessment for the Swen Larsen Mine (Quarry) • Existing databases and inventories, typically stored electronically at the administrative offices and at other Federal or state natural heritage administrators • Consultations with other resource professionals (including Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest North Zone Botanist S. Hee and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage) • Relevant sources of scientific literature • Personal knowledge of resources based on field visits and experience

Direct / Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

Under Alternative A, no impacts to vegetation are expected. There is potential for invasive plants such as reed canarygrass and common tansy to spread beyond the present quarry site into the expansion area. However, no invasive plants have been found in the proposed expansion area.

➢ Current conditions and trends associated with vegetation in the project area would continue, as outlined in the Affected Environment section above.

Page | 47

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Alternative B – Proposed Action

For Alternative B, the removal of vegetation would occur on a total of 9.98 acres. Trees, topsoil, and organic material that are present would be removed. This would be done in phased efforts to access mineral deposits for extraction. Removed vegetation would be later used for reclamation activities. Based on Forest Service approval, trees and root wads would be chipped for reclamation efforts. The remaining harvested trees would be retained and used for slope stability, erosion control, and nutrient enhancement. Stripped soil and fine rock would be contained on site in designated storage areas for later use in reclamation.

The dominating plant communities, within the proposed expansion area, are typical to its north-facing habitat. Since there are no ETS species present, there is minimal concern that modification of the existing habitat would decrease the available suitable habitat for rare species.

The reclamation plan includes a revegetation strategy for the expansion site (refer to Appendix B for more information). The focus of the revegetation plan would be to return the site back to conditions pre-commencement of quarry operations. The plan would involve revegetating the expansion area to minimize and mitigate adverse effects.

Disturbance from quarry operations could increase suitable habitat for invasive species such as reed canarygrass, and common tansy. The management requirements outlined in Chapter 2.2 are intended to minimize the occurrence and spreading of invasive species. Chemical treatment of these known species would take place prior to the start of ground- disturbing activities in the expansion area.

The Inventoried Roadless Rule “allows timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas when incidental to implementation of management activity not otherwise prohibited”(36 CFR § 294.13(b)(3). This rule also states that, “Access for the exploration of minerals pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872 is not prohibited” (36 CFR§ 294, 2001). Therefore, Twin Sisters Olivine can seek approval from the designated responsible official to remove vegetation if it ensures that the use of the surface for mining activity is reasonably incidental to mine.

Based on the project areas designated land allocations (matrix, riparian reserve, watershed, and inventoried roadless area) all activities would follow each respective area’s set of standards and guidelines. Refer to the Northwest Forest Plan for more information.

Page | 48

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

➢ Under this proposed action, there would be a temporary loss of vegetation to access minerals. Natural succession and revegetation efforts would help to prevent resource loss from being irreversible.20

Cumulative Effects

This section considers the potential effects associated with the proposed action along with past, present, and future projects having effects that overlap in both time and space to vegetation.

No cumulative effects are associated with future actions or present actions. For future actions, there is no overlap spatially with future quarry operations on the expansion area. For past actions, there is no overlap in time of past projects with present projects that would contribute to cumulative effects.

To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact vegetation. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Consistency

All Alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990), as amended. Vegetation management would follow the respective standards and guidelines required by guiding documents (Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact Assessment, Pacific Northwest Region, Mediated Agreement) and the appropriate measures to control noxious weeds would be applied (Land and Resource Management Plan 4-135). These measures would include mechanical, biological, and access restrictions and the distribution of herbicides on present invasive species prior to expansion operations taking place.

3.1.4 Water Resources and Soils

Affected Environment

For this proposed project, the water resource area will be evaluated within the Lower Middle Fork Nooksack River drainage, known as Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 12 #171100040304. The analysis area for soils will be the 9.98-acre footprint of the expansion site. The proposed project location falls within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Resource Management Plan’s Municipal Watershed within the Middle Fork Nooksack River. The drainage area is part of a municipal watershed, which serves the City of Bellingham. The

20 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest North Zone Botanist S. Hee and Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage

Page | 49

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Middle Fork Nooksack River is a glacial-fed river where stream temperatures typically remain cold with high turbidity throughout the summer and fall months due to ice melt runoff. This river contains a diversion dam for the City of Bellingham’s water supply below the quarry. No 303(d) listed water bodies are found within the project area; 303 listed water bodies will not be further discussed in this analysis. The Clean Water Act defines section 303(d) waters as “waters for which technology-based regulations and other required controls are not stringent enough to meet the water quality standards set by states.”

The seasonal channel and Mae Creek, also known as Seymour Creek, are the two streams in closest proximity to the proposed project area. The seasonal channel flows through the proposed expansion area. Mae Creek is located 200 feet to the west of the existing quarry site.21 Given Mae Creek’s presence within the Middle Fork Nooksack River drainage and its proximity to the site, this stream is also considered within the affected environment.

The seasonal channel, which resides within the expansion area, is characterized by a thin veneer of soil over rock and is a seasonal stream that primarily functions for snowmelt and extended rainfall events. Mae Creek is a small tributary that exists northwest of the expansion area. Mean annual flow in Mae Creek is 3-4 cubic feet per second (USDA, 1992). Both tributaries flow north into the Middle Fork Nooksack River.

Wild and Scenic River

The affected environment does not fall within the Wild and Scenic River Management Area. The Middle Fork Nooksack River was found to be unsuitable to be included in the Wild and Scenic River Management Area. Appendix E in the Northwest Forest Plan states that this was due to a majority (70%) of the river being off the Forest, in state or private ownership (Northwest Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Assessment, Appendix E-43, 1990).

Ground and Surface Water

There is minimal interface between present or proposed quarry operations and ground and surface water resources within the affected environment.

The current maximum quarry depth is 176 feet (Swen Larsen Plan of Operations, 2016). The Whatcom County “Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas” map identifies estimated depth to water in the proposed expansion area at greater than 290 feet. To date, no groundwater has been encountered by mining operations on the current project site, although numerous seeps have been identified in the area. There are no delineated Wellhead Protection Areas, Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, or Sole Source Aquifers within the quarry or the expansion

21 Estimated by Pacific Survey Engineering Firm

Page | 50

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

area. These are all mechanisms used to provide safe drinking water to a community.

The quarry has a current Sand and Gravel General Permit (WAG503304) issued by the Washington Department of Ecology. Operations at the quarry conform to the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan, established in April 2005, and would apply to the expansion area. This is a key component of Twin Sisters Olivine’s (United Western Supply) Sand and Gravel General Permit. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of Swen Larsen’s Stormwater Management Plan that includes the current Sand and Gravel General Permit.

Stormwater in the expansion area would be treated by a system of diversion channels, berms, and settling ponds. Treatment reduces the potential for sediment to be transported off the quarry site to impact Mae Creek, the seasonal channel, and the Middle Fork Nooksack. The quarry’s stormwater plan regulates discharges of process water, stormwater, and water from quarry dewatering into waters of the state associated with sand and gravel operations, rock quarries, and similar operations. There is no specific point of discharge from the quarry stormwater system to any surface water in the watershed. All runoff from the quarry is infiltrated into the surrounding soils.

Final topography post-mining of the site would contain all surface water and stormwater generated within the limits of the quarry-related disturbance. Surface water and stormwater that does not immediately infiltrate would collect at low points within the site and infiltrate through a system of diversion channels, berms, and settling ponds, as covered in the Sand and Gravel General Permit.

Sediment, Turbidity, and Water Quality

Suspended sediment and turbidity data was characterized in Mae Creek from two grab samples collected in May of 1992 for the 1992 Environmental Assessment (Updated) of The Plan of Operations For The Olivine Corporation Olivine Quarry, Swen Larsen Claim (USDA, 1992). The 1992 Environmental Assessment states, “results of the analysis identified relatively low suspended sediment and turbidity levels above and below the quarry indicating that the quarry is having a minimum effect upon Mae Creek. Further results indicate that water quality in Mae Creek is high, it passes the Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels, and no excess minerals appear to be coming from the mining activities.”

Updated information on water quality in the Middle Fork Nooksack River upstream of the diversion dam (and downstream of Mae Creek) was obtained from the City of Bellingham Public Works Department. Available studies included monitoring of phosphorous, solids, turbidity, and flow from grab samples at multiple stations throughout the City’s diversion

Page | 51

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

project over two periods of record from November 2006 through March 2007 and March 2013 through November 2013. To characterize water quality in the Middle Fork Nooksack near the project, data from the monitoring station in closest proximity to the quarry is presented in Appendix D. The monitoring station is identified as “Middle Fork Upstream” and was located downstream of Mae Creek at the Weyerhaeuser #9000 road bridge (also referred to as the Middle Fork Bridge). The analyzed parameters varied greatly over the monitored periods with fluctuations in concentrations often correlating with changes in flow and seasonal variation.

During the October 2006 through May 2007 monitoring period, total suspended solids ranged from < 2–1,300 mg/L, total phosphorus concentrations varied from 6.6–770 µg/L as P, soluble reactive phosphorus ranged from < 1–9.9 µg/L as P, and turbidity ranged from 1.2–550. Since the Middle Fork Nooksack River is a glacial stream these varied ranges in total suspended soils, total phosphorus concentrations, soluble reactive phosphorus, and turbidity is expected. Given the Middle Fork Nooksack River is based on seasonal measures no additional assessment of how these ranges compare to Washington State water quality standards for fresh water is possible.

Water quality data and a suspended solids water quality analysis was also completed for the 1992 Environmental Assessment (Updated) of The Plan of Operations for The Olivine Corporation Olivine Quarry, Swen Larsen Claim (USDA, 1992). Results of the analysis identified relatively low suspended sediment and turbidity levels above and below the quarry indicating that the quarry was having a minimum effect upon Mae Creek (USDA, 1992).

The information used in this analysis was obtained from the following sources:

• Forest Service Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry • 1992 Environmental Assessment for the Swen Larsen Mine (Quarry) • Existing databases and inventories; typically stored electronically at the administrative offices and at other Federal or state natural heritage administrators • Consultations with other resource professionals (Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest North Zone Hydrologist C. Stewart and Kulshan Services Fish and Aquatics Biologist R. Armstrong) • Relevant sources of scientific literature • Personal knowledge of resources based on field visits and experience

The remainder of this section will focus on a more in-depth discussion about water quality and riparian reserves for issues affecting water resources and soils. Other relevant aquatic

Page | 52

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

issues that were not incorporated in this analysis because the alternatives would have no measurable impact on these issues include: water quantity, wetlands, and floodplains.22

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - No Action

Current conditions would be maintained under the No Action alternative. The Stormwater Management Plan would continue to guide stormwater mitigation to help preserve water quality levels in the municipal watershed. Water resources and soils would remain consistent with present conditions of the affected environment described above.

➢ Overall, no direct/indirect effects on water resources and soils would take place under Alternative A.

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Alternative B would not adversely affect water resources and soils. Operations in the proposed expansion would conform to the current Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan. The plan would help manage the expansion area in the same way it manages the current quarry site.

Stormwater management practices outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan would reduce potential for water quality impacts to the seasonal channel, Mae Creek or the Middle Fork Nooksack from offsite sediment transport. The following measures help to ensure minimal impacts to water quality:

• A system of diversion channels, berms and settling ponds would be used to treat surface water and stormwater from the expansion area. Treated surface water and stormwater that does not infiltrate, as part of this system, would flow through an extensive vegetated buffer prior to entering waters of the state. • A spill prevention, control, and response plan, included in Swen Larsen’s Stormwater Management Plan, would be followed. This plan remains active during seasonal disruption of operations at the site. No equipment or hazardous materials are stored at the site during the off-season. • The stormwater system, energy dissipaters (large rock and chips) and reclamation efforts will provide erosion control. • All roads at the quarry are in-sloped to control runoff and erosion. Roads are water- barred at the end of each mining season.

22 The project site does not fall within a 100-year flood plain.

Page | 53

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

• No process wastewater disposal is required for the mining and processing operation. During operations, a mist of water is used for dust suppression during the crushing process. Water is sourced from Swen Larsen’s four existing stormwater retention ponds and sprayed on the crushed rock during operation to control dust. This amount of process water typically infiltrates into the ground where it is applied, resulting in no off-site discharges. • Topography of the expansion area would contain all surface water and stormwater generated within the limits of quarry-related disturbance. Surface water and stormwater that does not immediately infiltrate will collect at low points within the site and infiltrate. • Responsible Official(s) would effectively monitor the above measures. This can be found in Chapter 2.2’s Table 1. Summary of Best Management Practices and Management Requirements

Two-Phase Approach in Excavation

Due to the presence of the seasonal channel, quarry operations within the proposed project site would take place in a two-phase approach.

Phase 1:

The seasonal channel would have a minimum of a 50-foot buffer in place. Quarry activities would not cross the 50-foot buffer. This would help protect the health of the channel in the following ways:

• Prevent sedimentation from occurring by filtering sediment in an established buffer bordered with silt fencing or straw bales. • Maintain cooler temperatures by preserving the dense vegetation that borders the channel. • Protect seasonal flow, where the tributary can continue to function primarily for temporary time frames such as during snow melt episodes and/or extended rainfall.

The buffer would be implemented on the west side of the channel where quarry operations would occur. The objective would be to protect the seasonal channel Riparian Reserve’s core zone across the entire length of the expansion area.

Page | 54

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Under this phase, adverse impacts to water resources and soils would be unlikely with a ground disturbance free zone and a lack of operations contributing debris to groundwater within the expansion area.23

Phase 2:

Quarry operations would continue past the seasonal channel to the expansion area’s boundary line. The seasonal channel would be excavated. Prior to excavation of the channel, a stream diversion design and channel reconstruction design (for post- operations) would be developed and carried out in consultation with an engineering firm and the Forest Service. Based on the proposed diversion design, the quarry would coordinate with the US Army Corps of Engineers to determine if fill discharge, such as rock and dirt discharge, would take place and if a nation-wide level permit or individual permit action is needed prior to operations. Fill is defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency as, “materials placed in waters of the U.S. where the material has the effect of either replacing any portion of a water of the U.S. with dry land or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of water.”

For this phase, the diversion would ensure the channel’s flow would stay the same and water quality was preserved. After quarry operations are completed, application of the necessary steps required to reconstruct the seasonal channel would be carried out (refer to Appendix B Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan for more information).

➢ Given these measures and the absence of stormwater discharge to surface water, no direct or indirect effects on water resources and soils are expected from the proposed action.24

Cumulative Effects

This section considers the potential effects associated with the proposed action along with past, present and future projects having effects that overlap in both time and space to water resources and soils.

This section considers the potential effects associated with the proposed action along with past, present and future projects having effects that overlap in both time and space to vegetation.

23 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest North Zone Hydrologist C. Stewart 24 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest North Zone Hydrologist C. Stewart

Page | 55

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

No cumulative effects are associated with future actions or present actions. For future actions, there is no overlap spatially with future quarry operations on the expansion area. For past actions, there is no overlap in time of past projects with present projects that would contribute to cumulative effects.

To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact water resources and soils. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Consistency

All Alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan (as amended) and the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. Both options meet Water Quality Regulations for waters of the State based on findings from prior studies performed by the City of Bellingham Public Works and relevant analyses recorded in the 1992 Environmental Assessment. State and Federal water quality standards are met and would continue to be met under Alternative B using mitigation measures and any applicable permitting from State and Federal agencies. Additionally, the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, designed to help improve the health of the aquatic ecosystem, has been covered in Chapter 3.1.1 Fish and the same findings apply to this resource area.

3.1.5 Wildlife

Affected Environment

A number of species of wildlife use or inhabit the area of the existing quarry and proposed expansion area. The current quarry is located on a ridgeline. The expansion area will continue from the ridgeline to the east along a side slope. The analysis area for wildlife was within the 9.98-acre footprint of the expansion site. A rigorous effort to conduct a comprehensive species inventory within the affected environment was not carried out. This is due to the lack of concern that any of the species included would experience any significant alteration or loss of habitat under the alternatives considered.

Wildlife species that are federally listed as Endangered or Threatened, as well as Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS), and Survey and Manage Species are addressed in this document, as well as other species. Figure 4 identifies what species are known to be, have been suspected, or have been historically present in the project area.

Page | 56

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Figure 4: Wildlife Species Considered for Project Area Analysis Occurrences in or Species or Habitat Status Preferred Habitats Adjacent to Project Area 1 Mature, old-growth forests Northern Spotted Threatened/ (nesting, roosting, foraging); Owl (Strix Documented MIS second-growth used for occidentalis caurina) dispersal Marbled Murrelet Mature, old-growth forests Suspected, but not (Brachyramphus Threatened (nesting, roosting) Documented marmoratus m.) Core Security habitat with Grizzly Bear (Ursus Threatened/ adequate forage and > 300 m Suspected, but not arctos horribilis) MIS from motorized roads and documented high-use trails Security habitat with reliable Gray Wolf Endangered/ Suspected, but not prey base and > 300 m from (Canis lupus) MIS documented road and high-use trails American Peregrine Cliff habitat for nesting near Suspected, but not Falcon (Falco Sensitive/ MIS adequate prey base Documented peregrinus anatum) Roost, nest habitat and forage Bald Eagle areas near lakes, reservoirs, (Haliaeetus Sensitive/ MIS Not Suspected rivers with readily available leucocephalus) food source (fish and carrion) Swift, moving streams (rivers Harlequin Duck and creeks), adequate pool (Histronicus Sensitive Not Suspected habitat for foraging and histronicus) brooding. Common Loon Large lakes Sensitive Not Suspected (Gavia immer) Northern Goshawk Mature or old forest habitat Suspected, but not Sensitive (Accipiter gentilis) for nesting Documented Townsend’s big- Abandoned mine shafts and Suspected, but not eared bat other human-made structures Documented. Sensitive (Corynorhinus for roosting and hibernacula; Foraging habitat townsendii) Foraging in forest edges present.

Page | 57

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Mountain Goat Habitat of cliffs, isolated rock Sensitive/ Suspected, but not (Oreamnos outcrops, forest cover in MIS Documented americanus) winter Large expanse of minimally Suspected, but not disturbed habitats, persistent Documented. California wolverine snow fields, & reliable prey Wolverine could be Sensitive (Gulo gulo luscus) base. in project vicinity (e.g. traveling through). Native habitat consists of the Giant Palouse bunch grass prairies of the Earthworm Palouse region. The fertile soil Sensitive No habitat exists (Driloleirus consists of deposits of volcanic americanus) ash and rich layers of organic matter. Includes abundant ground Suspected, but not Broadwhorl Tightcoil cover, conifer or hardwood Documented Sensitive (Pristiloma johnsoni) overstory, and moderate to deep litter Shiny Tightcoil Ponderosa pine and Douglas Suspected, but not (Pristiloma Sensitive fir forests at moderate to high Documented wascoense) elevations Western Bumblebee A generalist forager and has Suspected, but not (Bombus Sensitive been reported to visit a wide Documented occidentalis) variety of flowering plants Old-growth coniferous forests; Johnson’s Hairstreak associated with conifer Suspected, but not (Callophrys Sensitive mistletoe (genus Documented johnsoni) Arceuthobium) Dry tundra, talus slopes, Suspected, but not fellfields, rocky summits and Documented Melissa Arctic Sensitive saddles, ridges, and frost- (Oeneis Melissa) heaved clear-cuts; generally occurs above the timberline

Page | 58

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Inhabits windy peaks with Suspected, but not Valley Silverspot nearby forest openings. It is Documented (Speyeria zerene Sensitive also found in native prairies bremnerii) and grasslands, often tending towards more mesic sites. Conifer and hardwood forests, but also occupies open Suspected, but not Little Brown Myotis forests, forest margins, and Documented. Sensitive (Myotis lucifugus) shrub-steppe clumps of trees Foraging habitat is in open habitats, cliffs and present. urban areas Inhabits the upper forest, subalpine parkland, and alpine Suspected, but not areas of the Cascade Range. It Cascade Red Fox Documented. is only found in Washington (Vulpes vulpes Sensitive Fox could be in where it has been cascadensis) project vicinity (e.g. documented from 2,500 feet traveling through). but primarily occurs above 4,500 feet. Associated with hardwood Larch Mountain Sensitive/ logs, leaf litter, and beneath Species is not Salamander Survey and cool and moist rocks and talus. suspected north of (Plethodon larselli) Manage Not suspected north of U.S. Highway 2. Highway 2. Van Dyke’s Associated with hardwood Salamander Sensitive/ logs, leaf litter, and beneath Species is not (Plethodon Survey and cool and moist rocks and talus. suspected north of vandykei) Manage Not suspected north of U.S. Highway 2. Highway 2. Puget Oregonian Survey and Mature to old growth conifers No habitat exists (Cryptomastix devia) Manage with big leaf maples Evening Fieldslug Perennially wet meadows in Survey and Suspected, but not (Deroceras forested habitats Manage Documented hesperium )

Page | 59

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Old-Growth and Mature Suspected, but not Forest for denning, resting Documented. American Marten MIS Marten could be in (Martes americana) project vicinity (e.g. traveling through). Old-Growth and Mature Suspected, but not Pileated Forest Documented. Woodpecker MIS Foraging habitat is (Dryocopus pileatus) present. Availability of snags and Suspected, but not Primary Cavity downed logs Documented. MIS Excavators Foraging habitat is present. Vegetation of all successional Suspected, but not Neotropical Species of stages including diverse seral Documented. Likely Migratory Birds Concern stages, water features and habitat for some rock/cliff features. land bird species. Forested stands, steep rocky Mountain Goat cliffs, projecting pinnacles, Suspected, but not Sensitive/MIS Winter Range ledges, talus generally tree- Documented line and below. 1Documented – species is known/documented to occur in or adjacent (w/in 1 mile) of proposed project area. Suspected, but not documented – species is known (documented) to occur within the Mt Baker Ranger District, but has not been documented within or adjacent the project area. Not documented – species considered locally extirpated, or not documented on the Mt Baker Ranger District.

The information used in this analysis was obtained from the following sources: • Forest Service Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry • 1992 Environmental Assessment for the Swen Larsen Mine (Quarry) • Historical wildlife data on file • Consultations with other resource professionals (Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage) • Relevant sources of species ecology literature • Personal knowledge of resources based on field visits and experience

Page | 60

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Potentially Affected Species Within or Near the Project Area

The remainder of this section will focus on a more in-depth discussion about the potentially affected species within or near the project area. This is based on their status as endangered, threatened, or proposed under ESA or listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester.

This wildlife section is supplemental to the biological assessments that were prepared for the Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Services as a component of this environmental assessment. To find additional information on these reports refer to the project record. Alternative A will reflect on the potentially affected species existing condition, while Alternative B will look at the changes the project could have on these species, as well as a few Management Indicator Species.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

With Alternative A, existing biological resources would remain the same aside from minor activities allowed by law and without public review of authorization.

➢ Given that no expansion activities would occur in this option, only short-term natural effects to the wildlife and their respective habitats would take place.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

For Alternative B, the following threatened/endangered species are discussed in further detail: Northern spotted owl, grizzly bear, and gray wolf. The Northfork “Nooksack” elk herd and black-tailed deer, landbirds (including Neotropical landbirds), Townsend’s big-eared bat, California wolverine, Johnson’s Hairstreak, Little Brown Myotis, Cascade Red Fox, American Marten, Pileated Woodpecker, and Primary Cavity Excavators were also included as Non-ETPS species that could be potentially affected due to their presence or habitat presence within the affected environment. This section will follow with a brief discussion on Manage and Survey Species, Manage Indicator Species, and the impact the proposed project would have on these species.

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

The spotted owl is federally listed as threatened under ESA. Historic records from the Swen Larsen Quarry 1992 Environmental Assessment identifies that spotted owls have been detected a mile away from the quarry. The 1992 Environmental Assessment states, “Due to the stunted nature of trees and the open canopy at the site, the project area does

Page | 61

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

not currently contain suitable nesting or roosting habitat; and due to the poor growing conditions, the area is not likely to ever support suitable nesting or roosting habitat.” A site visit on March 17, 2017 by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Service Program Wildlife Manager verified this statement to remain true with the present condition of the project site.

The historic activity center for the spotted owls known as the Sisters Creek Pair, were identified about 1 mile east of the project site according to Forest Service data. This set was last detected in 1998.

Suitable spotted owl habitat supports nesting, roosting, or foraging function for the owls. Thresholds for suitable habitat within a spotted owl territory were developed based on a concept that it is necessary for a core area to have > 50% suitable habitat, and a home range to have >40% suitable habitat to maintain spotted owl life history functions associated with any given site. The Sisters Creek territory is currently below the thresholds for suitable habitat in the core area and the home range (Table 3) and is less likely to be supporting the spotted owl life history functions necessary for a breeding pair.

Table 2: Current Suitable Habitat Levels in the Sisters Creek Core and Home Range. Current % of NRF Threshold % of NRF Core – 0.7 mile 35 50 Home Range – 1.8 mile 39 40

No spotted owl nesting habitat would be degraded or removed with the expansion. Therefore, spotted owl nesting habitat would not be affected in the core area and home range of the Sisters Creek pair historical site.

However, over 10 years, 9.98 acres of the habitat suitable for foraging would be incrementally removed in the home range of the Sisters Creek pair historical site. This would further reduce suitable habitat below the threshold in the home range. Refer to Figure 5 below for a map showing the Sisters Creek Pair owl site in relation to available suitable habitat and where the quarry is located.

Page | 62

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Figure 5: Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Suitability Forest Service GIS data layers confirm that the expansion would affect suitable habitat for the spotted owl. The proposed action is likely to adversely affect the Northern spotted owl.

Designated Critical Habitat

No impacts to spotted owl critical habitat would take place. Forest Service GIS data layers confirm that the expansion area is outside of designated critical habitat for the spotted owl. The proposed action would have no effect on the spotted owl’s critical habitat.25

➢ Therefore, Alternative B is likely to adversely affect the Northern spotted owl, but is not likely to adversely affect their habitat.26

Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)

The grizzly bear population in the North Cascades Ecosystem recovery zone is federally listed as threatened under ESA. The population is estimated at fewer than 20 animals within this 9,646-sq. mile recovery zone.27 There has been only one confirmed observation in the US in 1996 (Braaten, 2016).

25 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage 26 ibid 27 ibid

Page | 63

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Since the baseline of grizzly bear habitat was identified in 1997, there has been an increase in core habitat for grizzly bears on federal land due to road decommissioning in the Sisters Bear Management Unit.28 The expansion area is not within core habitat, but would decrease core habitat by bringing human activities closer to the border of the core habitat

Under this action, there would be a reduction in grizzly core habitat by 48.2 acres because it would increase human presence within .3 miles of the core habitat.29 The net amount of core habitat in the South Fork Nooksack area of the Sisters Bear Management Unit has increased by 70 acres since establishment of the baseline due to past road closures and decommissioning.

Figure 6 Grizzly Late and Early Core Habitat in South Fork Nooksack Area of the Sisters Bear Management Unit

Although there would be a reduction in core habitat for the grizzly because of the expansion, the net amount of core habitat would remain above the baseline level. There would be no net loss of grizzly core habitat since the baseline was identified in 1997. The

28 This is based on US Fish and Wildlife Service 1997 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 29 ibid

Page | 64

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

48.2-acre decrease of core habitat would be well below 1% of the total acreage within this Bear Management Unit.30

Refer to Figure 6, above, for a map of where the core exists in relation to the expansion area.

➢ Therefore, Alternative B may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect grizzly bears or their habitat.31

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)

No effects to the gray wolf would occur. The gray wolf is federally listed as Endangered under the ESA. The population that includes areas of western Washington has been proposed for delisting. Two unconfirmed reports (2013 & 2015) of gray wolf observations in the Cascade foothills area of Whatcom County, north of the quarry site. These are listed on the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s website. This indicates there is a possibility that a wolf might be in the area of the proposed project.

Summer ranges for ungulate prey are near the proposed expansion area, but densities are low in the immediate area32. This limits the usefulness of the area for gray wolves to forage. There is no evidence of gray wolf denning or rendezvous sites near the quarry and proposed expansion area.

➢ Alternative B, may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect gray wolves or their habitat.33

Nooksack Elk Herd & black-tailed deer

Elk and deer have been observed in and adjacent to the quarry and proposed expansion area. The expansion area is within the core area for the Nooksack elk herd. The core area consists of approximately 492 square miles.34

Since the project site is not part of the deer and elk winter range, the expansion would have an insignificant impact upon winter-feeding and spring calving/fawning.

➢ Operations under Alternative B will not adversely affect the Nooksack elk herd and local deer populations.35

30 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage 31 ibid 32 ibid 33 ibid 34ibid

Page | 65

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Land birds (including Neotropical Land birds)

Migratory birds are those that breed in the U.S. and winter south of the border in Central and South America. Resident birds remain in the same area year-round. Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues.

The project area lies within BCR 5, Northern Pacific Rainforest (NABCI 2014). The appropriate Bird Conservation Plan and Birds of Conservation Concern species list for the project area was reviewed.

➢ Biological evaluation conducted for the Forest Service found there is likely habitat for some land bird species, but the impact is minimal on the landscape and only birds that use late successional habitat might be impacted.

To find more additional information refer to the Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Biological Assessments in the project record.

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Could impact foraging habitat, may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.36

California wolverine

Wolverine could be in project vicinity (e.g. traveling through), may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.37

Johnson’s Hairstreak

Removal of trees with mistletoe could impact hairstreak, may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.38

Little Brown Myotis

Could impact foraging habitat, may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.39

35 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage 36 ibid 37 ibid 38 ibid

Page | 66

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Cascade Red Fox

Could impact fox in vicinity (e.g. traveling through), may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing40

American Marten

Could impact marten in vicinity (e.g. traveling through), may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.41

Pileated Woodpecker

Could impact foraging habitat, may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.42

Primary Cavity Excavators

Could impact foraging habitat, may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing.43

Viability of Management Indicator Species

The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest management indicator species are Northern Spotted Owl, Grizzly Bear, Gray Wolf, American Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle, Mountain Goat, American Marten, Pileated Woodpecker, and Primary Cavity Excavators. While there are no specific, “effect calls” for management indicator species, the proposed alternative would not affect the forest wide viability of these populations, nor would it have a measurable negative effect to the quality or quantity of their habitat in the 9.98-acre expansion area.44

Survey and Manage Species

No habitat for any Survey and Manage salamanders or mollusks occurs in the project area. No habitat has been documented within or adjacent the project area for any Survey and Manage Puget Oregonian and Evening Field Slug. Therefore, pre-disturbance surveys are not required.45

39 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Wildlife Program Manager J. Plumage 40 ibid 41 ibid 42 ibid 43 ibid 44 ibid 45 ibid

Page | 67

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

January 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision Standards and Guidelines Protection Buffer Species These Protection Buffer species includes the white-headed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, and flammulated owl. These species are not known to occur on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.

Bat Roost Sites

The Standards and Guidelines calls for protection of caves, and abandoned mines, wooden bridges and buildings that may be used as roost sites by bats, specifically fringed myotis, silver-haired bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, pallid bat, and Townsend’s big- eared bat. None of these roost site features are located at or near the project sites.

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects on wildlife resources is defined as those areas experiencing ground disturbing and above-ambient noise generating activities within the Middle Fork drainage.

Since there would be no adverse direct or indirect effects to the wildlife species included in this document, there would be no contribution to cumulative effects on these wildlife species or their habitats. To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact wildlife. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Consistency

All Alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1990) as amended. See Table 2 for more information on Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines that are relevant to this proposed project.

Page | 68

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Table 3: Forest-wide Wildlife Standards and Relevant Guidelines Wildlife Standard Alternative A Alternative B (Proposed Action) (No Action) 1. As a minimum, provide Consistent. No ground Removal of 9.98 acres would reduce sufficient numbers and sizes disturbing activities number and size of live dead trees, but of live and dead trees are associated with the project site in comparison to the throughout the Forest to this alternative. This landscape scale of the Forest would maintain primary cavity alternative is make reduction negligible. With excavators at the 40% consistent with this revegetation measures in place (Refer population level using standard. to Appendix A) and the small size of the guides from Management project area this alternative would not of Wildlife and Fish Habitats inhibit maintaining this wildlife in Forests of Western standard. Oregon and Washington. 2. Protect and maintain nest Consistent. No ground Mitigation measures to not cut down sites actively used by disturbing activities active nests during breeding season and raptors or bird species. are associated with to wait till they vacate will be in place this alternative. This to minimize disturbance of nests being alternative is actively used by raptors or bird species. consistent with this The nests would not be protected, since standard. the plan is to remove all the habitat for quarry operations. 3. USFWS will be consulted Consistent. No ground A biological assessment has been for technical information disturbing timber completed for this project and and ESA Consultation when harvest activities will consultation with FWS for effects to a management activity may occur with this listed species will occur. affect a threatened and alternative. This endangered species. alternative is consistent with this standard.

Page | 69

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

4. Maintain a mix and Consistent. No ground Removal of 9.98 acres would remove a distribution of successional disturbing timber mix and distribution of successional stages that will support harvest activities will stages that support maintaining or maintaining or enhancing occur with this enhancing diversity. But the project site diversity. alternative size in comparison to the landscape scale of the Forest would not inhibit the overall diversity of the Forest. Revegetation measures would be in place (Refer to Appendix A) to help restore this project area’s diversity post quarry operations. 5. Provide highest levels of Consistent. No Consistent. The deer and elk winter deer and elk habitat activities would occur range is not part of the project area. capability possible while still in this option; only meeting other primary short-term natural resource objectives. effects to the wildlife and their respective habitats would take place.

3.2 Human Components

3.2.1 Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

In 1981, a study of traditional and religious sites identified a broad traditional-use area defined by the Samish Tribe that overlaps the project analysis area. The project area is also located within the traditional lands of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and within a Nooksack Traditional Cultural Property listed on the Washington State Historic Register. Boundaries and details of both areas are protected from public disclosure by law, thus are not included in the project record. Government to government consultation was initiated early in the planning process, and affected tribes have been involved with the project development.

Field reconnaissance for archaeological and historic sites was conducted of the quarry site, including areas of proposed road building and expansion to the east, in September 1980 in conjunction with the 1982 Environmental Assessment and previous Plan of Operations. No cultural resources were identified.46 The Forest Service Heritage Stewardship Group for the

Page | 70

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Olivine Exploratory Drilling project surveyed again for cultural resources in 2009 and no cultural resources were identified. On October 11th, 2016, the Forest Archaeologist of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest visited the project area with members of the Nooksack tribe to discuss potential impacts to historic properties. Although the site is within the boundary of a large Traditional Cultural Property, there are no known significant features within the proposed expansion area that would be threatened by the expansion. It has been determined that the project would not adversely affect significant cultural resources.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A - No Action

Historical records do not indicate that the proposed expansion area has sustained any human activity prior to commencement of mining.

➢ This alternative does not have the potential to adversely affect significant cultural resources.47

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Historical records do not indicate that the proposed expansion area has sustained any human activity prior to commencement of mining.

➢ This alternative does not have the potential to adversely affect significant cultural resources.48

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are anticipated since there would be no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources. To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact minerals. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both Alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan’s (as amended) forest-wide Standards and Guidelines that focus on American Indian Religious and Cultural Uses.

47 Consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Archeologist P. Alford 48 ibid

Page | 71

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

3.2.2 Inventoried Roadless Area

Affected Environment

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 (also known as the Roadless Rule and promulgated in Forest Service regulations as 36 CFR 294, 2001) was created to control the amount of road-building activities undergone by the Forest Service. These areas are characterized as places that do not contain system roads and are substantially undeveloped and eligible for designation as Wilderness. Still in effect today, the original rule applies to this project.

This 9.98-acre footprint of the proposed expansion falls within an Inventoried Roadless Area within the Mt. Baker West Block Inventoried Roadless Area, known as parcel identifier MR (see Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Assessment, p. C-37-45). This Inventoried Roadless Area is assigned to non-wilderness uses. The project site does not fall within a designated or potential wilderness area. This area was assigned to nonwilderness use during RARE II, although originally inventoried for study as potential wilderness (Mt. Baker Snoqualmie Land and Resource Management Final Environmental Impact Statement pp. C- 37). The quarry’s site makes up a small (0.0025%) fraction of the overall Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest N.F. Inventoried Roadless Area and is located on the western edge of the National Forest.

Inventoried Roadless Area Wilderness Characteristics

While the project area’s land use allocation directs its current management without regard to potential future Wilderness designation, Wilderness characteristics are still used as indicators of the quality of the roadless area. Roadless areas, like Wilderness, are valued by many for their very existence in an undeveloped state. This value is experienced practically by users of the area, and intrinsically by those who place value in simply knowing that undeveloped lands, perceived as “wild,” still exist. Wilderness characteristics used to describe the quality of the roadless area include:

• Natural Condition • Apparent Naturalness • Opportunities for Solitude • Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation • Special Features

The following sections below summarize current conditions of parcel MR in relation to these characteristics.

Page | 72

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Natural Condition

Parcel MR wraps around the Twin Sisters Range. The South Twin is the highest point within the West Block Inventoried Roadless Area (that reaches 6,932 feet high at its summit). This mountain range can be characterized as very rocky and sparsely vegetated. The natural condition of the footprint of the project will be impaired until reclamation is complete, but the overall natural condition of the unit will remain intact.

Apparent Naturalness

There is an overall natural appearance for the Mt. Baker West Block. Yet it is important to note that MR covers 17,590 acres in total of this block (USDA, 1990, as amended). Within the MR, historical and more recent timber harvest units adjoin sections of that area. The closest apparent harvest unit to the project area is adjacent to the west side of the site.

Opportunities for Solitude

Site-specific analysis of the Mt. Baker (West Block) Inventoried Roadless Area in the 1990 Forest Plan concluded that opportunities for solitude exist. Yet, in certain portions of the area that are near roads, solitude is less likely.

Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Within the West Block, Parcel MR and MK provide the greatest opportunity for primitive recreation. This type of recreation includes hunting, cross-country hiking, camping, and mountaineering.

Special Features

The analysis in the 1990 Forest Plan identified two prominent features that exist within parcel MR – Loomis Mountain and the Twin Sisters peaks within the Mt. Baker Wilderness.

Transportation

Access to the quarry is from an existing network of forest roads: Whatcom County Mosquito Lake Road, Forest Service Road 38, and a Weyerhaeuser Road. Aside from providing access, these roads are also utilized to move material that is crushed and screened at the Swen Larsen Quarry. The site is 3 miles from Forest Service Road 38, 8 miles from US Highway 542, and 15 miles from US Highway 9. Important to note there is no public access to the site

Page | 73

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

(Weyerhaeuser Rd. #9000 (private) is the only way to access quarry). See Figure 6 for a map of the main access roads to the Swen Larsen Quarry.

Routine maintenance is conducted to all access roads. Weyerhaeuser and Twin Sisters Olivine share maintenance activities on Weyerhaeuser Road #9000. Twin Sisters Olivine predominately maintains Forest Service Road 38. This complies with their Road Use Permit (see chapter 3.2.4 for Special Uses). Mosquito Lake Road is maintained by Whatcom County.

Consultation with the Olivine Corp. specialist identifies that an estimated 9 vehicular trips take place at the quarry per day during the 2 months per season the quarry operates. These trips are mainly for hauling and crushing operations. Transportation activities do not impede the movement of forest products from Weyerhaeuser lands to the public. Although access roads are shared, the quarry’s short operating season results in no adverse effects on Weyerhaeuser activities.

Page | 74

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Figure 7: Swen Larson Road Map

Page | 75

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

With Alternative A, the Mt. Baker West Block Inventoried Roadless Area would remain the same. Given that no expansion activities would occur in this option, only short-term natural effects to these existing decommissioned roads would take place.

Use of the existing network of forest roads: Mosquito Lake Road, Forest Service 38 Road, and present private forest roads to access and transport material at the quarry would continue.

➢ No direct or indirect effects would take place under Alternative A.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

With Alternative B, all activities would be consistent with the Roadless Rule.

Roads are defined as a, “motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified or temporary” (USDA, 2001). To access the expansion area temporary two-track trails will be built within the confines of the proposed expansion area.

For this project, claimants under the General Mining Law of 1872 can seek approval from the responsible official to build roads if needed. The Roadless Rule states “access for the exploration of locatable minerals pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872 is not prohibited…access may include, but is not limited to, helicopter, road construction or reconstruction, or non-motorized transport” (36 CFR § 294.12(b)(3), 2001). Although road building is an exemption for mining in the roadless rule there will in fact be no new road building for this project.

Use of the existing network of forest roads (Mosquito Lake Road, Forest Service Road 38, and Weyerhaeuser Road) to access and transport material at the quarry would continue. No public transit is affected or would be affected by the proposed project. Maintenance duty on access roads would remain the same. There would be no impact to the movement of forest products because the level of transportation of activities would remain the same.

➢ No direct or indirect effects would take place under Alternative B.

Page | 76

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Cumulative Effects

Appendix C lists past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that may have effects overlapping with the effects of the Swen Larsen Quarry Project for all resources.

Due to Forest Plan land allocations, reinforced by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, no future projects are being contemplated to develop roads or harvest timber or treat fuels within the roadless areas.

➢ In all, no cumulative effects would be anticipated to be combined with the effects of the Proposed Action.

Forest Plan Consistency

The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Roads (Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, p. 4-140) call for the Forest’s Transportation System to be planned to serve the long-term multiple resources needs. Part of the standard calls for closing and returning to “the planned resource use” all roads not on the Forest Development Road System or otherwise authorized.

Under Alternative A standards and guidelines for roads in the Forest Plan (as amended) would continue to be consistent and “measures will be taken to prevent excessive resource damage.”

The Roadless Rule of 2001, updated in 2010, supplies national direction for management of Inventoried Roadless Areas. For Alternative B, application of this rule would apply, but it would follow the claimant’s statutory right under the General Mining Law of 1872 to access locatable minerals for the development of valid claims, which may require road construction or reconstruction, or non-motorized transport.

3.2.3 Scenic Value

Affected Environment

Visual Absorption Capability is the estimate of a landscape to tolerate or absorb modifications (e.g. land use and/or management activities) without losing the desired visual character (Henley, 1979). The Visual Quality Objective for this designated area is modification. This means the human manipulation of the landscape may be visible, but should borrow from the forms, lines, colors, and textures occurring naturally in the landscape. Timely reclamation activities are already in place to conserve scenic values associated with the area. The quarry and expansion area sits on the northwest flank of the

Page | 77

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

North Twin Mountain. The indigenous condition of slopes in the Middle Fork Nooksack drainage includes many rock outcrops and vertical high-wall faces that can be utilized in reclamation activities.

The quarry and expansion area is not visible from any major transportation corridors within Whatcom County. The site is only visible from various points on private timber access roads north of the quarry. It’s considered a secondary middle ground or background viewshed. This means from the viewer the distance of the physical landscape is anywhere from one- half to infinity miles away.

The scenic value within the Middle Fork Nooksack drainage is impacted primarily by timber harvest activities (clear cuts) and associated road construction.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A – No Action

➢ Given that no impact to the scenic value takes place under the existing conditions, no direct or indirect effects would take place under Alternative A.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

The expansion area lies within the same vantage point of the current quarry site and no clear-cuts or road construction would take place. Similar reclamation activities used for the quarry would be applied to the expansion area to conserve the site’s scenic quality. This would minimize the alternative’s impact to the affected environment’s scenic value.

➢ No long-term adverse effects would occur under Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects are anticipated since there would be no direct or indirect effects on scenic value.

To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact minerals. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Consistency

Both alternatives are consistent with the most recent version of the Forest Plan’s “Other Municipal Watershed” area’s Standards and Guidelines that focus on Visual Quality.

Page | 78

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

3.2.4 Special Uses

Affected Environment

Information about the project area was reviewed to determine existing conditions and the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for Special Uses resource. An assumption was made that all existing authorized special uses within the project area would remain as authorized until the completion of the proposed action.

Twin Sisters Olivine holds two Forest Service Special Use Permits in the project area. A Road Use Permit for the mine operator to haul 20,000 to 60,000 tons/year of ore over Forest Service Road 38. This permit expires on December 31, 2020. The second is a Surface Mine Permit for the quarry to operate. This permit must be renewed by January 1, 2018. The current zoning classification of the site is forestry.

Direct and Indirect Effects

For this resource, a direct effect is any action that has an immediate effect on an existing Special Use within the project area. An indirect effect is any action that may later affect an existing Land Special Use within the project area.

Alternative A – No Action

➢ No activities would occur under this alternative, and therefore the No Action Alternative would not have any direct or indirect effects on the Special Uses in the expansion area.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

There would be no negative effects on the Special Uses authorized to Twin Sisters Olivine within the expansion area. There would be no changes or additions to existing Special Use authorizations.

➢ Alternative B would not authorize any new Special Uses and would not remove any future Special Uses.

Cumulative Effects

There are currently no proposals for new Special Uses within the affected area. Existing Special Uses would continue to be managed per the terms and conditions in the authorizations. This project would not authorize any new Special Uses. No cumulative effects are anticipated since there would be no direct or indirect effects on Special Uses.

Page | 79

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

To see how this decision was made, refer to Appendix C for a table of the activities reviewed to determine if any past, present, or future projects could impact minerals. These activities were based on Appendix C’s main list of cumulative effects.

Forest Plan Consistency

All Alternatives would be consistent with the Forest Plan (as amended) for Lands and Special Uses resources.

3.3 Other Environmental Components

3.3.1 Air Quality Effects

The overall air quality-related goal as stated in the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is “…to execute management activities within the constraints of existing air quality laws and regulations.” The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that Air Quality Related Values (AQRV’s) of the forest be protected from all off- forest sources of air pollution.

The Clean Air Act also identifies specific high priority areas relevant to air quality, designated “Class I.” Class I areas are granted special air quality protection under the federal Clean Air Act's Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program and state rules. National parks and certain wilderness areas are designated as mandatory Class I federal areas under the federal Clean Air Act. EPA may designate other areas as Class I areas upon request. The Clean Air Act and subsequent amendments also give Federal land managers an "affirmative responsibility" to protect human health and basic resource values in other areas not designated Class 1, including National Forests.

Potential adverse impacts to Class I areas must be considered by air emission sources located within a specified distance from Class I areas. Air pollution control measures may be required if those potential impacts are found to be significant. Visibility is a value that is protected primarily within the boundaries of Class I areas.

North Cascades National Park is designated as a Class I area. The western boundary of the North Unit of the Park is approximately 22 miles from the Proposed Project. No burning associated with the Proposed Project would be conducted, so there would be no impacts on visibility from smoke. Emissions from machinery and dust from proposed site activities (e.g., grading and earth moving, blasting, mineral extraction, or from vehicle traffic associated with quarry activities) would be the only sources of localized air quality concerns at the quarry. Machinery is only used for approximately two months each year for extraction and

Page | 80

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

processing of material. Dust from blasting would only occur at most once or twice per season. Blasting would have no significance, due to the infrequency of the activity. Historically, the last blasting took place 10 years ago.

These activities would be followed by a proper abatement activity of spraying water (as necessary), sourced from the site’s stormwater retention ponds. Emissions from these activities would be short-term, episodic events that are expected to have negligible effect on local and regional air quality, including visibility. There would be no off-site sources of emissions or odor that would affect the proposed action. No contribution to cumulative effects would be expected.

3.3.2 Environmental Justice

In recent years, environmental justice has become an increasingly important objective of Federal regulatory programs, initiated by Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The landmark Order was the first major federal action on environmental justice in the United States and required that all federal agencies "make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations." The Order requires that Federally recognized Native Tribes or bands be included in all efforts to achieve environmental justice (Sec. 6.606).

The demographics of the affected area for the Swen Larsen Expansion Project (Whatcom County, WA) were examined to determine the presence of minority, low-income, or Tribal populations in potential affect. The Tribal Councils were also sent letters as part of the consultation process. The racial and ethnic profiles of the local census tract data from the 2010 Census are presented in Table 3.

Page | 81

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Table 4: Race and Ethnicity Profile, 2010 Census Data, Whatcom County and Town of Deming, Washington

Percentage of Population

Race or Ethnicity Whatcom County Town of Deming White 85.4 93.2 Black or African American 1.0 0.8 American Indian or Alaskan Native 2.8 2.0 Asian 3.5 0.8 Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 7.8 3.4 Some other race 0.0 0.0

Table Notes

1. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census. American FactFinder. 2. “Hispanic or Latino” is a category of ethnicity that includes more than one race category (black, white, etc.)

Whatcom County as a whole has a relatively smaller percentage of White and larger percentages of African Americans, Asians, Latinos (%), and Native Americans than in Census Tract 17495 (Town of Deming). There are approximately 3 to 4 people who would work on the project.

There is no currently known use of the Swen Larsen Quarry and proposed expansion project area for forest products. Tribal members may use the affected area for gathering other personal, Tribal, and non-commercial uses.

Refer to the Cultural Resources section (Chapter 3.2.1) for effects on traditional and cultural use by Tribal elders and members. Neither of the alternatives would have any disproportionately high or adverse effects to low-income, women, or minority populations listed in

Page | 82

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Table 4.

3.3.2 Existence Value

Existence value is the benefit that people may receive knowing that a resource exists. This value is considered an ecosystem service (a benefit that flows from nature to people). Executive Order M-16-01 directs all federal agencies to incorporate the value of ecosystem services when moving forward in project planning or decision making. These additional values are important to consider when assessing a proposed project. For alternative A, there would be no impact to the existence value of the proposed project area. It is important to note this excludes natural occurring events that could still occur, such as wildfire or disease, and could threaten the existence of certain values people cherish about the proposed project area. In Alternative B, the proposed project could impact the existence value of some characteristics people value in the project site. Some examples of these values include the present forest structure, remoteness of the project area, and the uniqueness of the project area’s terrain. While some of these values can be identified, it is difficult to quantify and assess the impact the proposed project could have to these benefits. Although unable to adequately measure existence value it is important to acknowledge that some of the characteristics about the project area are valued solely because they exist.

3.3.3 Floodplains

For Alternative A, there would be no effects on floodplains. Under Alternative B, the expansion lies within the flood plain of the seasonal channel, and later excavation activities could cross this floodplain. Proper measures to conserve the floodplain during quarry activities and post quarry activities would be undergone. Examples include the placement of a conservation buffer to protect the flood plain (phase 1) and the reconstruction of the channel post quarry operations to reconstruct the floodplain (phase 2). With the necessary conservation measures in place, the Alternative’s activities would not compromise the overall floodplain processes of the creeks and rivers in the project area. The proposed project does not lie within a 100-year floodplain.

3.3.4 Hazardous Substances

Petroleum based products (diesel, gasoline and oil) and hydraulic fluids are used during operations at the quarry. Diesel to run equipment at the site is generally transported to the quarry in small tanks in the bed of pick-up trucks. Occasionally up to 1500 gallons of diesel is stored in a tank on a trailer at the site.49 This is typically a short-term situation lasting no longer than a week at a given time. When this fuel storage system is used, the tank trailer is

49 Estimates provided in consultation with Olivine Corps. Specialist.

Page | 83

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

bermed to minimize impacts in the extremely unlikely event of a spill. Oil and hydraulic fuel are delivered to the site and stored in five-gallon bulk containers during operations. No equipment or hazardous substances are used or stored on site during the approximately 10 months of the year that the quarry is non-operational.

A spill response and reporting plan located in the Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan (August 2005) has been developed for the quarry. These procedures are still current and will be implemented in the unlikely event of a spill at the site. They highlight any special emergency services that would be required. The Best Management Practices included in the stormwater plan help to reduce or control environmental health hazards if any should occur. There are no known existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that would affect the project development and design.

No hazardous substances are produced during ore processing at the site. The fine rock generated during the crushing process is a chemically inert by-product of the operation that does not qualify as a hazardous substance nor pose environmental contamination concerns. There is no known or possible contamination from hazardous substances, aside from potential prior fuel spills from past-logging operations or using the site as a borrow pit.

3.3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

A decision to use or alter resources that are permanent or renewable over an extensive period is considered an irreversible commitment of resources. In this case, from a practical standpoint, use of the resource is eliminated because it no longer exists or is altered to an extent where it becomes unusable. When opportunities to use a resource are deferred or otherwise unavailable for an extended period, an irretrievable commitment of resources occurs. An example of this would be the temporary loss of timber harvest in a forested area that is currently being used in a manner that precludes harvesting.

For Alternative A, the existing environment would remain the same, and there would be no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources in the expansion area.

Alternative B would have an irreversible commitment of resources. The excavation and hauling of olivine mineral would result in an irreversible commitment of olivine mineral resources. The use of this resource is authorized under the General Mining Law of 1872.

3.3.6 Potential Conflicts with Plans and Policies of Other Jurisdictions

Private individuals, groups, and governmental agencies including Tribal representatives have been contacted about the Swen Larsen Expansion Project. Several private individuals and one group of representatives from a Tribe have been in contact with US personnel to

Page | 84

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

discuss this project (refer to Chapter 1, section 1.5, Public Involvement; and Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination, 4.2 Tribes). There are no known conflicts between alternatives described in this document and the plans and policies of any other jurisdictions.

3.3.7 Prime Forestland, Prime Farmland, Rangeland, etc.

Prime forestland, as land capable of growing wood at the rate of 85 cubic feet per acre per year at culmination of mean annual increment (Natural Resources Conservation Service), may be found within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. The affected environment would not have a measurable impact on prime forestland. No prime farmland or rangeland exists within the project area.

3.3.8 Wetlands

Under both Alternatives, there would be no impacts to wetlands.

3.3.9 Other Issues

Noise

There is little noise impact associated with the proposed project. The use of the excavator and crawler tractors would produce a certain level of sound, but it would not exceed the existing level of operational noise. It should be expected that the quarry and expansion site would be permitted for 24/7 use, but hauling and crushing would likely take place during daytime work hours. There is potential for blasting activities to occur, but given the quarry and the proposed project sites location, noise impact would be little if any.

Climate Change

Climate change is acknowledged within this project, but given the size of the affected environment discussion has been limited to a dedicated section following this report. Refer to Appendix F for further information on Climate Change and its relevance in this project.

Energy, fire, insects, disease, and other environmental components

Energy, fire, insects, disease, and other smaller environmental components, etc., were considered at the outset of the environmental analysis, but they are not analyzed or described in further detail here because they are associated with limited or no environmental impacts from the project.

Page | 85

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination

Kulshan Services consulted with the following Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, and environmental organizations during the development of this environmental assessment.

4.1 Federal, State, and Local Agencies

The following agencies were contacted during the consultation efforts:

Fisheries Consultation Consultation not required. Endangered Species Consultation Consultation not required. Forest Service Sensitive Species Consultation not required. Wildlife Consultation Consultation is currently underway. Endangered Species Act Consultation is currently underway.

4.2 Tribes

The following Tribes were contacted during the consultation efforts:

Lummi Indian Business Council Nooksack Indian Tribal Council Samish Tribe Sauk-Suiattle Tribal Council Skagit River System Cooperative Stillaguamish Board of Directors Swinomish Tribal Community Tulalip Board of Directors Upper Skagit Tribal Council

The 30-day public scoping and Tribal consultation period began on August 23, 2016. The Forest Supervisor sent Government-to-Government consultation letters to the Lummi, Nooksack, Samish, Sauk-Suiattle, Snoqualmie, Stillaguamish, Swinomish, Tulalip, and Upper Skagit Indian Tribes. One written response was received from the Nooksack Tribe regarding the proposed project activities (10/23/2016).

Page | 86

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

The 30-day comment and Tribal consultation period began on June 2nd, 2017. Tribal consultation notices for the comment period were mailed out to local tribes (Nooksack, Swinomish, Samish, Lummi, Stillaguamish, Upper Skagit, Tulalip, Skagit River System Co-op, and Sauk-Suiattle). The District received one tribal comment on the proposed project. The comment was from the Samish Tribe and they had no interest in consulting for cultural resources on the project at this time (6/08/2017).

4.3 Others Involved

The Forest Service sent scoping letters to the public and affected individuals, organizations, and agencies on September 8, 2016. Eighty-two comment letters were received from this scoping effort. A complete list of those individuals and interest groups who received information regarding this proposal can be found in the Project Record.

On June 8th, 2017, the Forest Service posted the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on the Forest Service website and sent the DEA out to interested agencies, organizations, and individuals on their mailing list. A legal notice was also published in the Skagit Valley Herald’s classified section inviting comments on the proposed action and DEA. The District received 27 public comments on the proposed project. A table of the pre-decisional comments received and Forest Service responses can be found in Appendix F and the project record.

Chapter 5 - List of Preparers

The following personnel were involved in the preparation of this environmental assessment:

Name Title Agency Responsibility

Paul Alford Forest Archaeologist USFS Heritage Analysis USFS Water Resources North Zone Hydrologist Christopher Stewart Analysis Reid Armstrong Fish and Aquatic Biologist Kulshan Services Water Quality Analysis Karen Chang South Zone Fish Biologist USFS Fish Analysis Shauna Hee North Zone Botanist USFS Botany Analysis Forest Wildlife Program USFS Jesse Plumage Wildlife Analysis Manager

Page | 87

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Todd Griffin Forest Geologist USFS Program Management Katie Moore- Environmental Analyst Kulshan Services NEPA Specialist Drougas

Page | 88

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Chapter 6 - References Cited

Best Management Practices for Reclaiming Surface Mines in Washington and Oregon (Rep). (1997). Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Oregon Department of Geology. Braaten, A. 2016. U.S. National Park Service, North Cascades National Park, SedroWoolley, Washington. RE: Grizz question. Email message to: Ann Froschauer, Public Affairs Supervisor, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lacey, Washington. April 20, 2016.

City of Bellingham Public Works. Middle Fork Nooksack River Water Quality Data (Station: Middle Fork Upstream). Nov. 2006 - Mar. 2007. Raw data. Bellingham. City of Bellingham Public Works. Middle Fork Nooksack River Water Quality Data (Station: Middle Fork Upstream). Mar. 2013 - Nov. 2013. Raw data. Bellingham. Elsner, Gary H., and Richard C. Smardon. Proceedings of Our National Landscape: A Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource: April 23-25, 1979, Incline Village, Nevada. Tech. Berkeley: USDA Forest Service, 1979. Exec. Order No. 12898, 3 C.F.R. 1-5 (1994). Print.

50 CFR – Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical Habitat for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon and Puget Sound Steelhead §223 and 226 (2016).

50 CFR – Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the Conterminous United States; Final Rule §17 (2010).

40 CFR – Protection of Environment, Government Publishing Office § 1500-1519 (1978). 42 USC- National Environmental Policy Act, Government Publishing Office §4321 et seq. (1969) Henley, F. L., & Hunsaker, F. L. A system to program projects to meet visual quality objectives. 1979. Print. Invasive Species Report (Rep). (2016). Bellingham, WA: Element Solutions. Kogel, Jessica Elzea, ed. Industrial minerals & rocks: commodities, markets, and uses. SME, 2006. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Washington Dept. of Natural Resources, Div. of Geology and Earth Resources, and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Forest Service 13-MU-11062759-018), May 2013.

Page | 89

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

Moore, M.A. FJ. Morrall, and R.C. Brown. 1998. Crystalline silica – issues and impacts for industry. Industrial Minerals 367:109-117. Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Blasting Guidelines for Protection for Fish by USFWS (Marc Whisler, Joe Hiss) and NMFA (Joel Moribe). 31 Jan. 2007. PDF. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. (Publication). (2012) USDA Forest Service. Olivine Mine Rare Plant Survey (Rep. No. 102-001). (1991). Edmonds, WA: Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1992 Pentec, Olivine Mine Rare Plant Survey Order, E. (1994). Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations: executive order 12898. Federal Register, 59(32), 7629-7633. Plan of Operations for the Swen Larsen Quarry. (2017). USDA Forest Service. Rosgen, David L. "A classification of natural rivers." Catena 22.3 (1994): 169-199. "SalmonScape." WDFW SalmonScape. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2017. Swen Larsen Revegetation Plan, contained in approved Site Operations Plan, June 2016

78 RCW: Surface Mining, Washington State Legislature §78.44 (1971). 66 FR – Forest Transportation System, Federal Register § 7712.16b (2001). 36 CFR – Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Government Publishing Office § 294 (2001). 36 CFR - Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Government Publishing Office § 228.4 (1974). 36 CFR – Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Government Publishing Office § 220.7 (1974). 36 CFR – Special Areas, Government Publishing Office § 294 (2012) Trout Population Surveys (Rep.). (1992). Bellingham, WA: Cascades Environmental Services. Twin Sisters Olivine. (2016). US Forest Service Plan of Operations and Reclamation Narrative. Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mt. Baker Ranger District Sedro-Woolley, WA. 222 Washington Rev. Code. §222.30 (1975). Print. UNIMIN Corporation. (2010). Decision Memo Olivine Geophysical Investigation. Hamilton, WA. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census. American FactFinder. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Region 6 interim old growth definitions for the Douglas-fir series, grand fir/white fir series, interior Douglas-fir series, lodgepole pine series, Pacific silver fir

Page | 90

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

series, tanoak (redwood) series., western hemlock series. Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service. (1992). Environmental Assessment (Updated) of the Plan of Operations for the Olivine Corporation Olivine Quarry, Swen Larsen Claim. Whatcom County: Mt. Baker- Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service. (1990). Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Seattle, WA. USDA Forest Service. (2001). National Forest System Road Strategy Environmental Assessment. US Forest Service. Washington Office. USDA Forest Service. (2006). Middle Fork and South Fork Nooksack River Watershed Analysis. Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, Mt. Baker Ranger District, Sedro-Wolley, WA. USDA Forest Service. (2017) Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest’s Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Protocol for Inadvertent Discoveries of Human Remains and cultural items (Publication). USDA Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. (2004). Record of Decision. Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl: Decision to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, and Bureau of Land Management, Moscow, Idaho. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994). Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standard and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. (1994). Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. (2015). Record of Decision for Amendments to Invasive Plant Program: Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. (2001). Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR.

Page | 91

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. Online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (NPS). 2015. North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan – Environmental Impact Statement: FAQs v3 Final. USFWS. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi +258 pp. USFWS. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register 78(23):7864- 7890. Van Norman, K. and R. Huff. 2012. Survey & Manage Category B Fungi Equivalent-Effort Survey Protocol, Version 1.0. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon, Washington, and California, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Regions 5 and 6. 22 pp. Washington Dept of Ecology, Sand & Gravel Stormwater General Permit (effective April 1, 2016); Site-specific ID WAG503304 and permit required site-specific Management Plan (current plan dated 2005) Wetlands Inc. 2008. Rare Plant Botanical Assessment For: Olivine Corporation. La Conner, WA.

Wolf Observations in Washington State | Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2017.

Page | 92

Appendix A: Swen Larsen Stormwater Management Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FORMS AND REPORTS ...... 4 SPECIAL CONDITIONS ...... 5

S1. PERMIT COVERAGE ...... 5 A. Coverage Under This Permit ...... 5 B. Coverage for Similar Facilities ...... 6 C. Facilities Excluded From Coverage Under This Permit ...... 6 D. Other/Unpermitted Site Uses ...... 8 E. Authorization ...... 9 S2. EFFLUENT LIMITS...... 9 S3. ADDITIONAL DISCHARGE LIMITS ...... 13 A. Best Management Practices (BMPs)...... 13 B. Not Cause or Contribute to a Violation of Standards ...... 13 C. Maintenance Shop Zero Discharge ...... 13 D. Unauthorized Use of Site ...... 14 E. Water Management ...... 14 F. Use of Chemical Treatment Products ...... 15 G. Discharges to Surface Water — Additional Effluent Limits ...... 16 H. Discharges to Groundwater — Additional Effluent Limitations ...... 16 I. Discharge to Sanitary Sewer ...... 17 J. Inactive Sites ...... 17 S4. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ...... 18 A. Discharges to Surface Water ...... 18 B. Discharges to Groundwater ...... 18 C. Monitoring at Inactive Sites...... 18 D. Sampling and Analytical Procedures ...... 18 E. Laboratory Accreditation ...... 21 F. Inspections ...... 21 G. Inspection Reports ...... 22 H. Exemption from Visual Monitoring ...... 23 S5. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) ...... 23 A. SMP Sections ...... 23 B. SMP Requirements ...... 23 C. Modifications of the SMP ...... 23

D. Site Map ...... 24 S6. SMP SECTION 1: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN (ESCP) ...... 25 A. Stabilization BMPs ...... 25 B. Runoff Conveyance and Treatment BMPs ...... 25 S7. SMP SECTION 2: MONITORING PLAN ...... 25 A. Monitoring Plan and Content Requirements ...... 26 B. Maintaining the Monitoring Plan...... 26 S8. SMP SECTION 3: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) ...... 26 A. Measures to Prevent Commingling ...... 26 B. Runoff Conveyance and Treatment BMPs ...... 26 C. Innovative BMPs ...... 27 D. Inventory of Materials and Pollutant Sources ...... 27 E. Source Control BMPs ...... 27 F. Concrete Recycling BMPs ...... 29 S9. SMP SECTION 4: SPILL CONTROL PLAN ...... 30 A. Materials of Concern ...... 30 B. Spill Control Plan Contents ...... 30 C. Spill Response ...... 30 S10. REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS ...... 31 A. Discharge Monitoring Reports ...... 31 B. Production Number Range Reporting ...... 32 C. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee ...... 33 D. Records Retention ...... 33 E. Reporting Permit Violations ...... 34 F. Spill Reporting ...... 34 S11. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ...... 34 A. Solid Waste Handling ...... 34 B. Leachate ...... 35 C. Recycle and Waste Material Other Than Concrete or Asphalt ...... 35 S12. PERMIT APPLICATION ...... 35 A. How to Apply for Permit Coverage ...... 35 B. Permit Coverage for Portable Facilities ...... 36 C. Permit Coverage Timeline ...... 37 D. Reporting Change in Operating Status ...... 37

Page 2

E. Terminating Coverage ...... 38 F. Transferring Permit Coverage ...... 38 GENERAL CONDITIONS ...... 39 G1. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 39 G2. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS ...... 40 G3. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ...... 40 G4. REDUCED PRODUCTION FOR COMPLIANCE ...... 40 G5. BYPASS PROCEDURES ...... 40 G6. RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND ENTRY ...... 42 G7. [RESERVED] ...... 42 G8. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COVERED ACTIVITIES ...... 42 G9. PERMIT COVERAGE REVOKED ...... 42 G10. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION ...... 43 G11. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION ...... 43 G12. TOXIC POLLUTANTS ...... 43 G13. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR ...... 44 G14. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES ...... 44 G15. ADDITIONAL MONITORING ...... 44 G16. PAYMENT OF FEES ...... 44 G17. REMOVED SUBSTANCES ...... 44 G18. REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER A ...... 44 GENERAL PERMIT ...... 44

G19. PERMIT TRANSFER ...... 44 G20. DUTY TO REAPPLY...... 45 G21. UPSET ...... 45 G22. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING PERMIT CONDITIONS ...... 46 G23. APPEALS ...... 46 G24. SEVERABILITY ...... 46 G25. PROPERTY RIGHTS ...... 46 G26. DUTY TO COMPLY ...... 46 G27. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING ...... 47 G28. REPORTING ANTICIPATED NON-COMPLIANCE ...... 47 G29. REPORTING OTHER INFORMATION ...... 47

Page 3

G30. DUTY TO MITIGATE ...... 47 APPENDIX A —NAICS CODES, ECOLOGY CODES, SIC NUMBERS, AND DESCRIPTIONS FOR FACILITIES COVERED UNDER THIS PERMIT ...... 48 APPENDIX B — DEFINITIONS ...... A

Sand and Gravel General Permit

SUMMARY OF REQUIRED FORMS AND REPORTS The table below lists forms and reports that must be submitted in order to be in compliance with this permit. Additional reporting and submission requirements can also be found in the Special and General Conditions of this permit. Summary of Required Forms and Reports Permit Section Forms and Reports Description Frequency First Due Date Reporting

S10.B Report of Production Reporting of Production Number Range Annually January 30, 2017 Numbers for Fee Purposes Discharge Monitoring Report of Monitoring Results and Quarterly April 30, 2016 S10.A Report (DMR) Observations S10.E Reporting Permit Verbal and Written Notification of Each Within 24 hours Permit Violations Violations Noncompliance and in 5 days Verbal Report of Spills to Waters of Each Immediately the State S10.F Spill Reporting Noncompliance Notification of Overflow G5 As Necessary As necessary or Bypass Application

As Necessary, and S12.A, S12.B, Appling for Permit Coverage, Application, As Necessary Renewal Permit Application G20 Application for Permit Renewal and 1/Cycle Application Due July 4, 2020 Portable Beginning of 10 days before Application to operate at a new site and As Necessary S12.B.1 Operation Notice Form beginning site restoration plan (ECY 070-36) operations Portable Completion of When site has S12.B.2 Operation Notice Form Certification that site has been restored As Necessary been restored (ECY 070-30) Changes

Operating Status Change Within 10 days S12.D, G11 Each Change Form (ECY 070-33) To Change Inactive or Active Status

Page 4

Cancellation of Coverage, Change Facility S12.E, S12.F, Change Request Form Name With No Ownership Change, Each Change Prior to each G19 (ECY 070-32) Transfer Permit Coverage To a New Owner change or Operator S12.A, S12.B, Application for a Significant As Necessary Process Permit Application As Necessary G11 Change Other

“Electronic Signature Ecology will e-mail an ESAF when the Account Form” (ESAF) or Permittee sets up their Electronic S.10.A.5 an “Electronic Waiver Signature Account. Permittees that 1/Permit Cycle May 1, 2016 Request” form already have an account do not need to (ECY 070-381) resubmit an ESAF.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS S1. PERMIT COVERAGE A. Coverage Under This Permit This general permit covers discharges from facilities in Washington State that conduct activities designated by one or more of the North American Industry Classification (NAICS50) Codes or activities listed in Table 1.

Table 1: NAICS/Ecology Codes and Activities Covered by the Sand and Gravel General Permit51 NAICS/ Sand and Gravel Activities Ecology Code 113110 Timber Tract Operations (Rock crushing and/or gravel washing facilities associated with silvicultural point sources) 113310 Logging (Rock crushing and/or gravel washing facilities associated with silvicultural point sources) 212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying 212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying 212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying 212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying 212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining 212322 Industrial Sand Mining 212324 Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining 212325 Clay and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining 212399 All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining

50 Italicized words in this permit are defined in Appendix B. 51 Refer to Appendix A for descriptions and corresponding Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.

Sand and Gravel General Permit – Formal Draft 2014

Page 5

324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing 327320 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing 327331 Concrete Block and Brick Manufacturing 327332 Concrete Pipe Manufacturing 327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing 327999 All Other Miscellaneous Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing ECY001 Asphalt Recycling ECY002 Concrete Recycling S1.B.1 S1.C.1

B. Coverage for Similar Facilities In addition to the activities listed in Table 1, similar activities may be required to obtain coverage under this general permit. This applies when the facility meets all of the criteria in 1-4 below:

1. Ecology determines the discharge characteristics are similar to those from the facilities and activities listed in Table 1. 2. The facility has one or more of the following characteristics: a. Owned or operated by private entities, the State of Washington or local governments. b. The discharge is to groundwater. 3. And, the facility has one or more of the following characteristics or processes: a. Any facility that ditches, routes, collects, contains, or impounds process water, mine dewatering water, or Type 3 stormwater. b. Any facility that discharges stormwater, mine dewatering water, or process water to surface waters of the state. c. Any facility that discharges to a municipal storm sewer. d. Any facility with a discharge to surface water or groundwater that operates a concrete batch plant or a hot mix asphalt plant that uses a wet scrubber for air emissions control. e. Any facility located inside a designated wellhead protection area. f. Any silvicultural point source. g. Any facility that recycles concrete or asphalt concrete. 4. The permit conditions satisfy applicable state and federal requirements.

C. Facilities Excluded From Coverage Under This Permit 1. Ecology will not provide coverage under this general permit for activities listed in S1.A and B above when the facility: a. Has a pit design that will intercept more than one aquifer.

Page 6

b. Discharges to a water body with a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for turbidity, fine sediment, pH or temperature unless: i. The Permittee complies with S3.G.2-5. ii. The requirements of this general permit are adequate to provide the level of protection required by the TMDL or control plan. c. Discharges or proposes to discharge to a segment of a waterbody that is listed pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and discharges or proposes

Page 7

to discharge a listed pollutant at a concentration or volume that will cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable water quality standard.

d. Uses material for reclamation or backfill that is not inert and also is not covered by a Department of Natural Resources reclamation permit. e. Conducts mining operations below the ordinary high water mark in a river or stream channel. f. Would impair adjacent water rights as a result of pit operations lowering the water table. g. Discharges on Federal Land or facilities located on “Indian Country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151, except portions of the Puyallup Reservation as noted below. Indian Country includes:

i. All land within any Indian Reservation notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the reservation. This includes all federal, tribal, and Indian and non-Indian privately owned land within the reservation. ii. All off-reservation Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have notbeen extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. iii. All off-reservation federal trust lands held for Native American Tribes. Puyallup Exception: Following the Puyallup Tribes of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C. § 1773; the permit does not apply to land within Puyallup Reservation except for, discharges to surface water on land held in trust by the federal government.

Any facility excluded from coverage under conditions S1.C.1.a-f must apply to Ecology for an individual discharge permit; unless the activity is regulated under permit requirements of another section of the Federal Clean Water Act.

2. Ecology will not provide coverage under this general permit for any facility covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or state waste discharge individual permit, which addresses the same activities and pollutants.

D. Other/Unpermitted Site Uses This permit does not cover any discharge from uses unrelated to the NAICS Codes or activities listed in Table 1 or other similar activities per S1.B. No discharge is allowed from any activities unless it is either covered under this permit’s NAICS/Ecology Code criteria, results from a similar activity per S1.B, or is covered by a separate individual wastewater discharge permit.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 8

E. Authorization 1. The Permittee is authorized to discharge process water, mine dewatering water, and stormwater to surface water, groundwater, or both at the permitted location for the activities listed in the Permittee’s coverage page. 2. Permittees must notify the appropriate regional Ecology office to: a. Add, remove, or revise authorized activities listed in their coverage page. b. Add, remove, or revise a discharge to surface water. c. Add a new type of discharge of process water or mine dewatering water. 3. All discharges and activities authorized by this permit must be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. S2. EFFLUENT LIMITS

Permittees must comply with the following effluent limits and monitoring requirements for process water, mine dewatering water, and stormwater. If the discharges from two or more industrial activities are combined, the most stringent effluent limits applies.

New facilities may be required to conduct additional monitoring, refer to S12.A.2 and S12.A.3.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 9

Table 2: Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements for Process Water and Mine Dewatering Water Typ NAICS Total

e Code pH Turbidity (NTU) Suspended Total Dissolved (see Discharge to: Solids (TSS) Oil Sheen 3 Solids (TDS) Appendix Min Max Average Maximum Average A) Monthly Daily Quarterly Pro 113110, Daily when runoff ---- Quarterly1 Two/Month2 Quarterly1 ces 113310, occurs Surface s 212312, 6.5 8.5 50 50 40 mg/l No Discharge ---- Wat 212313, 2123194, er, Quarterly1 ------Daily when runoff ---- Min 212399 occurs e Ground De 6.5 8.5 ------Visible Sheen ---- wat 212321 ---- Daily when runoff ---- erin Two/Month2 Quarterly1 occurs g Surface Wat ---- 50 50 25 mg/l No Discharge ---- er ---- Daily when runoff ---- occurs Ground ------No Discharge ----

Surface ----Surface Water Discharge Not Permitted---- 212311, Quarterly1 ------Daily when runoff ---- 212324, occurs 212325, Ground 6.5 8.5 ------No Discharge ----

Daily when runoff ---- Two/Month2 Quarterly1 ---- occurs Surface 25 mg/l No Discharge ------50 50 212322 ------Daily when runoff ---- occurs Ground ------No Discharge ----

Daily when runoff 327320, One/Month Two/Month2 Quarterly1 327331 occurs Surface 327332, 6.5 8.5 50 50 40 mg/l Visible Sheen 327390,

327999, Daily when runoff ECY002 One/Month ---- occurs Monthly Ground 6.5 8.5 ---- Visible Sheen 500 mg/l

Surface ----Surface Water Discharge Not Permitted---- 3241215, One/Month ------Daily when runoff ---- ECY001 Ground occurs 6.5 8.5 ------Visible Sheen ---- Notes for Tables 2 and 3 are on the next page.

Table 3: Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements for Type 2 and Type 3 Stormwater Typ pH Turbidity (NTU) Oil Sheen 3 NAICS Code Discharge e Average Maximum (see Appendix A) to: Min Max Monthly Daily Typ One/Month Two/Month2 Daily when runoff e 2 Surface occurs mo 327320, 327331, 6.5 8.5 50 50 No Discharge 327332, 327390, nito One/Month ---- Daily when runoff ring 327999, ECY002 Ground occurs onl 6.5 8.5 ---- No Discharge y Stor3) app 113110, 113310, Quarterly1 Two/Month2 Daily when runoff mw and lica 212312, 212313, Surface occurs blemo 212319, 212399, 6.5 8.5 50 50 No Discharge ater 212324, 212325, durivin Quarterly1 ---- Daily when runoff (Ty 324121, ECY001 ng g Ground occurs pe 2 eartacti 6.5 8.5 ---- No Discharge h viti 212311, 212321, ---- Two/Month2 Daily when runoff es 212322 Surface occurs ------50 50 No Discharge ------Daily when runoff occurs Ground ------No Discharge

Notes for Tables 2 and 3: 1. Quarterly means at least one sample in each of the periods of January to March, April to June, July to September, and October to December.

2. When required to sample turbidity twice a month, there must be at least 24 hours between sampling.

3. The discharge of sheen or petroleum products to waters of the state is a violation and must be reported as a violation. The presence of a visible sheen at a discharge point is not a violation if there is no discharge of sheen or petroleum products to water of the state and if the Permittee corrects the problem in a timely manner, notes the occurrence in their Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR), explains in the DMR the cause, and describes the solution. (Also see conditions S4.F.2, S5.C, S9.C and S10.E)

4. The discharge of process water associated with bitumens (native mining), bituminous limestone quarrying, bituminous sandstone quarrying to surface water is prohibited.

5. The discharge of process water from wet scrubbers to groundwater is prohibited.

S3.A.1 S3.C.4

S3. ADDITIONAL DISCHARGE LIMITS

A. Best Management Practices (BMPs) 1. The Permittee must implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) as necessary to provide all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment (AKART). And implement any additional BMPs as necessary to comply with state water quality standards. 2. The Permittee must inspect, maintain, and repair all BMPs to ensure continued performance of their intended function. 3. Stormwater BMPs must be consistent with one of the following conditions: a. The Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW), for sites west of the crest of the Cascade Mountains. b. The Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW), for sites east of the crest of the Cascade Mountains. c. Other equivalent stormwater management guidance documents which have been subject to public review and comment and approved by Ecology. d. Documentation in the SWPPP that the BMPs selected provide an equivalent level of pollution prevention, compared to the applicable Stormwater Management Manual, including: i. The technical basis for the selection of all stormwater BMPs (scientific, technical studies, and/or modeling) which support the performance claims for the BMPs being selected. ii. An assessment of how the selected BMP will satisfy AKART requirementsand the applicable federal technology-based treatment requirements under 40 CFR part 125.3.

B. Not Cause or Contribute to a Violation of Standards Discharges must not cause or contribute to a violation of: Groundwater Quality Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173201A WAC), or Sediment Management Standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) of the State of Washington; and 40 CFR 131.

C. Maintenance Shop Zero Discharge No wastewater shall be discharged to surface water or groundwater from a maintenance shop unless all of the following criteria apply:

1. The maintenance shop exists at the time permit coverage begins. 2. A discharge to sanitary sewer is not available.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 13

3. Adequate treatment before discharge is provided. 4. The discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the surface water or ground water quality standards. S3.D S3.E.4

D. Unauthorized Use of Site The Permittee must maintain and manage permitted sites to prevent unauthorized activities such as illegal dumping, spilling, or other misuse of the site that could discharge pollutants to waters of the state. Appropriate site management may include, but is not limited to, visual inspections, signage, and physical security measures.

E. Water Management 1. Any ditch, channel, or other Best Management Practices (BMPs) used for routing water must be designed, constructed, and maintained to contain all flows except when: a. Designed to infiltrate Type 1 stormwater. b. Precipitation exceeds the design storm (10-year, 24-hour event). 2. Lined Impoundment Required This permit prohibits the direct discharge of process water from Concrete Batch Plants (NAICS 327320) and Asphalt Batch Plants (NAICS 324121), including any wastewater from truck wash-out areas, except to a lined impoundment. The lined impoundment must have adequate structural load-bearing design to support any mechanical method used for sludge removal and must be maintained to prevent any discharge to groundwater. After treatment, the Permittee may discharge wastewater subject to the limits set forth in Conditions S2 and other parts of this section (S3). At a minimum, the lined impoundment must meet one of the following design standards.

The Liner must be constructed of:

a. Synthetic or flexible membrane material, not less than 30 mils thick (40 mils for new installations after the effective date of this permit), that must not react with the discharge. b. Concrete with a minimum thickness of 6 inches. c. Asphalt with a minimum thickness of 6 inches. d. Steel-walled containment tank. e. Any other functionally equivalent impoundment, structure, or technique that is based on standard engineering practices, and approved by Ecology to meet the intent of this section. 3. Impoundment Capacity Any impoundment must have adequate capacity to provide treatment for water quality and flow control of wastewater. The design storm for calculating the size required for the impoundment is the 10-year, 24-hour precipitation event. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 14

4. The Permittee must inspect the structural integrity of a lined impoundment whenever sludge removal occurs and, before refilling, make any repairs necessary to ensure that the lined impoundment functions to prevent discharges as intended. S3.E.4 S3.F.4

Continuous removal systems must draw down the impoundment periodically for inspection.

5. Mined Pit Pond Discharges to a mined pit pond are not required to comply with TSS and turbidity limits prior to final reclamation. When reclamation is complete, discharges to the pond must not cause or contribute to a violation of surface water quality standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC).

6. The Permittee must not discharge Type 3 stormwater from an asphalt plant, concrete batch plant, asphalt release agent application area, or concrete truck washout area into a pit or excavation that penetrates the water table.

F. Use of Chemical Treatment Products 1. Document Use - The Permittee, upon application for coverage under this permit must document the use of any chemical treatment additives or soil stabilization polymers used to: a. Treat water discharged to waters of the state. b. Stabilize soils. c. Suppress dust. Documentation must identify the chemicals used, their commercial source, the Safety Data Sheet, and the application rate. The Permittee must retain this information on site or within reasonable access to the site and make it immediately available, upon request, to Ecology. The Permittee must notify Ecology prior to use of any new chemicals discharging to surface waters or of any significant change in application rates of chemicals discharging to surface waters.

2. Apply as Instructed by the Manufacturer – The Permittee must apply chemicals used to enhance solids settling before discharge to waters of the state, to stabilize soils, or abate dust according to the manufacturer’s instructions and may only use a chemical if the toxicity to aquatic organisms is known. The Permittee may only use chemicals to stabilize soils if the stormwater from the chemical application area is routed to and treated by a stormwater detention pond. 3. The Permittee must not use ligninsulfonate for dust suppression in excavated areas, including areas where topsoil has been removed. 4. Additional Restrictions – In addition, chemical treatment/soil stabilization must meet one of the following conditions. It must: a. Be consistent with the Stormwater Management Manuals.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 15

b. Be consistent with other methods approved per the Chemical Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology (C-TAPE) program. c. Use chemical treatment additives at a dosing rate resulting in no toxicity in the effluent or stormwater discharge. S3.G.1 S3.H.2

G. Discharges to Surface Water — Additional Effluent Limits 1. Discharges must not cause a visible increase in turbidity or objectionable color; or cause visible oil sheen in the receiving water. 2. New facilities and existing facilities must comply with TMDL wasteload allocations (for turbidity, fine sediment, pH and/or temperature) developed from a TMDL which was completed prior to the date permit coverage is issued. 3. New facilities that propose to discharge to an impaired water body that is on the current EPA-approved 303(d) list, but without a completed TMDL, must not discharge the listed pollutant (turbidity, fine sediment (TSS), pH or temperature) at a concentration or volume that will cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable water quality standard in the receiving water. 4. Existing facilities that discharge to an impaired waterbody on the current EPAapproved 303(d) list must not increase their loading or concentration of the listed pollutant (turbidity, fine sediment measured as TSS, pH, or temperature) for the duration of the coverage of this permit or until a wasteload allocation is assigned to the Permittee from a TMDL approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 5. No Permittee may discharge pollutants in excess of levels established in a wasteload allocation in a TMDL approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. a. Where an applicable TMDL has established a general waste load allocation for facilities covered by this permit but has not identified facility-specific requirements, compliance with conditions S2 through S5 will constitute compliance with the TMDL. b. Where an applicable TMDL has not specified a waste load allocation for facilities covered by this permit, but has not excluded these discharges, compliance with this permit will constitute compliance with the TMDL. c. Where an applicable TMDL assigns a wasteload allocation to a specific facility, Ecology will implement the wasteload allocation by issuing a modified coverage or an administrative order.

H. Discharges to Groundwater — Additional Effluent Limitations The Permittee is authorized to discharge process water, mine dewatering water, and stormwater to groundwater at the permitted location subject to the numeric effluent limitations in S2. If the Permittee combines discharges from two or more industrial activities, the most stringent effluent limit for each parameter applies.

1. There must be no visible oil sheen at any points of discharge to groundwater.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 16

2. Any discharge to a pond, lagoon, or other type of impoundment or storage facility that is unlined is considered a discharge to groundwater and is subject to the groundwater quality standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC). Water ponding at a facility can be considered a discharge to groundwater. S3.I.1 S4.A.2

If a Permittee discharges wastewater below the surface of the ground, such as to a dry well, drainfield, or injection well it must comply with the Underground Injection Control Program regulations (Chapter 173-218 WAC).

I. Discharge to Sanitary Sewer Discharge of stormwater to sanitary sewers is subject to the following conditions:

The Permittee may discharge stormwater to a non-delegated POTW only upon written approval by Ecology. The Permittee must submit a request to Ecology demonstrating that:

1. No other option is feasible or reasonable. 2. The POTW has excess wet season hydraulic capacity (no sanitary sewer overflows or treatment system bypasses). 3. The POTW is willing to accept the discharge. 4. The hydraulic loading to the POTW will be reduced by eliminating the clean water that can be directly discharged directly without causing pollution. The request must also certify that the Permittee is routinely implementing all applicable BMPs.

Discharges to sanitary sewer must meet the discharge restrictions of 40 CFR 403.

J. Inactive Sites 1. No excavation (except for BMP maintenance) is allowed at an inactive site. All inactive sites are subject to the discharge limits per S2. Refer to S4.C for monitoring requirements at inactive sites. 2. Inactive sites must have appropriate BMPs in place and functioning. 3. At Inactive sites either: a. Have a Registered Professional Engineer certify every three years that the facility complies with this general permit. b. Or, annually conduct a Wet Season Inspection, per S4.F.3.a, and certify that the facility complies with this general permit. The Permittee must maintain the certification(s) as part of the Site Management Plan.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 17

S4. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS

A. Discharges to Surface Water 1. The Permittee must monitor discharges of process water, mine dewatering water, Type 2 stormwater and Type 3 stormwater to surface waters of the state, or to a storm sewer that drains to surface waters of the state per S2. 2. The Permittee must representatively sample discharges to surface water. Representative sampling of Type 2 stormwater and Type 3 stormwater requires a sufficient number of monitoring points to represent differences in stormwater quality. The Permittee must collect samples as close to the point where the discharge comes into contact with the receiving water as is reasonably achievable.

B. Discharges to Groundwater 1. The Permittee must monitor all discharges of process water, mine dewatering water, Type 2 stormwater and Type 3 stormwater to groundwater per S2. 2. The Permittee is required to representatively sample discharges to ground. Representative sampling may include sampling groundwater quality from monitoring wells in accordance with an Ecology-approved groundwater impact study based on Ecology Publication 96-02 (Implementation Guidance for the Groundwater Quality Standards).

C. Monitoring at Inactive Sites 1. All inactive sites that have a discharge of process water and/or mine dewatering water must monitor per S4.A and S4.B. 2. Stormwater monitoring is required at inactive sites when both of the following conditions apply: a. The Permittee or operator adds or withdraws raw materials or finished products from stockpiles during the calendar quarter. b. The site has a discharge of stormwater to surface waters of the state. 3. Unless required per S4.C.1 and/or S4.C.2, stormwater monitoring is not required at inactive sites.

D. Sampling and Analytical Procedures 1. Where a discharge combines two or more industrial activities and each activity requires the same monitoring parameter and frequency, only one sample and analysis for that parameter will be required. 2. Samples and measurements taken to meet the requirements of this permit must represent the volume and nature of the monitored parameters, including representative sampling of any unusual discharge or discharge condition, including bypasses, upsets, and maintenance-related conditions affecting effluent quality. 3. Collect samples taken to meet the requirements of this general permit during the facility’s normal working hours and while processing at normal levels. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 18

4. No sampling is required of water held in a lined impoundment that is designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with Special Condition S3.E.2. Discharges from a lined impoundment to waters of the state must be sampled per the conditions in this permit.

5. Sampling and analytical methods used to meet the monitoring requirements specified in this permit must conform to the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants contained in 40 CFR Part 136. Table 4 lists the recommended analytical methods from 40 CFR Part 136 for the parameters listed in S2. S4.D.6 S4.D.7

6. The Permittee must ensure laboratory results comply with the quantitation level (QL) specified in Table 4. However, if an alternate method from 40 CFR Part 136 is sufficient to produce measurable results in the sample, the Permittee may use that method for analysis. Report any alternative test methods used, and the QL, on the discharge monitoring report. If the Permittee is unable to obtain the required QL due to matrix effects, the Permittee must report the matrix-specific method detection level (MDL) and QL on the DMR. 7. The Permittee must record, for each measurement or sample taken, the following information: a. The date, exact place, method, and time of sampling. b. The individual who performed the sampling or measurement. c. The dates the analyses were performed. d. The individual or lab which performed the analyses. e. The analytical techniques or methods used. f. The results of all analyses.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 19

Table 4 Recommended Analytical Methods and Laboratory Quantitation Levels for Monitoring Parameters Laboratory Maximum Analytical Laboratory Parameter Units Quantitation Preservation1 Holding Description Method Accreditation Required Level Time

No/Yes, if testing is Analyze pH SU SM4500-H+B N/A performed by an None required within 15 Use a calibrated pH meter. accredited laboratory minutes

No/Yes, if testing is SM2130- Turbidity NTU 0.1 performed by an Cool, ≤ 4 °C 48 hours Use a calibrated turbidimeter. B2001 accredited laboratory The sample is filtered and the Total residue retained on the filter is Suspended mg/l SM2540-D 5 Yes Cool, ≤ 6 °C 7 days dried. The increase in weight of Solids (TSS) the filter represents the total suspended solids.

Oil Sheen Yes/No Observation N/A N/A N/A N/A Look for visible sheen

The sample is filtered and the Total filtrate is evaporated to dryness Dissolved mg/l SM2540-C 20 Yes Cool, ≤ 6 °C 7 days and dried. The increase in dish Solids (TDS) weight represents the total dissolved solids. Note: 1. Refer to the analytical methods for additional details on preservation methods.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 18

S4.E S4.F.3

E. Laboratory Accreditation The Permittee must ensure that all monitoring data required by Ecology is prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under the provisions of chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. Flow, temperature, turbidity, settleable solids, conductivity, pH, and internal process control parameters are exempt from this requirement. The Permittee or laboratory must obtain accreditation for conductivity, turbidity, and pH if accreditation or registration is required for other parameters (eg. TSS or TDS).

F. Inspections 1. The Permittee must conduct a visual inspection of each point of discharge to surface water at least once a month when discharges occur. The date of the inspection, and any visible change in turbidity or color in the receiving water caused by the discharge, must be recorded and filed with the monitoring plan required by Condition S7. 2. When equipment operates: a. The Permittee must inspect oil/water separators once per month during the wet season (October 1 – April 30) and during and immediately after a large storm event of greater than or equal to 1 inch per 24 hours. The accumulated oil must be removed when it reaches a thickness of 1 inch. The bottom sludge must be removed when it reaches a thickness of 6 inches. Oil absorbent pads must be replaced as necessary to maintain effectiveness. b. The Permittee must inspect all operationally related equipment and vehicles weekly for leaking fluids such as oil, hydraulic fluid, antifreeze, etc. c. Permittees must conduct daily visual monitoring for oil sheen at all surface water and groundwater discharge points (or representative locations where water collects prior to discharge) when runoff occurs. d. If oil sheen is present, the Permittee must clean up the source and report the event on the inspection form identifying the probable cause of the oil sheen and describing the actions taken to prevent further contamination (See Condition S2, Tables 2 and 3, footnote 3). e. The presence of a visible sheen on site is not a violation if there is no discharge of sheen or petroleum products to water of the state and if the Permittee corrects the problem in a timely manner. (See Condition S2, Tables 2 and 3, footnote 3, and conditions S5.C, S9.C and S10.E). 3. The Permittee must conduct at least two stormwater inspections each year at all active sites covered under this permit. The Permittee must conduct at least one inspection during the wet season (October 1 – April 30) and at least one inspection during the dry season (May 1 – September 30). a. Wet Season Inspection The wet season inspection must be conducted by personnel named in the SWPPP and must include observations for the presence of floating materials, suspended solids, oil and grease, discoloration, turbidity, odor, etc. in the stormwater discharge(s). Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 21

The Permittee must conduct the inspection during a rainfall event adequate in intensity and duration to verify that:

i. The description of potential pollutant sources (as defined in S8.D) required under this permit is accurate. ii. The Permittee has updated or otherwise modified the site map as required in the SMP (S5.D) to reflect current conditions. iii. The Permittee is implementing controls which are adequate to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity identified in the SWPPP. b. Dry Season Inspection

The dry season inspection must be conducted by personnel named in the SWPPP and after at least seven (7) consecutive days of no precipitation. The inspection must determine the presence of non-stormwater discharges such as process water to the stormwater drainage system. If a discharge related directly or indirectly to process water is discovered, the Permittee must comply with noncompliance notification requirements of Special Condition S10.E and must eliminate the discharge within ten (10) days. If the Permittee cannot eliminate the discharge within ten days, the discharge must be considered process water and subject to all process water conditions of this general permit. The inspection shall also include review of the implementation of BMPs to ensure that the SWPPP is fully implemented.

4. Erosion and Sediment Control Inspections At active sites conducting earth moving activities that discharge to surface water, the Permittee must inspect all on-site erosion and sediment control BMPs at least once every seven days, and within 24 hours after any storm event of greater than 0.5 inches of rain per 24 hour period. The Permittee must maintain a file containing a log of observations and corrective actions as part of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP).

G. Inspection Reports 1. The Permittee must prepare and retain a report on each inspection. The report must include: a. A summary of the inspection. b. The names of personnel that conducted the inspection. c. The date(s) of the inspection. d. Observations relating to the implementation of the Site Management Plan (SMP). e. Any actions taken as a result of the inspection. f. Any corrective actions or maintenance tasks needed. 2. Completed inspection forms, logs, checklists, or records used to meet other governmental agency requirements (e.g. Washington State Department of Transportation or Mine Safety and Health Administration requirements) may be acceptable as inspection reports provided they address the items in S4.G.1 of the permit.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 22

3. The responsible party must sign the reports in accordance with General Condition G1 and must certify that the Permittee has investigated the discharge of stormwater for the presence of non-stormwater.

H. Exemption from Visual Monitoring The permittee may request an exemption from visual monitoring for any outfall where there is no safe access point from which to monitor the outfall. The permittee must specify the latitude and longitude of the location and the reason for exemption in an email or letter to Ecology. The permittee must keep any visual monitoring exemption approvals in the SMP. S5. SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) A. SMP Sections The Site Management Plan (SMP) consists of a site map and 4 main sections:

1. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) 2. Monitoring Plan 3. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 4. Spill Control Plan The Permittee may include in the SMP, by reference, applicable portions of plans prepared for other purposes (e.g. Pollution Prevention Plan prepared under the Hazardous Waste Reduction Act, Chapter 70.95C RCW). The referenced plans must be available on site or within reasonable access to the site and become enforceable requirements of the SMP.

B. SMP Requirements The Permittee must: 1. Have and fully implement a site specific SMP. 2. Review the SMP at least once a year. Note the date of review and the name(s) of the personnel that conducted the review in the SMP. 3. Retain and provide the SMP per the requirements in S10.D. 4. The responsible party, as identified in General Condition G1, must sign the SMP and all of its modifications.

C. Modifications of the SMP 1. The Permittee must review and modify the SMP whenever there is a violation of discharge limits in Special Conditions S2 and S3. Additional or modified BMPs must be implemented as soon as practicable but not to exceed 10 days, except for those circumstances that require additional time (such as obtaining other permits or purchasing equipment). Allowance of time beyond 10 days must be requested of and approved by Ecology.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 23

2. Ecology may require the Permittee to modify the SMP for non-compliance with the minimum requirements of this section. The Permittee must then complete SMP modifications and implement additional or modified BMPs as soon as practicable or as directed by Ecology. 3. The Permittee must update the SMP as necessary to respond to changes in facility and site conditions.

D. Site Map Permittees must have a site map. The site map should show and identify the following features and areas associated with industrial activities:

1. The site map scale, or include relative distances between significant structures and drainage systems. 2. Outfalls, monitoring points: a. Assign a unique identifier up to four characters (e.g. S001, S002, etc.) to each outfall and monitoring point. The Permittee must use these identifiers on Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). b. Show the drainage area for each point. c. Label the types of discharges that occur at each point (e.g. process water, mine dewatering water and stormwater). d. Label whether the discharge is to surface water or groundwater. 3. Drainage features: a. Drainage direction, flow paths, ditches, ponding areas, and discharge structures. b. Nearby and on-site surface water bodies (including any known underlyingaquifers). c. Lands adjacent to the site where helpful in identifying discharge points or drainage routes. 4. Industrial areas: a. Paved areas and buildings. b. Vehicle and equipment cleaning or washout areas. c. Vehicle and equipment maintenance areas. d. Outdoor storage areas of materials or products. e. Outdoor processing areas. f. Loading and unloading of dry bulk materials or liquids. g. On-site waste treatment, storage, or disposal areas. h. Underground storage areas of materials or products.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 24

S6. SMP SECTION 1: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN (ESCP)

The Permittee must prepare an ESCP prior to any earth moving activities. The ESCP must identify and describe the erosion and sediment control BMPs that the Permittee will implement at the facility and a schedule for BMP implementation.

A. Stabilization BMPs The Permittee must initiate stabilization BMPs as soon as practicable on portions of the site where mining or reclamation activities have temporarily or permanently ceased. The Permittee must:

1. Stabilize and protect all soils from erosion by the timely application of effective BMPs.

2. Preserve existing vegetation where feasible. Permanently mark areas that are not to be disturbed; these include setbacks, sensitive/critical areas and their buffers, trees, and drainage courses. 3. Design and construct cut slopes and fill slopes in a manner that will minimize erosion. 4. Provide stabilization at the outlets of all conveyance systems to prevent erosion.

B. Runoff Conveyance and Treatment BMPs The ESCP must include a description of runoff conveyance and treatment BMPs used to prevent erosion and sedimentation. The plan must satisfy the following requirements. The Permittee must:

1. Protect properties adjacent to the project site from erosion and sedimentation related to the facility. 2. Construct sediment ponds and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers, and other BMPs intended to trap sediment on site as a first step. These BMPs must be functional before land is disturbed. Stabilize slopes of earthen structures used for sediment control such as dams, dikes, and diversions immediately after construction. 3. Design any BMP constructed at an active site to maintain separation of Type 2 stormwater from Type 3 stormwater and Type 1 stormwater during the peak flow from the design storm. If any commingling of Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 stormwater occurs, the Permittee must meet the most restrictive permit requirements. S7. SMP SECTION 2: MONITORING PLAN

At active sites, and inactive sites where monitoring is required per S4.C.1 and/or S4.C.2, Permittees must maintain and comply with a monitoring plan developed in accordance with Special Conditions S2, S3, and S4.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 25

A. Monitoring Plan and Content Requirements The monitoring plan must at a minimum: 1. Identify all the industrial activities at the site. Include the NAICS / Ecology codes associated with each monitoring point. 2. Include all of the applicable parameters and monitoring frequencies identified in this permit as monitoring requirements. 3. The plan must identify enough monitoring points to provide representative sampling of all point source discharges to surface water or groundwater. 4. List the standard procedures used at the facility for collecting samples for analysis. The publications: NPDES Stormwater Sampling Guidance Document (EPA 833-B92-001, July 1992), or How to Do Stormwater Sampling — A guide for industrial facilities (Ecology Publication 02-10-071), or equivalent sampling methods, must be used as guidance for stormwater, mine dewatering water, and process water sampling procedures. 5. List the non-compliance notification procedures and contact numbers.

B. Maintaining the Monitoring Plan If facility conditions require the modification, addition, or deletion of a monitoring point, the Permittee must update their monitoring plan and edit their monitoring point in WQWebDMR52.

S8. SMP SECTION 3: STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP)

The Site Management Plan (SMP) must include a SWPPP. The SWPPP must contain, at a minimum, the following:

A. Measures to Prevent Commingling Measures to prevent the commingling of stormwater with process water or mine dewatering water, unless the facility is designed to reuse process water. Stormwater that commingles with process water is considered process water and is subject to all permit conditions for process water.

B. Runoff Conveyance and Treatment BMPs The SWPPP must include runoff conveyance and treatment BMPs as necessary to control pollutants and comply with the stormwater discharge limits in S2 and S3. (Refer to the Stormwater Management Manuals for additional information.) Runoff conveyance BMPs include, but are not limited to:

52 Permittees that have received an Electronic Reporting Waiver must notify Ecology in writing of monitoring point modifications, additions, or deletions before the end of the quarter in which the change will occur. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 26

1. Interceptor dikes 2. Swales 3. Channel lining 4. Pipe slope drains 5. Outlet protection Treatment BMPs may include, but are not limited to:

1. Oil/water separators 2. Biofiltration swales 3. Infiltration or detention basins 4. Sediment traps 5. Chemical treatment systems 6. Constructed wetlands

C. Innovative BMPs Innovative treatment, source control, reduction or recycling, or operational management practices beyond those identified in Ecology’s SWMMs are encouraged if they help achieve compliance with this general permit.

D. Inventory of Materials and Pollutant Sources This inventory must list potential pollutants and pollutant sources. The inventory of materials must include a list of all types of materials handled at the site exposed to precipitation or run- off (e.g. raw materials, cement admixtures, petroleum products, etc.). The Permittee must manage the following materials to prevent stormwater contamination:

1. Toxic materials or chemicals 2. Petroleum contaminated soils (PCS) that fail to meet the most protective Model Toxics Control Act Method ‘A’ treatment levels (WAC 173-340-740(2)) 3. Cement 4. Admixtures 5. Fuels, lubricants, tar and other petroleum products 6. Any material that contains petroleum contamination or has the potential to cause aquatic toxicity

E. Source Control BMPs The SWPPP must include the following source control BMPs in order to achieve AKART and compliance with the stormwater discharge limits in S2 and S3. The Permittee may omit individual BMPs if site conditions render the BMP unnecessary, infeasible, or if the Permittee provides alternative and equally effective BMPs. The Permittee must note the rationale for omission or substitution in the SWPPP. The Permittee must:

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 27

1. Store all chemical liquids, fluids, and petroleum products (except bitumen), in double- walled tanks or in secondary containment. Secondary containment includes an impervious surface surrounded with a containment berm or dike that is capable of containing 10% of the total enclosed tank volume or 110% of the volume contained in the largest tank, whichever is greater. a. To prevent precipitation from accumulating in secondary containment provide a roof or equivalent structure. b. If cover is not practicable, the SWPPP must include a description of how accumulated water will be managed and disposed of. 2. Label containers (e.g., “Used Oil,” “Spent Solvents,” “Fertilizers and Pesticides”). 3. Fully drain and cap empty containers. Minimize the number of empty containers on site. 4. Fit all dumpsters containing leachable materials with a lid that must remain closed when not in use, or alternatively keep the dumpster under cover. 5. Locate spill kits at all stationary fueling stations, fuel transfer stations, mobile fueling units, and used oil storage/transfer stations. 6. Use drip pans or equivalent containment measures during all petroleum transfer operations. 7. Conduct all vehicle and equipment cleaning operations per the following: a. Permittees may use low pressure (under 100 psi) cold water to rinse mud off of vehicles and equipment provided no soap is used. Route rinse water to an on-site sediment treatment structure (e.g. sediment trap, catch basin with gravity separator, or treatment pond). b. Conduct all other vehicle and equipment cleaning operations under cover or in a bermed area to prevent commingling of wash water and stormwater. i. This wash water must drain to a proper collection system (i.e., not the stormwater drainage system). ii. Do not discharge any wastewater from concrete truck wash-out areas or from concrete trucks directly to surface water or groundwater. Treat this wastewater in a lined impoundment. 8. Store unhardened concrete, any type of concrete solids (does not include fully cured or recycled concrete), returned asphalt, and cold mix asphalt on a bermed impervious surface. This includes comeback concrete, ecology blocks, septic tanks, jersey barriers, and other cast concrete products. Treat all stormwater that contacts these materials in a lined impoundment. Discharge of this water is subject to the effluent limitations in S2 and must not cause a violation of water quality standards.

9. Store lead acid batteries under cover. 10. Take leaking equipment out of service and prevent it from leaking on the ground until repaired. Repair all leaks before putting equipment back into service on the site. 11. Manage paving equipment to prevent stormwater contamination. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 28

12. Manage sediment track out to paved off-site roads to prevent the tracked sediment from delivering to surface water or storm drain systems. Discharges to surface waters, public storm drain systems, or both are subject to permit limits for turbidity and must be included in the Permittee’s Monitoring Plan whenever track out onto an off-site roadway is evident. Measures recommended to control or prevent track out include: a. Limit vehicle access and exit to one route, if possible. b. Stabilize access points with a pad of quarry spalls, crushed rock, or other equivalent BMP, as necessary to minimize the tracking of sediment onto off-site roads. c. Locate a closed loop wheel wash or tire baths (or equivalent BMP) on site, if the stabilized construction entrance is not effective in preventing sediment from being tracked onto off-site roads. Wheel wash and tire bath wastewater is process water and is subject to the effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in Special Condition S2, Table 2, and S4 and must not cause a violation of water quality standards. d. Clean off-site roads thoroughly at the end of each day or more frequently during wet weather if sediment is tracked off site. Clean sediment from roads by shoveling or pickup sweeping and transport to a controlled sediment disposal area. e. Only wash streets after sediment is removed in accordance with condition d above. Street wash wastewater must be controlled by pumping back on site or otherwise be prevented from discharging into systems tributary to waters of the state. 13. The Permittee must use source control BMPs in the following areas and during the following activities as necessary to control pollutants: a. Fueling at Dedicated Stations b. Mobile Fueling c. Loading and Unloading Areas d. Storage of Liquid in Permanent Above-ground Tanks e. Dust Control f. High Use Parking Areas g. Storage or Transfer of Solid Raw Materials, By-Products or Finished Products (See Volume IV in the SWMMWW/Chapter 8 in the SWMMEW for specific BMPs)

F. Concrete Recycling BMPs Permittees that conduct concrete recycling (ECY002) must include the following BMPs within their SWPPP and implement them on-site. Permittees may omit individual BMPs below if site conditions render the BMP unnecessary or if the Permittee provides alternative and equally effective BMPs. The Permittee must note the rationale for omission or substitution in the SWPPP.

1. Permittees that receive permit coverage for their site for the first time on or after April 1, 2016 must not place new concrete recycling stockpile(s) in the following locations: a. Within 100 feet or less (horizontal distance) from the ordinary high water mark of surface water bodies (including streams, lakes, rivers, saltwater bodies, wetlands, etc.).

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 29

b. Within 100 feet or less (horizontal distance) from drinking water and irrigation well(s). c. Within a Wellhead Protection Area. d. Where there is a discharge to ground associated with the concrete recycling stockpile and there is not a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the bottom of the recycled concrete stockpile(s) and groundwater. 2. Establish materials acceptance procedures to ensure that inbound recycled concrete materials are not a source of dangerous waste such as lead paint, asbestos, and joint sealants which contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). S9. SMP SECTION 4: SPILL CONTROL PLAN

A. Materials of Concern The Permittee must maintain and comply with a Spill Control Plan for the prevention, containment, control, and cleanup of spills or unplanned discharges of:

1. Oil and petroleum products including accidental release from equipment. 2. Materials, which when spilled, or otherwise released into the environment, are designated Dangerous (DW) or Extremely Hazardous Waste (EHW) by the procedures set forth in WAC 173-303-070. 3. Other materials which may become pollutants or cause pollution upon reaching waters of the state.

B. Spill Control Plan Contents The Permittee must review and update the Spill Control Plan, as needed, but at least annually. The Spill Control Plan must include the following:

1. A description of the reporting system which will be used to alert responsible managers and legal authorities in the event of a spill. 2. A list of equipment and materials on site that have the potential to leak or spill. 3. A description of preventive measures and facilities (including an overall facility plot showing drainage patterns) which prevent, contain, or treat spills of these materials. 4. Specific handling procedures and storage requirements for materials kept on site.

C. Spill Response The Permittee must have the necessary cleanup materials available and respond to all spills in a timely fashion, preventing their discharge to waters of the state. All employees must receive appropriate training to assure all spills are reported and responded to appropriately. The Permittee must immediately clean up all spills, leaks, and contaminated soil to prevent the discharge of pollutants to groundwater or surface waters.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 30

S10. REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS The Permittee must report monitoring and other information in accordance with the following conditions. The falsification of information submitted to Ecology constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit.

A. Discharge Monitoring Reports 1. Permittees must submit a “Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)” form on a quarterly basis for all: a. Active sites, whether or not the facility was discharging. b. Inactive sites required to conduct monitoring per condition S4.C.1 and/or S4.C.2. 2. Permittees must submit DMRs to Ecology on or before the DMR due dates according to the Table 5 below:

Table 5: Discharge Monitoring Reporting Due Dates Discharge Monitoring Period DMR Due Dates:

October, November, December January 30

January, February, March April 30

April, May, June July 30

July, August, September October 30 3. For Permittees that receive permit coverage for the first time after the effective date of this permit, the first monitoring period is the first full quarter following the date of permit coverage. 4. Permittees must submit DMRs electronically using Ecology’s Water Quality Permitting Portal (WQWebDMR) – Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) application, unless the Permittee applies for and Ecology approves an Electronic Reporting Waiver53.5455 Permittees that have received an Electronic Reporting Waiver from Ecology must submit their DMRs to the appropriate regional Ecology office. 5. By the due dates in Table 6, permittees must either:

53 Ecology typically only grants Electronic Reporting Waivers to permittees that do not have a computer, printer, or internet connection. 54 For the DMR due April 30, 2016 permittees may submit their DMRs either electronically or on paper. For DMRs due after April 30, 2016 permittees must submit their DMRs electronically per this requirement. 55 Including inactive sites required to conduct monitoring per condition S4.C.1 and/or S4.C.2 (e.g. inactive sites monitoring per S4.C.1 whose first DMR is due July 30, 2016 must submit their ESAF or Electronic Waiver Request by May 30, 2016). Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 31

a. Setup their WQWebDMR account and submit an “Electronic Signature Account Form” (ESAF). (Visit http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/paris/ webdmr.html for instructions.) b. Or, submit an “Electronic Waiver Request” form (ECY 070-381) to the appropriate regional Ecology office. Permittees that have an existing electronic signature account do not need to resubmit an ESAF or Electronic Waiver Request form.

Table 6: Due Dates for ESAF or Electronic Waiver Request Operating Status: Due date:

Active operating status on May 1, 2016 the effective date of this permit

Inactive operating status Two months before your first DMR due date under this on the effective date of permit. (E.g. if your first DMR is due October 30, 2016 you 6 this permit must submit your ESAF or Electronic Waiver Request by August 30, 2016.)

Permittees that receive Two months before your first DMR due date under this permit coverage for the permit. (E.g. if your first DMR is due October 30, 2017 you first time after the effective must submit your ESAF or Electronic Waiver Request by date of this permit August 30, 2017.)

B. Production Number Range Reporting 1. Annually, by January 3056 non-portable Permittees that have a NAICS code of 324121, 327320, 327332, and/or 327390 must report for the previous year which range below their production of asphalt and/or concrete fell within.

Table 7: Concrete and Asphalt Production Ranges Concrete Production Ranges Asphalt Production Ranges

Inactive (zero concrete production during Inactive (zero asphalt production during the calendar year) the calendar year)

0 - < 25,000 cu. yds/yr 0 - < 50,000 tons/yr

25,000 - < 200,000 cu. yds/yr 50,000 - < 300,000 tons/yr

200,000 cu. yds/yr and greater 300,000 tons/yr and greater

56 Beginning January 30, 2017. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 32

2. Permittees must submit their production number ranges electronically using Ecology’s Water Quality Permitting Portal, unless the Permittee applies for and Ecology approves an Electronic Reporting Waiver. Permittees that have received an Electronic Reporting Waiver from Ecology must submit their production number ranges to the appropriate regional Ecology office via the paper form that Ecology provides for this purpose.

C. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee Any Permittee that monitors any pollutant more frequently than required in Conditions S2, S3, or S4 must include those results in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the DMRs or other reporting requirements.

D. Records Retention 1. The Permittee must retain records of the following documents on site, or within reasonable access to the site: a. The current version of the Sand and Gravel General Permit. b. Permit coverage page. c. The Site Management Plan (SMP), including all four main sections, site map, and applicable incorporated plans. d. All monitoring information for a minimum of five (5) years including: i. Copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports. ii. All calibration and maintenance records.

iii. All original recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation.

e. For a minimum of three (3) years from the date of the sample, measurement, report, or application: i. Copies of all reports required by this permit. ii. Records of all data used to complete the application for this permit. 2. The Permittee must extend this period of retention during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding the discharge of pollutants by the Permittee or when requested by Ecology. 3. The Permittee must make all plans, documents, and records required by this permit immediately available, upon request, to Ecology or the local jurisdiction. 4. The Permittee must provide a copy of the SMP (including all four main sections, site map, and applicable incorporated plans) to the public when requested in writing to do so. The copy must be provided within 10 days. If the Permittee receives a public records request for more than one facility that the Permittee owns/operates under the Sand and Gravel General Permit, the permittee must respond within 10 days by either:

a. Providing copies of all the requested SMPs.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 33

b. Providing the requester(s) a reasonable estimate of when the requests will be fulfilled. And by providing the copies of all the requested SMPs within 10 days per SMP requested (e.g. if a Permittee receives a request to provide SMPs for three of their facilities they will have a maximum of 30 days to provide the copies of all three SMPs).

E. Reporting Permit Violations In the event the Permittee is unable to comply with any of the permit terms, conditions or discharge limits, due to any cause, the Permittee must:

1. Immediately take action to stop, contain, and cleanup unauthorized discharges or otherwise stop the violation, correct the problem and, if applicable, repeat sampling and analysis of any violation immediately. 2. Notify the appropriate Ecology Regional Sand and Gravel Permit Manager by phone or in person within 24 hours of when the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. 3. Submit a detailed written report to Ecology within 30 days (5 days for upsets, spills, bypasses and any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment) unless requested earlier by Ecology. The report must describe the nature of the violation, corrective action taken and/or planned, steps to be taken to prevent a recurrence, results of the re-sampling, results of the SMP review (per S5.C.1) and any other pertinent information. The Permittee may not substitute data from resampling for ongoing permit monitoring required under Special Condition S2, S3 and S4. Permittees must report re- sampling data per S10.C. 4. Ecology may waive the requirement for a written report on a case-by-case basis, if the Permittee notifies Ecology within 24 hours per S10.E.2. Compliance with this condition does not relieve the Permittee from responsibility to maintain continuous compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit or the resulting liability for failure to comply.

F. Spill Reporting The Permittee must report a spill of oil or hazardous materials in accordance with the requirements of RCW 90.56.280 and Chapter 173-303-145 WAC by calling the National Response Center 1-800-424-8802, and the Washington Emergency Management Division 1-800-258-5990. Permittees can obtain additional instructions at the following website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/spills/other/reportaspill.htm. S11. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

A. Solid Waste Handling The Permittee must handle and dispose of all solid waste material, including material from cleaning catch basins and any sludge generated by impounding process water or stormwater, in such a manner as to prevent its entry into waters of the state. Disposal must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 34

B. Leachate The Permittee must not allow leachate from solid waste material to enter waters of the state without providing AKART, nor allow such leachate to cause or contribute to violations of the State Surface Water Quality Standards, Chapter 173-201A WAC, or the State Groundwater Quality Standards, Chapter 173-200 WAC. The Permittee must apply for an individual permit or permit modification as may be required for such discharges to waters of the state.

C. Recycle and Waste Material Other Than Concrete or Asphalt The Permittee must comply with the Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, Chapter 173-350 WAC, and where appropriate, the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC. The Permittee must meet the procedural, operational, and structural controls required under the Chapter 173-350 for any type of recycling or solid waste handing on the site. If the Permittee places or intends to place amounts and types of inert waste as defined in WAC 173-350-990, they must fully comply with solid waste regulations. The Permittee must comply with the requirements for obtaining permits from health departments that have jurisdiction over the disposal activities at the permitted site and comply with those permits.

This permit does not authorize discharge of leachate or process water from solid waste handling activities except as provided under WAC 173-350-990 (inert waste). S12. PERMIT APPLICATION A. How to Apply for Permit Coverage 1. All new facilities and un-permitted existing facilities that intend to obtain coverage, and permitted existing facilities planning a significant process change must submit an application. a. The Permittee must submit the application no less than one hundred and eighty (180) days before beginning any activity that may result in the discharge of any pollutant. No discharge is authorized until the effective date of permit coverage as provided in Special Condition S12.C below. b. All new facilities and un-permitted existing facilities that intend to obtain coverage, must submit an application electronically using Ecology’s Water Quality Permitting Portal – Permit Coverage Notice of Intent (NOI) application, unless the applicant applies for and receives an Electronic Reporting Waiver from Ecology. Applicants that have received a waiver from Ecology must submit a completed and signed application to the appropriate regional Ecology office. c. All permitted existing facilities planning a significant process change must submit a completed and signed application, to the appropriate regional Ecology office. d. Facilities with stormwater discharge to a storm sewer operated by any of the following municipalities must send a copy of their application for coverage to the appropriate municipality: Seattle, King County, Snohomish County, Tacoma, Pierce County, and Clark County.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 35

e. All new facilities, and permitted existing facilities planning a significant process change, must: i. Satisfy public notice requirements in WAC 173-226-130(5). ii. Certify that the applicable SEPA requirements have been met. iii. Meet the requirements of Chapter 173-240 WAC, SUBMISSION OF PLANS AND REPORTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER FACILITIES.

f. A Permittee may include in the application for coverage, activities that are, or could be performed by an operator(s) other than the Permittee. These activities may be ongoing or intermittent. As the permit holder, the Permittee is responsible for compliance with all conditions of the permit. 2. New facilities that propose to discharge to a segment of a waterbody on the current EPA- approved 303(d) list for turbidity or fine sediment must conduct turbidity monitoring in accordance with an Ecology-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan that includes receiving water monitoring to demonstrate the discharge does not cause or contribute to the impairment. The applicant/Permittee must contact Ecology before developing a Quality Assurance Project Plan. 3. New facilities that propose to discharge to surface water must conduct a receiving water study for two years when Ecology determines, at the time of application, that there is a potential for violation of water quality standards. The study consists of measuring the receiving water flow and temperature and discharge flow and temperature at the time of critical flows. The applicant/Permittee must contact Ecology before developing a receiving water study plan. If Ecology determines a receiving water study is required, the receiving water study plan must be completed before operations are begun.

B. Permit Coverage for Portable Facilities All portable facilities that are new facilities, un-permitted existing facilities, and permitted existing facilities planning a significant process change must comply with the requirements in S12.A. Permit coverage will apply only to the specific portable facility identified in the application. Permit coverage is provided for the portable facility at sites throughout the state subject to the following requirements:

1. The Permittee of the portable facility must submit a completed and signed “Portable Facility Notification of Intent to Begin Operation” form (ECY 070-36) no less than ten (10) days before beginning each operation at a new location. The form must be sent to the appropriate Ecology regional office for where the site and operation is located. The Permittee must also complete requirements for new discharges (S12.A.2 and S12.A.3) if the new location will have a discharge to surface waters. 2. Upon completion of the portable operation, the Permittee must restore all areas affected by the operation in accordance with the “Site Restoration” portion of the “Notice of Intent to Begin Operations” form (ECY 070-36) submitted to Ecology prior to beginning operations. Site restoration must include:

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 36

a. Cleaning up, or otherwise preventing the discharge of, any pollutant (including spilled petroleum products) to waters of the state. b. Stabilizing all areas affected by activities associated with the portable operation with a permanent vegetative cover or equivalent permanent stabilization measure (crushed rock surfacing, rip rap, etc.) which will prevent erosion. 3. The Permittee must submit a completed and signed “Portable Facility Notice of Completion of Portable Operations” form (ECY 070-30) to the Water Quality Permit Coordinator at the appropriate Ecology regional office when it has completed the following:

a. All activities associated with the portable operation have ceased. b. All equipment associated with the operation has been removed. c. All land affected by the portable operation has been restored in accordance with S12.E.

C. Permit Coverage Timeline 1. Unless Ecology notifies the applicant in writing to the contrary, coverage under this general permit will begin on the later of the following: a. The thirty-first (31st) day after Ecology receives the completed application. b. The thirty-first (31st) day after the end of a thirty (30) day public comment period. c. The effective date of the general permit. 2. If the application is incomplete, an appeal has been filed, public comments have been received, or more information is necessary to determine whether a facility requires coverage under the general permit, additional time may be required to review the application. When additional time is required, Ecology will: a. Notify the applicant in writing and identify the issues that must be resolved before a decision can be reached. b. Send the final decision to the applicant in writing. If the application is approved, coverage begins the thirty-first (31st) day after approval. 3. If the applicant has an individual permit but applies for coverage under the general permit, the individual permit will remain in effect until terminated in writing by Ecology. However, an expired individual permit, pursuant to WAC 173-220-180(5), will terminate upon coverage by the general permit.

D. Reporting Change in Operating Status 1. Any facility that changes operating status from active to inactive, or inactive to active, must submit an “Activity Status Change Form” (ECY 070-33) to Ecology as follows: a. If the change is from inactive to active, the form must be submitted no less than ten (10) days before the change. b. If the change is from active to inactive, the form must be submitted no later than ten (10) days after the change.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 37

2. The failure to accurately report changes in operating status is a permit violation. 3. Non-portable facilities are considered nonoperating for fee purposes if they conduct their activities for less than ninety cumulative days during a calendar year. 4. Non-portable asphalt and/or concrete producing facilities are considered nonoperating for fee purposes if they do not produce any asphalt and/or concrete during the calendar year. Nonoperating sites that become active for only concrete and/or asphalt production will be assessed a prorated fee for the actual time inactive. 5. Portable facilities must commit to being shut down for a minimum of twelve calendar months before the status can be changed to nonoperating for fee purposes.

E. Terminating Coverage A Permittee may request termination (cancellation) of permit coverage for a closed site by submitting a “Change Request Form” (ECY 070-32). In addition to discontinuing all activities at the site, the Permittee must complete restoration of the site.

1. A mining site is considered restored when DNR has completely released the reclamation bond or the site has been reclaimed to the satisfaction of the Ecology permit manager and local jurisdiction, if required. If the site is not subject to Department of Natural Resources reclamation, the mining site is considered restored when the site has been reclaimed to the satisfaction of the Ecology permit manager and local jurisdiction, if required. 2. Processing sites (includes concrete and asphalt batch operations) are considered restored when processing equipment has been removed and the Ecology permit manager determines the site has been returned to an appropriate condition. 3. Permittees that operated a portable facility at one or more locations in Washington State may terminate statewide permit coverage if the Permittee is in compliance with S12.B.2 at all sites where they have operated a portable facility under this permit. 4. If the Permittee is prohibited by law from accessing the site to complete site restoration, the Permittee may request termination by submitting to Ecology a “Change Request Form” (ECY 070-32) along with documentation of the Permittee’s inability to access the site. 5. Permittees must comply with all conditions, including fee payment, in this permit until Ecology terminates permit coverage.

F. Transferring Permit Coverage A Permittee may request a transfer of permit coverage by submitting a “Change Request Form” (ECY 070-32). See condition G19.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 38

GENERAL CONDITIONS G1. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS

A. All applications must be signed and certified. 1. In the case of corporations, by a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of this section, a responsible corporate officer means: a. A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy- or decision making functions for the corporation. b. Or, the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. 2. In the case of a partnership, by a general partner. 3. In the case of sole proprietorship, by the proprietor. 4. In the case of a municipal, state, or other public facility, by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. Applications for permits for domestic wastewater facilities that are either owned or operated by, or under contract to, a public entity must be submitted by the public entity. B. All reports required by this permit and other information requested by Ecology must be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: 1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to Ecology. 2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position.) C. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph B.2 above is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph B.2 above must be submitted to Ecology prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative.

D. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section must make the following certification: I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. G2. DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS

All discharges and activities authorized by this general permit must be consistent with the terms and conditions of this general permit. The discharge of any pollutants more frequently than, or at a concentration in excess of, that authorized by this permit constitutes a violation of the terms and conditions of this permit. G3. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The Permittee must at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of collection, treatment, and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee for pollution control. G4. REDUCED PRODUCTION FOR COMPLIANCE

The Permittee, in order to maintain compliance with their general permit coverage, must control production and/or all discharges upon reduction, loss, failure, or bypass of the treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails. G5. BYPASS PROCEDURES

Bypass, which is the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility, is prohibited, and Ecology may take enforcement action against a Permittee for bypass unless one of the following circumstances (1, 2, or 3) is applicable.

A. Bypass for Essential Maintenance without the Potential to Cause Violation of Permit Limits or Conditions. Bypass is authorized if it is for essential maintenance and does not have the potential to cause violations of limitations or other conditions of this permit, or adversely impact public health as determined by Ecology prior to the bypass. The Permittee must submit prior notice, if possible, at least ten (10) days before the date of the bypass.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 40

B. Bypass which is Unavoidable, Unanticipated, and Results in Noncompliance of this Permit. This bypass is permitted only if: 1. Bypass is unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. “Severe property damage” means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. 2. There are no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, stopping production, maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime (but not if adequate backup equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance), or transport of untreated wastes to another treatment facility. 3. Ecology is properly notified of the bypass as required in condition S10.E of this permit. C. Bypass Which is Anticipated and has the Potential to Result in Noncompliance of this Permit. The Permittee must notify Ecology at least thirty (30) days before the planned date of bypass. The notice must contain: (1) a description of the bypass and its cause; (2) an analysis of all known alternatives which would eliminate, reduce, or mitigate the need for bypassing; (3) a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives including comparative resource damage assessment; (4) the minimum and maximum duration of bypass under each alternative; (5) a recommendation as to the preferred alternative for conducting the bypass; (6) the projected date of bypass initiation; (7) a statement of compliance with SEPA; (8) a request for modification of water quality standards as provided for in WAC 173-201A-410, if an exceedance of any water quality standard is anticipated; and (9) steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. For probable construction bypasses, the need to bypass is to be identified as early in the planning process as possible. The analysis required above must be considered during preparation of the engineering report or facilities plan and plans and specifications and must be included to the extent practical. In cases where the probable need to bypass is determined early, continued analysis is necessary up to and including the construction period in an effort to minimize or eliminate the bypass. Ecology will consider the following prior to issuing an administrative order for this type bypass: 1. If the bypass is necessary to perform construction or maintenance-related activities essential to meet the requirements of this permit. 2. If there are feasible alternatives to bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, stopping production, maintenance during normal periods of equipment down time, or transport of untreated wastes to another treatment facility. 3. If the bypass is planned and scheduled to minimize adverse effects on the public and the environment. After consideration of the above and the adverse effects of the proposed bypass and any other relevant factors, Ecology will approve or deny the request. The public must be notified and

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 41

given an opportunity to comment on bypass incidents of significant duration, to the extent feasible. Approval of a request to bypass will be by administrative order issued by Ecology under RCW 90.48.120. G6. RIGHT OF INSPECTION AND ENTRY

The Permittee must allow an authorized representative of Ecology, upon the presentation of credentials and such other documents as may be required by law:

A. To enter upon the premises where a discharge is located or where any records must be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit. B. To have access to and copy – at reasonable times and at reasonable cost – any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit. C. To inspect – at reasonable times – any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, methods, or operations regulated or required under this permit. D. To sample or monitor – at reasonable times – any substances or parameters at any location for purposes of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act. G7. [RESERVED]

G8. NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COVERED ACTIVITIES

The Permittee must submit a new application for coverage whenever facility alterations (including expansions), production increases, or process modifications are anticipated that will:

A. Result in new or substantially changed discharges of pollutants; or B. Violate the terms and conditions of this permit. This new application for coverage must be submitted at least 60 days prior to the proposed changes. Submission of the application for coverage does not relieve the Permittee of the duty to comply with the existing permit. G9. PERMIT COVERAGE REVOKED

Pursuant with Chapter 43.21B RCW and Chapter 173-226 WAC, the Director may require any discharger authorized by this permit to apply for and obtain coverage under an individual permit or another more specific and appropriate general permit. Cases where revocation of coverage may be required include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Violation of any term or condition of this permit; B. Obtaining coverage under this permit by misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts; C. A change in any condition that requires a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge; D. Failure or refusal of the Permittee to allow entry as required in RCW 90.48.090;

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 42

E. A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the environment, or contributes to water quality standards violations; F. Nonpayment of permit fees or penalties assessed pursuant to RCW 90.48.465 and Chapter 173-224 WAC; G. Failure of the Permittee to satisfy the public notice requirements of WAC 173-226130(5), when applicable; or H. Incorporation of an approved local pretreatment program into a municipality’s permit. Permittees that have their coverage revoked for cause according to WAC 173-226-240 may request temporary coverage under this permit during the time an individual permit is being developed, provided the request is made within ninety (90) days from the time of revocation and is submitted along with a complete individual permit application form. G10. GENERAL PERMIT MODIFICATION AND REVOCATION

This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 173-226 WAC. Grounds for modification or revocation and reissuance include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. When a change occurs in the technology or practices for control or abatement of pollutants applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this permit; B. When effluent limitation guidelines or standards are promulgated pursuant to the FWPCA or Chapter 90.48 RCW, for the category of dischargers covered under this permit; C. When a water quality management plan containing requirements applicable to the category of dischargers covered under this permit is approved; or D. When information is obtained that indicates the cumulative effects on the environment from dischargers covered under this permit are unacceptable. G11. REPORTING A CAUSE FOR MODIFICATION

A Permittee who knows, or has reason to believe, any activity has occurred or will occur which would constitute cause for modification or revocation under Condition G10, or 40 CFR 122.62, must report such plans, or such information, to Ecology so that a decision can be made on whether action to modify coverage or revoke coverage under this permit will be required. Ecology may then require submission of a new application for coverage under this, or another general permit, or an application for an individual permit. Submission of a new application does not relieve the Permittee of the duty to comply with all the terms and conditions of the existing permit until the new application for coverage has been approved and corresponding permit has been issued. G12. TOXIC POLLUTANTS

The Permittee must comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or prohibitions, even if this permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 43

G13. OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF 40 CFR

All other requirements of 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this general permit by reference. G14. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND STATUTES

Nothing in this permit excuses the Permittee from compliance with any applicable Federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations. G15. ADDITIONAL MONITORING

Ecology may establish additional specific monitoring requirements, including the installation of groundwater monitoring wells, by administrative order or permit modification. G16. PAYMENT OF FEES

The Permittee must submit payment of fees associated with this permit as assessed by Ecology. Ecology may revoke this permit or take enforcement, collection, or other actions, if the permit fees established under Chapter 173-224 WAC are not paid. G17. REMOVED SUBSTANCES

Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters must not be resuspended or reintroduced to the final effluent stream for discharge to State waters. G18. REQUESTS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE UNDER A GENERAL

PERMIT

Any discharger authorized by this permit may request to be excluded from coverage under this general permit by applying for an individual permit. The discharger must submit to the Director an application as described in WAC 173-220-040 or WAC 173-216-070, whichever is applicable, with reasons supporting the request. The Director will either issue G18 G21

an individual permit or deny the request with a statement explaining the reason for the denial. When an individual permit is issued to a discharger otherwise subject to this general permit, the applicability of this general permit to that Permittee is automatically terminated on the effective date of the individual permit. G19. PERMIT TRANSFER

A. Coverage under this permit is automatically transferred to a new owner or operator if: 1. The Permittee notifies Ecology at least 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 44

2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new Permittees containing a specific date transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them. 3. Ecology does not notify the existing Permittee and the proposed new Permittee of its intent to modify or revoke coverage under this permit. B. Unless permit coverage is automatically transferred according to Section A above, this permit coverage may be transferred only if it is modified to identify the new Permittee and to incorporate such other requirements as determined necessary by Ecology. C. When a current Permittee transfers control or ownership of a portion of a permitted site to another person, the current Permittee must also submit an application to Ecology per G8. G20. DUTY TO REAPPLY

The Permittee must reapply for coverage under this permit, at least, one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the specified expiration date of this permit.

To reapply for coverage the Permittee must submit an application electronically using Ecology’s Water Quality Permitting Portal – Permit Coverage Notice of Intent (NOI) renewal application, unless the applicant applies for and receives an Electronic Reporting Waiver from Ecology. Applicants that have received a waiver from Ecology must submit a completed and signed renewal application to the appropriate regional Ecology office.

An expired permit continues in force and effect until a new permit is issued or until Ecology cancels it. Only those facilities which have reapplied for coverage under this permit are covered under the continued permit. G21. UPSET

Definition – “Upset” means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.

An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of the following paragraph are met.

A Permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset must demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs or other relevant evidence that: 1) an upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset; 2) the permitted facility was being properly operated at the time of the upset; 3) the Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in condition S10.E) the Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under G30 of this permit.

In any enforcement proceedings the Permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 45

G22. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING PERMIT CONDITIONS

Any person who is found guilty of willfully violating the terms and conditions of this permit is guilty of a crime, and upon conviction thereof may be punished by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and costs of prosecution, or by imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Each day upon which a willful violation occurs may be deemed a separate and additional violation.

Any person who violates the terms and conditions of a waste discharge permit incurs, in addition to any other penalty as provided by law, a civil penalty in the amount of up to ten thousand dollars for every such violation. Each and every such violation is a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation, every day’s continuance is a separate and distinct violation. G23. APPEALS

The terms and conditions of this general permit, as they apply to the appropriate class of dischargers, are subject to appeal by any person within 30 days of issuance of this general permit, in accordance with Chapter 43.21B RCW, and Chapter 173-226 WAC.

The terms and conditions of this general permit, as they apply to an individual discharger, are appealable in accordance with Chapter 43.21B RCW within 30 days of the effective date of coverage of that discharger. Consideration of an appeal of general permit coverage of an individual discharger is limited to the general permit’s applicability or nonapplicability to that individual discharger.

The appeal of general permit coverage of an individual discharger does not affect any other dischargers covered under this general permit. If the terms and conditions of this general permit are found to be inapplicable to any individual discharger(s), the matter will be remanded to Ecology for consideration of issuance of an individual permit or permits. G24. SEVERABILITY

The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this general permit or application of any provision of this general permit to any circumstance is held invalid, the G24 G29

application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this general permit, will not be affected thereby. G25. PROPERTY RIGHTS

This permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. G26. DUTY TO COMPLY

The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 46

G27. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING

The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit will, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this Condition, punishment will be a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than four (4) years, or by both.

Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or non-compliance, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, by imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation, or by both fine and imprisonment. G28. REPORTING ANTICIPATED NON-COMPLIANCE

The Permittee must give advance notice to Ecology by submission of a new application or supplement thereto at least one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to commencement of such discharges, of any facility expansions, production increases, or other planned changes, such as process modifications, in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit limits or conditions. Any maintenance of facilities, which might necessitate unavoidable interruption of operation and degradation of effluent quality, must be scheduled during non- critical water quality periods and carried out in a manner approved by Ecology. G29. REPORTING OTHER INFORMATION

Where the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to Ecology, such facts or information must be submitted promptly.

G30 G30

G30. DUTY TO MITIGATE

The Permittee is required to take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 47

Appendix A —NAICS Codes, Ecology Codes, SIC Numbers, and Descriptions for Facilities Covered under This Permit

The coverage provided in this general permit is limited to the specific activities identified in Condition S1. This appendix provides:

• Additional information about the North American Classification System. • Corresponding Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes. • References to 40 CFR Part 436, Mineral Mining and Processing Point Source Category. • References to 40 CFR Part 443, Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Existing Sources and Standards of Performance and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources for the Paving and Roofing Materials (Tars and Asphalt) Point Source Category. • Descriptions of the activities listed in Table 1.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy.

NAICS was developed under the auspices of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and adopted in 1997 to replace the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. It was developed jointly by the U.S. Economic Classification Policy Committee (ECPC), Statistics Canada, and Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica, to allow for a high level of comparability in business statistics among the North American countries.

This official U.S. Government website http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ provides the latest information on plans for NAICS revisions, as well as access to various NAICS reference files and tools.

The official 2012 U.S. NAICS Manual, includes definitions for each industry, background information, tables showing changes between 2007 and 2012, and a comprehensive index. The official 2012 U.S. NAICS Manual is available in print and on CD_ROM from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at (800) 553- 6847 or (703) 605-6000, or through the NTIS website. Previous versions of the NAICS Manual are available.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 48

NAICS/Ecology Codes and Descriptions for Activities Covered by the Sand and Gravel General Permit NAICS/Ecology Code SIC Number CFR Reference Description

113110 Timber Tract Operations 0811 Timber Tracts (long Coverage for timber tracts and logging activities is limited to (Rock crushing and/or gravel term timber farms) those mining activities associated with the forestry industry washing facilities associated that classify as silvicultural point source. A silvicultural point with silvicultural point sources) source applies only to the production of materials for use in forest management. For this industry, covered activities are limited to rock crushing or gravel washing facilities that use a 113310 Logging (Rock crushing 2411 Logging discernible, confined and discrete conveyance to discharge and/or gravel washing facilities pollutants to waters of the state. associated with silvicultural point sources)

212311 Dimension Stone Mining 1411 Dimension Stone 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for mining and quarrying of dimension and Quarrying Subpart A–Dimension stone, including rough blocks and slabs. The types of mines Stone Subcategory or quarries covered included in this category for this permit are: basalt, diabase, diorite, dolomite, dolomitic marble, flagstone, gabbro, gneiss, granite, limestone, marble, quartzite, sandstone, serpentine, slate, and volcanic rock. 212312 Crushed and Broken 1422 Crushed and Broken 40 CFR Part 436 Limestone Mining and Quarrying Limestone Subpart B–Crushed Coverage is provided for mining, quarrying, and on-site processing of crushed and broken limestone or riprap Stone Subcategory (including related rocks, such as dolomite, cement rock, marl, travertine, and calcareous tufa). Processing means washing, screening, crushing, or otherwise preparing rock material for use. The types of mines or quarries included in this category are: limestone, calcareous tufa, chalk, dolomite, lime rock, marl, and travertine.

212313 Crushed and Broken 1423 Crushed and Broken 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for mining, quarrying, and on-site Granite Mining and Quarrying Granite Subpart B–Crushed processing of crushed and broken granite (including related Stone Subcategory rocks, such as gneiss, syenite, and diorite).

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 49

NAICS/Ecology Code SIC Number CFR Reference Description

212319 Other Crushed and 1429 Crushed and Broken 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for developing the mine site and, or Broken Stone Mining and Stone, Not Elsewhere Subpart B–Crushed mining or quarrying crushed and broken stone (except Quarrying Classified Stone Subcategory limestone and granite); preparation plants primarily engaged in grinding and pulverizing stone (except limestone and granite); and for mining or quarrying bituminous limestone 1499 Miscellaneous and bituminous sandstone. Nonmetallic Minerals,

Except Fuels (bituminous Activities associated with SIC 1429 include mining or limestone and bituminous quarrying crushed and broken stone, not elsewhere sandstone) classified. The types of mines or quarries included in this category are: basalt, dolomitic marble, gabbro, ganister, grits, marble, mica schist, onyx marble, quartzite, non-bituminous sandstone, serpentine, slate, tap rock, and volcanic rock.

Activities associated with SIC 1499 include mining, quarrying, milling, or otherwise preparing nonmetallic minerals, except fuels. The types of mines or quarries included in this category are: bitumens (native mining), bituminous limestone, and bituminous sandstone. 212321 Construction Sand and 1442 Construction Sand 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for mining and on-site processing of Gravel Mining and Gravel Subpart C– sand and gravel for construction or fill purposes. Processing Construction Sand means washing, screening, crushing, or otherwise preparing and Gravel sand and gravel for construction uses. Subcategory 212322 Industrial Sand Mining 1446 Industrial Sand 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for mining and on-site processing of Subpart D–Industrial sand for uses other than construction, including but not Sand Subcategory limited to glassmaking, molding, filtration, refractories, refractory bonding, and abrasives. Processing employing a HF flotation method is not covered by this general permit.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 50

NAICS/Ecology Code SIC Number CFR Reference Description

212324 Kaolin and Ball Clay 1455 Kaolin and Ball Clay 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for the mining and on-site processing Mining Subpart AG–Kaolin of kaolin, ball clay, china clay, paper clay, and slip clay. Subcategory

40 CFR Part 436 Subpart AH–Ball Clay Subcategory 212325 Clay and Ceramic and 1459 Clay, Ceramic, and 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for the mining and on-site processing Refractory Minerals Mining Refractory Minerals, NEC Subpart V–Bentonite of bentonite. Subcategory

Coverage is provided for the mining and on-site processing 40 CFR Part 436 of clays and refractory minerals. Mines operated in Subpart AD–Shale conjunction with plants manufacturing cement, brick, or other and Common Clay structural clay products are included in this industry. Establishments engaged in grinding, pulverizing, or otherwise Subcategory treating clay, ceramic and refractory minerals not in conjunction with mining or quarrying operations are not included in this general permit. 212399 All Other Nonmetallic 1499 Miscellaneous 40 CFR Part 436 Coverage is provided for mining, quarrying, and on-site Mineral Mining Nonmetallic Minerals, Subpart H– processing of perlite, pumice, or vermiculite. Except Fuels (except Lightweight bituminous limestone and Aggregates Coverage is provided for mining and on-site processing of bituminous sandstone) Subcategory diatomite or diatomaceous earth.

40 CFR Part 436 Activities associated with SIC 1499 include mining, quarrying, Subpart X–Diatomite milling, or otherwise preparing nonmetallic minerals, except Subcategory fuels. The types of mines or quarries included in this category are: calcite, diatomaceous earth, diatomite, fill dirt, graphite, gypsite, gypsum, mica, millstone, perlite, pumice, soapstone, talc, and other nonmetallic minerals. 324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture 2951 Asphalt Paving 40 CFR Part 443 Coverage is provided for hot mix asphalt plants. and Block Manufacturing Mixtures and Blocks Subpart B–Asphalt Concrete Subcategory Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 51

NAICS/Ecology Code SIC Number CFR Reference Description

327320 Ready-Mix Concrete 3273 Ready-Mixed Coverage is provided for facilities engaged in manufacturing Manufacturing Concrete Portland concrete delivered to a purchaser in a plastic and unhardened state. This includes production and sale of central-mixed concrete and portable ready-mixed concrete.

Ecology considers the acceptance of returned concrete (i.e. comeback concrete) and the formation of ecology blocks from returned concrete as accessory uses under this NAICS code. 327331 Concrete Block and 3271 Concrete Block and Coverage is provided for facilities engaged in manufacturing Brick Manufacturing Brick concrete blocks and bricks. This includes concrete: architectural block, patio block, plinth blocks, recast concrete block and bricks, and permeable pavers.

327332 Concrete Pipe 3272 Concrete Products, Coverage is provided for facilities engaged in manufacturing Manufacturing Except Block and Brick concrete pipe. This includes concrete: conduits, culvert pipe, (concrete pipe) irrigation pipe, pressure pipe, and sewer pipe.

327390 Other Concrete Product 3272 Concrete Products, Coverage is provided for facilities engaged in manufacturing Manufacturing Except Block and Brick concrete products (except block, brick, and pipe). This (concrete products, except includes concrete: furniture, vaults, tanks, girders, beams, dry mix concrete and pipe) statuary, poles, roofing tile, and ties.

327999 All Other Miscellaneous 3272 Concrete Products, Coverage is provided for facilities engaged in manufacturing Nonmetallic Mineral Product Except Block and Brick nonmetallic mineral products not covered by other NAICS Manufacturing (dry mixture concrete) codes. This includes dry mix concrete manufacturing.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 52

NAICS/Ecology Code SIC Number CFR Reference Description

ECY001 Asphalt Recycling The processing (including, but not limited to, crushing, fracturing, sorting, storing, stockpiling, grading, and washing) of hardened asphalt (not including asphalt roofing products) to produce a reusable product.

Sites only storing or stockpiling hardened asphalt, and not otherwise crushing or processing the material are not subject to coverage under this permit unless they conduct additional activities requiring coverage under this permit. ECY002 Concrete Recycling The processing (including, but not limited to, crushing, fracturing, sorting, storing, stockpiling, grading, and washing) of hardened structural concrete to produce a reusable concrete product.

Sites only storing or stockpiling hardened structural concrete, and not otherwise crushing or processing the material are not subject to coverage under this permit unless they conduct additional activities requiring coverage under this permit.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page 53

APPENDIX B — DEFINITIONS

These definitions are for terms that are used, or relate, to this permit. Defined terms appear in italics the first time they appear in the permit.

10-year, 24-hour Precipitation Event means the maximum 24 hour precipitation event with a probable reoccurrence interval of once in 10 years.

40 CFR means Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal government.

Active Site means a location where current mining (including site preparation and reclamation) or processing operations (including, but not limited to, crushing, classifying, or operating a concrete or hot mix asphalt plant) or stockpiles associated with current mining or processing operations, are located.

AKART is an acronym for “all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention, control, and treatment.” AKART represents the most current methodology that can be reasonably required for preventing, controlling, or abating the pollutants and controlling pollution associated with a discharge.

Application means a formal request for coverage, renewal of coverage, or modification of coverage, under this general permit using the electronic or paper form(s) developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology for that purpose. Also called a Notice of Intent (NOI). Ecology has developed multiple application forms for specific conditions (e.g. applications for portable facilities versus non- portable facilities, applications for coverage modifications due to significant process changes). Links to the appropriate application forms are available on Ecology’s website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/sand/index.html. The application forms are also available by request from Ecology’s regional offices.

Applicable TMDL means a TMDL for turbidity, fine sediment or high pH which was completed and approved by EPA prior to the later effective date of this permit, or modification, or the date the operator’s complete application is received by Ecology.

Average Monthly Effluent Limit means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month. To calculate the discharge value to compare to the limit, you add the value of each daily discharge measured during a calendar month and divide this sum by the total number of daily discharges measured.

Average Quarterly Effluent Limit means the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a quarter (3 months). To calculate the discharge value to compare to the limit, add the value of each daily discharge measured during a quarter and divide this sum by the total number of daily discharges measured.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – general definition means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/or managerial practices to Sand and Gravel General Permit Page A

prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the state. BMPs include treatment systems, operating procedures, and practices used to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, and drainage from raw material storage. In this permit BMPs are further categorized as operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment.

Bypass means the diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.

Capital BMPs means the following improvements that will require capital expenditures:

1. Treatment BMPs, including but not limited to: biofiltration systems including constructed wetlands, settling basins, oil separation equipment, impoundments, and detention and retention basins. 2. Manufacturing modifications, including process changes for source reduction, if capital expenditures for such modifications are incurred. 3. Concrete pads and dikes and appropriate pumping for collection of stormwater, process water or mine dewatering water and transfer to control systems from manufacturing areas such as loading, unloading, outside processing, fueling and storage of chemicals and equipment and wastes. 4. Roofs and appropriate covers for storage and handling areas. Clean Water Act (CWA) means the Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, and 97-117; USC 1251 et seq.

Closed Site means a location where all activities associated with permit coverage have been terminated with no intent to return to operation in the future.

Concrete Recycling means the processing (including, but not limited to, crushing, fracturing, sorting, storing, stockpiling, grading, and washing) of hardened structural concrete to produce a reusable concrete product.

Constructed Wetland means wetlands intentionally created for the primary purpose of wastewater or stormwater treatment and managed as such. Constructed wetlands are normally considered as part of the stormwater collection and treatment system. Wetlands constructed for treatment of stormwater are not be eligible for use as compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts to regulated wetland systems.

Critical Flows means the lowest receiving water flows at the time wastewater discharges occur. For process wastewater discharges which discharge from the site throughout the year, this is typically midsummer flow. For stormwater discharges this is the receiving water flow when significant stormwater begins to discharge from the site, typically early fall.

Current EPA-approved 303(d) list means the list which is in effect on the effective date of this permit, or the 303(d) list which is in effect at the date the Permittee’s first application for coverage is received by Ecology, whichever is later.

Design Storm means the precipitation event that is used to design stormwater facilities, e.g. 10year, 24-hour storm event. Refer to Ecology’s Stormwater Management Manual for specific information on requirements for determining design storm volume and flow rate appropriate for designing stormwater treatment systems. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page B

Design Storm Volume means the volume of runoff predicted to occur from a specified storm event. The storm event includes a time interval (e.g. 24-hours) and frequency (e.g. 10-year).

Volume-based treatment BMPs use the design storm volume as their design basis. Refer to the Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for storm event and additional information. Director means the Director of the Washington Department of Ecology or his/her authorized representative.

Discharge to Groundwater means the discharge of water into an unlined impoundment or onto the surface of the ground that allows the discharged water to percolate, or potentially percolate, to groundwater. Discharge to groundwater, discharge to land, and discharge to ground all have the same meaning.

Discharger means an owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to regulation under Chapter 90.48 RCW or the Federal Clean Water Act.

Discharge Point means the location where a discharge leaves the Permittee’s facility. Discharge point also includes the location where a discharge enters the ground on-site (e.g., through a Permittee’s treatment facilities/BMPs designed to infiltrate).

Disturbed Area means any area where activity has physically disrupted, compacted, moved, or otherwise altered the characteristics of soil, bedrock, vegetation, or existing topography. This includes activity in preparation for: a) surface mining, b) the construction of structures or, c) mobilization of processing equipment. Stormwater discharge from disturbed areas is considered Type 2 Stormwater.

Electronic Waiver Request means permission from Ecology to submit paper applications, submittals, and DMRs instead of submitting them electronically. Permittees must submit a completed “Electronic Waiver Request” form (ECY 070-381) to receive a waiver. Ecology typically only grants Electronic Waivers to permittees that do not have a computer, printer, or internet connection.

Equivalent Stormwater Management Documents means manuals of BMPs approved by Ecology and subject to public review and comment.

Erosion means the wearing away of the land surface by precipitation, running water, ice, wind or other geological agents, including processes such as gravitational creep. Erosion also means the detachment and movement of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice or gravity. Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs means BMPs intended to prevent erosion and sedimentation, such as preserving natural vegetation, seeding, mulching and matting, plastic covering, filter fences, and sediment traps and ponds. Erosion and sediment control BMPs are synonymous with stabilization and structural BMPs.

Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) means a document that describes the potential for erosion and sedimentation problems and explains and illustrates the measures to be taken to control those problems.

Existing Facility means a facility that begins activities that result in a discharge, or a potential discharge to waters of the state, prior to the effective date of the general permit.

Final Stabilization means completion of all soil disturbing activities at the site and establishment of a permanent vegetative cover, or installation of equivalent permanent stabilization measures (such as Sand and Gravel General Permit Page C

riprap, gabions or geotextiles) that will prevent erosion. gpm means gallons per minute; the volume of fluid passing a point during a one minute interval.

Groundwater means water in a saturated zone or stratum beneath the land surface or a surface water body.

Groundwater Discharges – If water puddles/collects and discharges to ground at multiple locations on site, it is unlikely that all locations must be sampled. Consider the source of the water. If all the water is coming from a gravel stockpile area it is likely that just one sampling point is required. However, if some discharge points receive runoff from a gravel stockpile area and others receiving water from a concrete batch area, two sample points are probably necessary.

Hot Mix Asphalt Plant means a plant that blends together aggregate and asphalt cement to produce a hot, homogeneous asphalt paving mixture. The term includes batch plants, continuous mix plants, and drum mix plants.

Impoundment means a location designed to or used purposely to infiltrate. The area behind a check dam is not considered an impoundment.

Inactive Site means a location where 1) previous mining or processing operations (including, but not limited to, crushing, classifying, or operating a concrete or hot mix asphalt plant) has occurred; and has not been closed and restored; and 2) has no current mining or processing operations but may include stockpiles of raw materials or finished products; and 3) the Permittee has submitted an Operating Status Change Form (ECY 070-33) declaring the site inactive. The Permittee may add or withdraw raw materials or finished products from the stockpiles for transportation off site for processing, use, or sale and still be considered an inactive site, however monitoring may be required.

Inert means nonreactive, nondangerous solid materials that are likely to retain their physical and chemical structure under expected conditions of use or disposal.

Leachate means water or other liquid that has percolated through raw material, product, or waste and contains substances in solution or suspension as a result of the contact with these materials.

Local Government means any county, city, or town having its own government for local affairs.

Major Modification of Coverage means a change of operation at a facility that is not a Minor Modification. Public notice is required for this modification.

Maximum Daily Effluent Limit means the highest allowable daily discharge. The daily discharge means the discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day. For pollutants with limits expressed in units of mass, the daily discharge is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For other units of measurement, the daily discharge is the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. This does not apply to pH.

Mine Dewatering Water means any water that is impounded or that collects in the mine and is pumped, drained, or otherwise removed from the mine through the efforts of the mine operator. This term must also include wet pit overflows caused solely by direct rainfall and groundwater seepage. However, if a mine is used for treatment of process generated waste water, discharges of commingled water from the mine must be deemed discharges of process generated water. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page D

Minor Modification of Coverage means a change of operation at a facility that does not substantially change the volume or nature of pollutants. No public notice or new Application for Coverage is required for this modification.

Municipality means a political unit such as a city, town, or county, incorporated for local self government.

NAICS means North American Industry Classification System.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking, and reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the Federal Clean Water Act, for the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the state from point sources. These permits are referred to as NPDES permits and, in Washington State, are administered by the Washington Department of Ecology.

Natural Conditions means surface water quality that was present before any human-caused pollution. When estimating natural conditions in the headwaters of a disturbed watershed it may be necessary to use the less disturbed conditions of a neighboring or similar watershed as a reference condition.

New Facility means a facility which begins activities that result in a discharge, or a potential discharge to waters of the state, on or after the effective date of this general permit. Non-Delegated POTW means a POTW which has not been delegated to issue permits for industrial dischargers to its system. Ecology is the permitting authority for non-delegated POTWs.

Nonoperating means an inactive site that has reduced fees per WAC 173-224.

NTU means Nephelometric Turbidity Units, a measure of turbidity.

Outfall means a point where a discharge from a facility enters a receiving waterbody or receiving waters. pH – The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral and large variations above or below this value are harmful to most aquatic life.

Point Source means any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, and container from which pollutants are or may be discharged to waters of the state. This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture.

Pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste. This term does not include sewage from vessels within the meaning of section 312 of the FWPCA, nor does it include dredged or fill material discharged in accordance with a permit issued under section 404 of the FWPCA.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page E

Pollution means contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical, or biological properties of waters of the state, including change in temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters; or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive or other substance into any waters of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to the public health, safety or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other aquatic life.

Portable Facility means a specific portable concrete batch plant, portable asphalt batch plant, or portable rock crusher.

POTW means publically-owned treatment works. This is a sewage treatment plant and the collection system (40 CFR 122.2).

Process Water means any water that is used for or results from the production, clean-up, or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product. The term also means any waste water used in or results from the slurry transport of mined material, air emissions control, or processing exclusive of mining.

Receiving Water means the waterbody at the point of discharge. If the discharge is to a stormwater conveyance system, either surface or subsurface, the receiving water is the waterbody that the stormwater conveyance system discharges to. Systems designed primarily for other purposes such as for groundwater drainage, redirecting stream natural flows, or for conveyance of irrigation water/return flows that coincidentally convey stormwater are considered the receiving water.

Reclamation means the rehabilitation of disturbed areas resulting from surface or underground mining; typically per a Department of Natural Resources Reclamation plan.

Representative Sampling means collecting an array of samples to accurately represent the nature of the discharge for parameters of concern. Many factors contribute to variability of pollutants in a discharge including quantity of water, time and date of sampling, and physical events and location of discharge.

Returned asphalt means hot mix asphalt that was brought back to the hot mix asphalt plant after being sent to a job site. Returned asphalt does not include asphalt that was installed and allowed to cool.

Sanitary Sewer means a sewer designed to convey domestic wastewater.

Sediment means the fragmented material that originates from the weathering and erosion of rocks or unconsolidated deposits and is transported by, suspended in, or deposited by water.

Sedimentation means the depositing or formation of sediment.

SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) means the Washington State Law, RCW 43.21C.020, intended to prevent or eliminate damage to the environment.

Severe Property Damage means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which would cause them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page F

Significant Process Change means a change in the nature of discharge with respect to increased volume and type or concentrations of pollutants. Examples include adding a batch plant at a site, etc.

Significant Amounts means those amounts of pollutants that are amenable to treatment or prevention or that have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of standards for surface or groundwater quality or sediment management.

Significant Materials includes, but is not limited to: raw materials; fuels; materials such as solvents and detergents; hazardous substances designated under section 101(14) of CERCLA; any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant to section 313 of title III of SARA; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste products such as ashes, slag, and sludge that have the potential to be released with stormwater or process water discharges.

Silvicultural Point Sources are timber tract and logging activities (SIC codes 0811 and 2411) that produce mined materials for use in forest management. Additionally, silvicultural point source activities are limited to rock crushing or gravel washing operations that use a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance to discharge pollutants to surface waters of the state. Site means the land or water area where any facility or activity is physically located or conducted.

Source Control BMPs means physical, structural, or mechanical devices or facilities intended to prevent pollutants from entering stormwater. A few examples of source control BMPs are erosion control practices, maintenance of stormwater facilities, construction of roofs over storage and working areas, and direction of wash water and similar discharges to the sanitary sewer or a dead end sump.

Stabilization means the application of appropriate BMPs to prevent the erosion of soils, such as temporary and permanent seeding, vegetative covers, mulching and matting, plastic covering, and sodding. See also the definition of Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs.

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) is the statistical classification standard underlying all establishment-based federal economic statistics classified by industry as reported in the 1987 SIC Manual by the Office of Management and Budget.

Storm Sewer means a sewer that is designed to carry stormwater. Also called a storm drain.

Stormwater means rainfall and snowmelt runoff.

Stormwater Drainage System means constructed and natural features that function together as a system to collect, convey, channel, hold, inhibit, retain, detain, infiltrate, or divert stormwater.

Stormwater Management Manuals (SWMM) means the most current edition57 of the technical manuals [Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW) and Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMMEW)] prepared by Ecology for use by local governments that contains BMPs to prevent, control, or treat pollution in stormwater.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) means a documented plan to implement measures to identify, prevent, and control the contamination of point source discharges of stormwater.

57 Most current edition at the date of permit issuance. Sand and Gravel General Permit Page G

Substantial Change (Requiring a new application for coverage) – Substantial change of discharge for this industry group will be any modification of the facility that would change the characteristics of the discharge or include for coverage a new activity that was not previously covered.

Surface Water Discharges – For all parameters required by this permit, a grab sample of instantaneous measurement will be considered representative. Stormwater sampling should occur within 24 hours of the initial discharge from a significant precipitation event (e.g. 0.25 inch/24 hr. precipitation event). Process water or mine dewatering water sampling should be timed to occur when the facility is operating at full capacity.

Surface Waters of the State includes lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, wetlands, inland waters, salt waters, and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.

Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) means a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet State water quality standards. Percentages of the total maximum daily load are allocated to the various pollutant sources. A TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. The TMDL calculations must include a "margin of safety" to ensure that the waterbody can be protected in case there are unforeseen events or unknown sources of the pollutant. The calculation must also account for seasonable variation in water quality. A TMDL is effective after EPA approval. TMDL as used in this permit includes alternative “direct to implementation plans”.

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) means those solids that are capable of passing through a glass fiber filter (1.0 – 1.5 µm) and dried to a constant weight at 180 degrees centigrade.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) is the particulate material in an effluent that does not pass through a glass fiber filter. Large quantities of TSS discharged to a receiving water may result in solids accumulation. Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the development of noxious conditions through oxygen depletion.

Treatment BMPs means BMPs intended to remove pollutants from stormwater. A few examples of treatment BMPs are detention ponds, oil/water separators, biofiltration, and constructed wetlands.

Turbidity means the clarity of water as expressed by nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and measured with a calibrated turbidimeter.

Type 1 Stormwater means stormwater from portions of a site where no industrial activities have occurred or from a site or area within a site that has been reclaimed and the reclamation bond portion thereof (if any) has been released.

Type 2 Stormwater means stormwater from: 1) portions of a site where mining has temporarily or permanently ceased; or 2) from portions of a site with exposed soils in areas cleared in preparation for mining or other industrial activity. When different types of stormwater commingle the water becomes the highest of the types which have commingled (i.e. when Type 1 and Type 2 stormwater commingle the stormwater becomes Type 2).

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page H

Type 3 Stormwater means stormwater discharges from:

1. Industrial plant yards; 2. Immediate access roads and rail lines used or traveled by carriers of raw materials, manufactured products, waste material, or by-products used or created by the facility; 3. Material handling sites; 4. Sites used for the storage and maintenance of material handling equipment; 5. Sites used for residual treatment, storage, or disposal; 6. Shipping and receiving areas; 7. Storage areas for raw materials or intermediate and finished products at active sites; and 8. Areas where industrial activity has taken place in the past and significant materials remain and are exposed to stormwater. USEPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Wasteload Allocation (WLA) means the portion of a receiving water’s loading capacity that is allocated to one of its existing or future point sources of pollution. WLAs constitute a type of water quality based effluent limitation (40 CFR 130.2(h)).

Wastewater means water or liquid carried waste from industrial or commercial processes. These wastes may result from any process or activity of industry, manufacture, trade or business, or from the development of any natural resource. Examples include, but are not limited to, process water, mine dewatering water, and industrial stormwater (type 2 and 3 stormwater).

Water Quality means the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water, normally with respect to its suitability for a particular purpose.

Waters of the State includes those waters as defined as “waters of the United States” in 40 CFR Subpart 122.2 within the geographic boundaries of Washington State and “waters of the state” as defined in Chapter 90.48 RCW. This includes groundwater, lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, wetlands, inland waters, salt waters and all other surface waters and water courses within the jurisdiction of the State of Washington.

Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) means the portion of a well’s, well field’s, or spring’s zone of contribution defined as such using WHPA criteria established by the Washington Department of Health.

Sand and Gravel General Permit Page I

Appendix B: Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan

Below is a description of the Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan that applies to the entire project site, expansion area included. The reclamation plan has been excerpted from the Plan of Operations; this can be found in the Project Record.

Swen Larsen Reclamation Plan

Reclamation is an integral and ongoing component of the operation. The final quarry face configuration will be blasted to create a talus slope or series of smaller scree slopes to match the high, non-forested cliff faces and talus slopes indigenous to landscape features near the quarry. A few small benches may remain after blasting. The final topography provides for a slope ratio of approximately 1:1.25 for the quarry face. The following measures will be taken:

• Remaining bench and vertical rock faces will not exceed 20’ high • Blasts will be strategically placed to match original topography/terrain in project vicinity

No setback will be established around the perimeter of the quarry site. The land shared with the Forest Service does not require a setback and the land shared with Weyerhaeuser is no longer undergoing mining activities, but solely reclamation efforts. Letters requesting a setback exemption and Weyerhaeuser’s approval to no setback have been included in the Surface Reclamation Permit. A setback is normally used as an area to preserve minerals and overburden for later use in reclamation efforts.58 A site internal to the quarry has been designated for storage of any materials to be used for site reclamation.

Remaining areas of the quarry site (non-quarry face) will be reclaimed segmentally through grading, erosion control, organic material enhancement, and revegetation. The stockpile and crushing level benches will be regraded and revegetated.

The mine floor will be bulldozed into gently rolling mounds including sinuous drainage channels to preclude sheet-flow erosion during intense precipitation. Material on the mine floor, as well as other compacted areas will be bulldozed, ripped or blasted to foster revegetation prior to application of soils.

An existing Surface Mining Reclamation Permit (NDR Permit No.70-012069) has been issued for the site, and includes documentation and details on post-quarrying activity reclamation measures and requirements. Specific measures included in the reclamation program are as follows:

58 Reclamation setback as defined by Chapter 78.44.031 (12) of the Revised Code of Washington.

Page A

• Majority of trees, removed during expansion, will first be set aside (if USFS owned) and based on US Forest Service approval will be chipped, stored on site, and spread over reclamation areas. Large wood will be used for slope stability and erosion control. • Natural debris (topsoil, organic material) from expanded mineral extraction activities would be stored on-site, mixed with waste rock and wood chips, and used as a revegetation medium.

The actions outlined above would be retained and expanded as needed to address the expansion of the quarry under the Proposed Action.

To date one area of the quarry has been reclaimed. Four additional reclamation areas (segments) are scheduled to be completed. Figure 7 provides a map of where the reclamation segments are located on the Swen Larsen site as well as the reclaimed area.

Page B

Figure 8: Swen Larsen Reclamation Segments Map

Page C

The reclamation schedule for the entire project site is estimated and based on operational considerations. A schedule is described in Table 5 below:

Table 5: Reclamation Planning Schedule Estimated Acreage Estimated Reclamation Process Estimated Reclamation Start Completion Segment

1 1.4 Summer In-sloping of road grades, organic Approximately 2017 material enhancement, 5 years from revegetation the estimated start date 2 3.4 Summer Erosion control, organic material Approximately 2018 enhancement, revegetation 5 years from phased from lower slope to haul the estimated road start date 3 3.6 Summer Bench retention and revegetation Approximately 2021 (includes organic material 5 years from enhancement) the estimated start date 4 23.71 End of Bench retention with Approximately mining revegetation and bench grading, 5 years post operations erosion control, organic material operation enhancement and revegetation, and reconstruction of the seasonal channel (if phase 2 of the 2-phase approach takes place)

Reclamation monitoring would occur annually at the site until an area has been deemed reclaimed by the appropriate agency. Reclamation monitoring would include an assessment of stormwater management, erosion control, and slope stability. Vegetation monitoring is discussed in the revegetation plan section below.

If phase 2 of the 2-phase approach in expansion operations takes place, a seasonal channel would be redesigned and built in coordination with the Forest Service. A seasonal channel would be reconstructed to represent the existing channel type. The present channel that exists is an – A3 single-thread channel based on the Rosgen Channel Classification system. The parameters of what this type of channel’s redesign would be expected to follow include:

Page D

entrenchment ratio <1.4, width to depth ratio <12, sinuosity <1.2, gradient >.04, and D50 in the cobble range (Rosgen, 1994). Note: Prior to the initiation of phase 2 taking place a detailed stream classification will be conducted to adequately capture the resource data.

Twin Sisters Olivine would be responsible to develop an appropriate design to maintain surface water flows associated with the seasonal stream. All necessary data for the stream design would be gathered and used in the design. The final plans would be consistent with reclamation configuration of the quarry. Prior to moving forward on the reconstruction, Twin Sisters Olivine would consult with the Forest Service hydrologist and fisheries specialist to ensure the appropriate stream design is constructed.

Replacement soil depth for reclamation and revegetation efforts is expected to be at a minimum depth of 6 inches. Depths up to 18 inches may be appropriate in certain circumstances. This revegetation material (soil mixture) would be a combination or mixture of topsoil overburden, wood chips from forest clearing in the proposed expansion area and fine rock. Existing soils in the area are of limited depth and poor for vegetative growth. This soil mixture would allow for sufficient plant growth volume and quality to revegetate identified reclamation areas. Micro-terraces would be established and retention of equipment tracks in the material would promote moisture retention, sediment recruitment, and vegetative success. Overburden and soil mixture would only be handled during the dry season. Scheduled completion of reclamation segments is estimated and dependent on the success of revegetation efforts. Given site conditions the growth rates may be slower than anticipated.

Upon final reclamation, existing water control systems will be modified. Stormwater ponds will be filled in and revegetated. Any remaining water from the stormwater ponds will be distributed on the convex face of the eastern slope below the quarry access road. The water will disperse naturally into the soil prism of the slope. A specific design to preclude discharge to surface waters will be created prior to closure of the quarry.

Final reclamation would restore the site to similar conditions prior to commencement of quarry activities. The site would consist of forested slopes and areas of talus and cliff faces. Quarry related roads will be rehabilitated so that the roadless character of the site will not be impacted.

Revegetation Plan

The subsequent use of the quarry site is forestry. A revegetation plan is built into Swen Larsen’s Reclamation Plan. Application of this plan will apply to the existing quarry site and the proposed expansion area. The focus of the revegetation strategy is to return the site to conditions prior to the commencement of quarry operations. Reclamation planning includes revegetating the

Page E

quarry to minimize erosion, provide slope stability, restore wildlife habitat, and reduce aesthetic impacts.

Initial revegetation efforts would focus on seeding the appropriate reclamation segments with a mix of grasses and legumes that are genetically appropriate native species or are a non- native, non-persistent seed-mix in the project area (see Table 6). For revegetation efforts that take place on Forest Service lands, refer to the *starred species for what seeds will be applied to the expansion area. The second phase of revegetation includes planting tree species such as Alder and conifers (see Table 7). A two-step process would allow for the establishment of ground cover while tree seedlings and saplings are provided the necessary time to become established and mature. Grasses and legumes would provide the initial ground cover for improved slope stability and erosion control while the tree species mature.

Table 6: Ground Cover Seed Mixture Species Common Name Pounds/Acre Festuca Rubra Creeping red Fescue 4 Lolium multiflorum Annual Ryegrass 7 Festuca arundinacea Alta Tall Fescue 7 Festuca commutata Chewings Fescue 4 Trifolium repens White Dutch Clover 3 Lotus conriculatus Birdsfoot Trefoil 3 *Vaccinium ovalifolium *Alaskan Huckleberry Varies *Gaultheria shallon *Salal Varies *Polystichum munitum *Sword fern Varies *Rubus pedatus *Five-leaf bramble Varies *Lonicera involucrata *Twinberry Varies *Cornus canadensis *Bunchberry Varies 28 lbs/acre

A hydroseeder may be used to apply the groundcover seed mixture and fertilizer on reclamation segments and topsoil/overburden storage areas. Reclamation segments would be seeded in the spring, when access to the site opens from snowmelt. Seed would be sprayed on the topsoil/soil mixture and covered with hay to promote moisture retention and growth. Topsoil storage areas would be seeded as material is added during clearing for mineral extraction. Seed sprayed on topsoil storage areas would also be covered by weed-free straw. The weed-free straw would provide additional seeding potential. Annual application of the seed mixture and fertilizer would continue until ground cover has reached at least 80% of the application area.

Page F

Phase 2 tree planting would commence the year following the first application of ground cover seed. This phased approach would allow the ground cover to take root without competition from tree species and impacts from human disturbance after hydroseeding.

Table 7 identifies recommended genetically appropriate native tree species based on completed reclamation efforts at the site.

Table 7: Recommended Tree Species for the Revegetation Plan Species Common Name *Pinus contorta *Lodgepole pine *Abies amabilis *Pacific silver fir *Callitropsis nootkatensis *Alaska cedar *Alnus rubra *Red Alder

Red alder is a pioneer species and nitrogen fixer that can play a valuable role in improving soil fertility for future growth of conifers. Alder also provides forage for deer and elk. Red alder has been observed at the site growing in disturbed soils and roadbeds through natural regeneration. An appropriate mix of alder and conifers would be planted in reclamation areas. Reforestation requirements in the Washington State Forest Practice Rules (WAC 222-34-010) defines tree planting distribution as an average of 190 well-distributed seedlings per 14 acre on the west side of the Cascades summit. Undisturbed forest adjacent to the quarry has a stem density of approximately 50% – 65% of the 190 per acre required under the Forest Practice Rules. Tree planting of 100 well-distributed seedlings per acre would be used for revegetation of the quarry reclamation segments. Species composition would be defined to allow for alder- improved soil conditions without hindering coniferous growth or success.

Tree species survival would be monitored annually. Successful revegetation would be achieved when individual trees have reached an age of 3-4 years old with spacing no greater than 10 - 20 feet. Trees that have not survived to the spring season following planting would be replaced. An adaptive management strategy would be used related to the selection of tree species, tree growth and success. Tree species selection and distribution may be modified dependent on soil condition, slope aspect, and success rates for individual reclamation segments or sections of these areas.

➢ For the expansion area, tree distribution and density will be dictated under Forest Service jurisdiction. This will be prescribed under the Forest Service silvicultural prescription guidelines at that time.

Page G

Appendix C: Cumulative Effects Information

Definition

Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR § 1500 et seq.).

Cumulative Effects Analysis

For the Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project, the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access Travel Management Project Cumulative Effects Analysis was applied. This is based on the Swen Larsen project site’s proximity to the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access Travel Management Project.

The Guidance on the Consideration of Past Action in Cumulative Effects Analysis, from the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality (Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, 2005) guided the Swen Larsen Quarry project’s analysis. Briefly, the memo outlines that agencies are to use scoping to determine whether, and to what extent, information about the specific nature, design, or present effects of a past action is useful for the agency’s analysis of effects of a proposed action and its reasonable alternatives. “Agencies are not required to list or analyze the effects of individual past actions unless such information is necessary to describe the cumulative effect of all past actions combined.” (Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality, 2005) The memo also noted that agencies can generally conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate (or remaining, residual) effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of past individual actions.

To begin the cumulative effects analysis for the Swen Larsen Quarry Project, the Interdisciplinary Team members first considered the direct and indirect effects on the environment that are expected or likely to result from the proposed action and alternatives. Once these effects had been determined, the Interdisciplinary Team then assessed the residual (or still on-going) effects of past actions that are, in the judgment of the resource specialists, relevant, in that they could potentially overlap in time and space with the direct and indirect effects from the Swen Larsen Quarry Project alternatives.

The team then evaluated the spatial extent of the effects of the alternatives, resource by resource, to determine if they would add to, modify, or mitigate the overlapping effects of the past actions, present actions, and expected future actions. For each resource, a cumulative effects analysis area was determined. The Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Environmental Page H

Assessment applied this same methodology for its alternatives, utilizing the same list of past, present and future actions that could affect each resource area. Refer to Chapter 3 to find what cumulative effects were determined for each resource area in the Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project. The objective is to determine that no effects overlap in time (that is, any effects to that resource from past, present, and future projects occur at a different time from the alternative’s effects) AND no overlap in space (that is, any effects are outside the cumulative effects analysis area for that resource). If so, then the project had no contribution to cumulative effects for that resource.

For wildlife species with larger ranges, the area of potential effect would be larger, and for more site-specific resources, the area would be much smaller. See Chapter 3 for specific resource description. The table below lists all of the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions in the vicinity of the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access Travel Management project, in this case considered for the Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion Project, that may have effects that spatially and temporally overlap with the estimated effects of the proposed project, where cumulative effects could occur.

Page I

Table 8: Past, Present, or Reasonably Foreseeable Actions in the Vicinity of the Upper North Fork Nooksack Access Travel Management Project

Activity Extent Timing/ Comment Future Actions Future Timber Harvest Extent and timing is unknown, private and state on Private and State lands adjacent to Forest Service lands to the On-going Lands west and accessed from Forest Service roads Use existing trails, campsites, climbing routes Multiple Outfitters and 2007- and other areas that have been used many Guides 2017 years Present Actions Active 17 acre (13 acres on private, 4 acres on Olivine Mine Forest Service) open-pit quarry On-going Use of Forest Service R 38 for aggregate haul Non-system roads 23 miles of non-system roads On-going 246 miles on USFS lands 121 miles on State lands Existing roads On-going 199 miles on Private land Total of 566 miles of roads Routine road maintenance (e.g., brushing, Road Maintenance On-going culvert clearing) on open roads Routine trail maintenance (brushing, tread and Trail Maintenance On-going drainage repair) on system trails Treatment (e.g., chemical, mechanical) of Invasive Plant Treatments On-going known sites Routine maintenance (e.g., infrastructure repair, Recreation Site road maintenance) of dispersed and developed On-going Maintenance sites Past Actions Closed or 9 miles – decommissioned

Decommissioned Roads 64 miles - closed Hwy 542 Public Service Reconstruct kayak user trail on North Fork 2014 Enhancements Nooksack River, interpretive signage

Page J

Improve day use areas (signage, picnic shelters, Campground tree and shrub limbing) add and improve 2014 and Improvements accessible paths at Shuksan, Douglas Fir, Silver 2015 Fir and Heather Meadows Razor Hone Protection of Install rock and log barriers 2014 Riparian Resources FSR 39 (Glacier Creek Repair washout at Thompson Creek Bridge (MP 2013 Road) 1.0) FSR 3120 (West Church Conduct road maintenance at MP 3.0 to 5.3 and 1999 Road) 5.4 to 6.3. FSR 3160 (Whistler Creek Road drainage improvement, waterbar 1997 Road) installation, culvert replacement FSR 3124 (West Church Reopen and extend road to repeater building 2003 Radio Site) Manage unwanted and Cut competing vegetation on 51 acres in 5 1995 competing vegetation different sites along FSR 31 Porphyry Claims Settling ponds, 2 drill sites, 3 year operating 2006 Exploratory Drilling period, recontour and revegetate site FSR 3070 (Razor Hone Replace 2 log stringers with 50’ steel and 2006 Creek Road) concrete bridges at MP 1.3 and 2.0 Chinook Acclimation Sites (Kidney Creek, Continue operation of acclimation sites for five 2000- Deadhorse Creek and additional years 2005 Excelsior Campground) North Fork Nooksack Install rock deflectors, rock bank protectors and 1990 Bank Protection Work log deflectors Restore Access to Canyon Full access for FSRs 31 and 3140 1991 Creek Limited access for FSRs 3160 and 3170 Road Easement – Private Reconstruct FSRs 3120-011 and 3120-014 1993 Timber Harvest Canyon Creek Inner Redirect stream flow and install large rock Gorge Bank Protection 1997 deflectors at base of Jim Creek landslide Work Lookout Road Stormproof/upgrade FSRs 3600-011, 3600-012, 1996 Restoration 3610 and 3610-012

Page K

Reduce Human Impacts Decommission Keep Kool Trail. Build 2 miles of to Alpine Meadows, new trail between Tomyhoi Lake and Tomyhoi 1996 Wetlands and Associated Peak Trails with a Spur to Yellow Aster Butte Erosion Road Easement - Private Use of FSRs 31 and 3120. Also construct 600 1993 Timber Harvest feet of road on DNR lands Hannegan Pass Trail Relocate 8 trail sections to more stable, long-

Flood Repair term locations1993 Road Easement – Puget Access to private land 2012 Sound Hydro Lower Nose Dive Ski Run Contour modification and tree removal on 1.15 1998 – Mt. Baker acres of existing ski run Lower Half Pipe Ski Run – Contour modification of an area 75 feet x 250 1996 Mt. Baker feet Little Red Riding Hood Ski Construct half pipe snowboard park on an area 2000 Run – Mt. Baker 600 feet x 80 feet with a 24 percent slope Parking expansion, kiosks, remove ski tower Hwy 542 Public Service base, improved intersections at SR542/FSR 3045 2003 Enhancements and SR 542/FSR33 Decommission 1.3 miles of on-site roads; Nooksack Falls decommission 9.8 miles of off-site roads, Hydroelectric Project, SR542/FSR 3045 intersection improvement to 1997 No. 3721 mitigate for 36 acres of existing clearing associated with the powerline corridor 4,506 acres 1973-1993 1940- Timber Harvest 11,750 acres 1940-1972 1993 Total harvested 16,256 acres 2,245 acres 1945-1972 1900- Fires 12,163 acres 1900-1925 1972 Total burned 14,408 acres i Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

Page L

Appendix D: Middle Fork Nooksack River Water Quality Data (Station: Middle Fork Upstream)

Water quality data collected by the City of Bellingham Public Works upstream of the City of Bellingham’s diversion dam at station: “Middle Fork Upstream.” Table 9 presents data from the period of record from November 2006 through March 2007 and Table 10 presents data from the period of record March 2013 through November 2013.

Table 9: Water quality data collected by the City of Bellingham Public Works at station Middle Fork Upstream from November 2006 through March 2007 Date Time TSS TVSS TS Turbidit Flow Flow* Solids TP SRP (mg/L) (mg/L (mg/L) y * (gpd) Loadin (µg/L (µg/L ) (NTU) (cfs) g -P) -P) (#/day) 11/20/ 10:0 J 59. 1. J 118. 40.0 661 427,185,79 212,69 2006 5 7 0 0 2 5 110 9 12/13/ 10:4 74. 5. 123. 31.1 1,200 775,526,40 481,21 2006 5 4 2 3 0 1 6 2/8/ 10:0 2.4 < 1. 16.0 3.40 522 337,353,98 6,752 2007 5 0 4 18 6 2/15/ 11:0 J 18. 3. 74.5 13.7 675 436,233,60 67,306 2007 0 5 0 0 32 5 3/15/ 12:0 5.0 1. 47.0 3.2 456 294,700,03 2,458 2007 8 0 2 10 5

J = Quality control result exceed MQO value is an estimate < = Result is below MDL *Flow data sources: MF Upstream USGS gauging station #12208000 TSS: total suspended solid, TVSS: total volatile suspended solids, TS: total solids, TP: total phosphorus, SRP: soluble reactive phosphorous

Page M

Table 10: Water quality data collected by the City of Bellingham Public Works at station Middle Fork Upstream from March 2013 through November 2013 TP SRP Turbidity Flow TSS Flow‡ Date Time (ug/L- (ug/L- § ‡ Comment (mg/L) (gpd) P) P) (NTU) (cfs) 14:1 4. 1,053,423,36 3/14/2013 6.8 14 3.6 1,630 0 0 0 12:2 1. 3/20/2013 10 20 6.0 1,330 859,541,760 2 0 10:4 * 5. 1,447,649,28 4/5/2013 55 65 27 2,240 5 * 6 0 SRP MUP LD, 13:4 9. 1,118,050,56 4/10/2013 * 17 32 J 13 1,730 unacceptable 5 9 0 diff. 6.0 µg/L 14:1 1. 4/19/2013 < 2.0 8.8 < 1.7 685 442,696,320 6 0 12:1 1. 4/23/2013 < 2.0 8.5 1.2 368 237,828,096 1 7 10:2 3. 4/29/2013 < 2.0 6.6 2.1 670 433,002,240 2 2 13:0 3. 5/6/2013 7.7 19 5.5 1,150 743,212,800 1 2 12:4 8. 1,072,811,52 5/13/2013 21 32 13 1,660 2 3 0 12:4 18 6. 5/22/2013 100 70 670 433,002,240 5 0 3 MUP TSS rerun 5/31 13:0 14 6. 5/30/2013 100 55 938 606,203,136 due to 2 0 3 unacceptable FD difference Debris flood in 13:0 1,10 72 8. upper MF the 6/6/2013 550 558 360,619,776 7 0 0 7 morning of 5/31/13 11:3 30 6. 6/17/2013 400 200 526 339,939,072 6 0 2 12:1 22 6. 6/24/2013 160 110 772 498,921,984 0 0 8 12:0 1,30 77 7/1/2013 12 500 797 515,078,784 4 0 0

Page N

12:2 2. 7/11/2013 100 89 45 339 219,086,208 7 3 12:1 17 1. 7/17/2013 110 60 388 250,753,536 8 0 9 13:0 13 3. 7/25/2013 110 55 257 166,091,904 2 0 6 poor MUP SRP 11:4 24 N 8/1/2013 290 J 130 253 163,506,816 matrix spike 6 0 D recovery 54% TSS MUP FD, 12:2 2. 8/7/2013 J 140 ND 70 223 144,118,656 unacceptable 1 3 31% RPD 11:3 15 4. 8/13/2013 250 90 209 135,070,848 2 4 3 11:3 3. 8/22/2013 48 ND 31 253 163,506,816 9 1 12:1 3. 8/27/2013 61 J 68 J 32 253 163,506,816 1 6 12:0 46 3. 9/3/2013 830 J 300 393 253,984,896 8 0 2 14:5 14 4. 9/9/2013 J 160 90 325 210,038,400 9 0 7 12:0 7. 9/24/2013 19 21 12 383 247,522,176 0 0 11:3 5. 10/7/2013 150 88 40 378 244,290,816 4 5 10/15/201 12:1 6. < 2.0 10 2.3 138 89,185,536 3 7 8 10/29/201 11:5 7. < 2.0 10 2.8 87 56,225,664 3 2 5 11:3 49 9. 1,641,530,88 11/7/2013 640 250 2,540 9 0 9 0

J = Quality control result exceed MQO, value is an estimate, < = Result is below MDL, ND = No Data, TSS: total suspended solid, TP: total phosphorus, SRP: soluble reactive phosphorous §Turbidity management is from verification instrument taken at time of data upload. Per YSI lot # 12H254538 (126 NTU std) used on 11/7 and 2/8 was 6% high. Applied a *0.94 correction factor to applicable data. ‡Flow data sources: USGS gauging station #12208000.

Page O

* TSS filters were displaced while drying. Analysts used bpj to determine placement. **No SRP LD sample analyzed. 4/10, J due to unacceptable LD and failed field blank, possible kimax bottle contamination - all kimax bottles were cleaned with phosphorus free soap and acid washed. Min detection Limit: TP = 2 µg/L, SRP = 1 µg/L, TSS = 2 mg/L.

Page P

Appendix E: Climate Change

Definitions

Climate: refers to average weather over a period of about 25-30 years.

Climate variability: refers to deviations of the climate on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather events. Variability can be due to natural processes or variations in human-induced causes.

Climate change: refers to a non-random change in climate that is measured over several decades or longer. The change may be due to natural or human-induced causes.

The sources of these definitions are the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2012, and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2012.

Rationale for Project-Scale Effects Conclusions on Climate Change

In environmental analyses such as this Environmental Assessment, the Forest Service considers two types of climate change effects:

• Type 1. The effect of a proposed project on climate change, specifically effects to greenhouse gas emissions and carbon cycling. Examples include short-term greenhouse gas emissions and alteration to the carbon cycle caused by hazardous fuels reduction projects, greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas field development, and avoiding large greenhouse gas emissions pulses and effects to the carbon cycle by thinning overstocked stands to increase forest resilience and decrease the potential for large scale wildfire.

• Type 2. The effect of climate change on a proposed project. Examples include effects of expected shifts in rainfall and temperature patterns on the seed stock selection for reforestation after timber harvest, and effects of decreased snow fall on a ski area expansion proposal at a marginal geographic location, such as a southern aspect or low elevation.

Because most Forest Service projects analyzed under NEPA have minimal or no Type 1 effects, the description of climate change impacts in NEPA projects focuses on Type 2 effects.

This Proposed Project does not fall within any of the well documented main contributors of greenhouse gas emissions. Impacted forested land will not be converted into a developed or agricultural condition. This proposed action would affect approximately ten acres of forest by expanding an existing quarry operation. This scope and degree of change would be minor relative to the amount of forest within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest as a whole.

Page Q

Climate change is a global phenomenon; a project of this magnitude will make an infinitesimal contribution to overall emissions. Therefore, at the global and national scales, this proposed action’s direct and indirect contribution to greenhouse gasses and climate change would be negligible. In addition, because the direct and indirect effects would be negligible, the proposed action’s contribution to cumulative effects on global greenhouse gasses and climate change would also be negligible.

The expected potential Type 2 effects on the proposed project are expected to be associated with increased intensity of precipitation events that could potentially result in potential for increased erosion that could impact water quality of nearby streams. Another potential Type 2 effect involves the potential for drought conditions during the growing season, which could adversely impact reclamation efforts. The mitigation measures and Best Management Practices outlined in Section 2.2 of the Environmental Assessment in combination with the updated reclamation plan that will address the Quarry expansion are expected to adequately address these identified Type 2 effects.

Page R

Appendix F: Public Comment Period Table (June 8, 2017 – July 8, 2017)

Comments Comment Concern Response

Old Growth Comments noted. Consultation with the Forest Destruction of Old Growth Forest: Consultation with the Forest Service specialists Service confirmed that no old growth structure confirmed that no old growth structure exists within the project site, only late exists within the project site, only late- successional forest. Impacts to vegetation are discussed in Chapter 3 pages 44-49. successional forest. For more information please refer to Chapter 3.1.3 Vegetation (p.43). However, pages 44 to 49 do not elucidate a distinction between old growth forest and late successional forest. This is presumably because there is no distinction available beyond subjective impression. Assorted federal definitions of old growth forest may be located at this URL: https://reo.gov/library/reports/old_growth_definitions.htm

Certainly, the ten acres of doomed forest in question would meet some, if not all, of these federal definitions. The forest that would be permanently eliminated for the quarry expansion has never been logged, has endured no contemporary fire event, and is even described in the DEA itself as "fully vegetated multi-canopy coniferous forest." The fact that it grows in serpentine soils, resulting in somewhat smaller stature, does not in any way make this forest any younger. It is thus old growth by any honest appraisal.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Correction to Table Comments noted. Table updated to reflect the Swen Larson Quarry Expansion in Whatcom County. This was reviewed in regards 1 of the EA responsible agencies. to Washington State Surface Mining law, RCW 78.44. Swen Larson Quarry is a mine with an existing surface mining permit, #70012069. It is expected, as stated in the EA, that the permit holder will be submitting a surface mine reclamation application for the exp ansion of the surface mine after the conclusion of the environmental assessment.

The only comment that the DNR Surface Mine Reclamation Program has is a correction to Table 1 of the EA. It has DNRlisted as the responsible agency for repairs to machinery or service vehicles under the Fish and Water Resources section DNR does not have oversight of these activities and may be under another jurisdiction’s permitting such as Department of Ecology or local governmental agencies.

I am writing to respond with comments to the recently released draft Environmental Water Quality Comments noted. There are no discharge areas Assessment (EA) for the proposed Plan of Operations submitted by United Western within the quarry or proposed expansion site that Supply. would contaminate drinking water. A Stormwater Management Plan is also in place that further I am concerned about the dramatic impact that the quarry expansion will have on the protects the watershed from sedimentation. For values of the area proposed for expansion. The expansion area is entirely within the Mt more information please refer to Chapter 3.1.4 Baker West Inventoried Roadless Area, which is afforded protection from new road Water Resources and Soils (p.47).

Page S

construction and related development under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of New or Temporary Comments noted. To access the expansion area 2001. Roadless areas are comprised of unlogged ancient forests which are Roads temporary two-track trails will be built within the underrepresented on national forest lands due to unsustainable logging practices confines of the proposed expansion area. For decades ago. more information please refer to Chapter 3.2.2 Inventoried Roadless Area (p.69). The draft EA lists four “key issues” for this project with a focus on addressing impacts to Fish Comments noted. There are no discharge areas Inventoried Roadless Areas, the City of Bellingham Municipal Watershed, fish and where minerals and sedimentation could be wildlife and old growth forests (EA Pg. 9). However, the nature of the quarry expansion released to impact fish or fish habitat. For more would literally remove ancient trees, wildlife habitat and other organic matter down to information please refer to Chapter 3.1.1 Fish rock over the entire expansion area. (p.30).

Wildlife Comments noted. No threatened, endangered, or Despite the obvious need for motorized vehicles to haul debris and rock as part of the sensitive species are present within the affected expansion the EA offers little to no discussion about new or temporary roads that environment. For more information please refer would be needed as part of the proposed quarry expansion in an inventoried roadless to Chapter 3.1.5 Wildlife (p.54). area. Roads have measurable and important impacts on the watershed and surrounding environment. The question of whether the project needs additional roads to be Old Growth Comments noted. Consultation with the Forest constructed should be addressed as part of this NEPA process so that the Service confirmed that no old growth structure environmental analysis and affected environment can be evaluated properly. exists within the project site, only late- successional forest. For more information please This project could also have negative impacts to the quality of water within the Middle refer to Chapter 3.1.3 Vegetation (p. 43). Fork Nooksack River, which serves as a source of the safe and clean drinking water Appropriate Comments noted. An environmental assessment supply for more than 85,000 residents of the City of Bellingham. Environmental was conducted to determine whether or not the Analysis proposed action has the potential to cause Furthermore the broader Mt. Baker West Roadless Area and Middle Fork Nooksack significant environmental effects that would Road corridor are local destinations for recreational opportunities including climbing, require an environmental impact statement. For horseback riding, hiking, paddling and other activities. more information please refer to the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significance in the The impact of this project and its effects on an inventoried roadless area requires Project Record. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), rather than an Environmental Assessment, to Recreation Comments noted. The proposed project is address concerns for our clean drinking water, roadless areas, recreation and ancient, removed from normal recreational access (no old -growth forests. Forest Service trails or roads exist within the project site).

"On behalf of the 21 undersigned organizations and the tens of thousands of forest Appropriate Comments noted. An environmental assessment users, Washington residents and federal taxpayers whom they represent, we are Environmental was conducted to determine whether or not the writing to respond with comments to the recently released draft Environmental Analysis proposed action has the potential to cause Assessment (EA) for the proposed Plan of Operations submitted by United Western significant environmental effects that would Supply. require an environmental impact statement. For more information please refer to the Decision Many of our organizations were among the 19 conservation and recreation Notice and Finding of No Significance in the organizations who signed a scoping comment letter on this issue on October 12, 2016. Project Record.

Page T

We appreciated that the draft EA listed four of the concerns we raised as part of our Potential Comments noted. The Swen Larsen Quarry falls comment letter as key issues for this project, including impacts to Inventoried Roadless Wilderness and within Mt. Baker's West Block Roadless Area Areas, the City of Bellingham Municipal Watershed, fish and wildlife and old growth Inventoried (6041). This area was assigned to nonwilderness forests (EA Pg. 9). Roadless Areas use during RARE II, although originally inventoried for study as potential wilderness We have concerns about the dramatic impact that the quarry expansion will have on during RARE II. For more information please the values of the area proposed for expansion. The expansion area is entirely within the refer to the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie Land and Mt Baker West Inventoried Roadless Area, which is afforded protection from new road Resource Management Final Environmental construction and related development under the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of Impact Statement (p. C-37). 2001. Roadless areas are comprised of unlogged ancient forests which are New or Temporary Comments noted. To access the expansion area underrepresented on national forest lands due to unsustainable logging practices Roads temporary two-track trails will be built within the decades ago. confines of the proposed expansion area. For more information please refer to Chapter 3.2.2 Moreover, these protections were the hard-fought result of one of the most extensive Inventoried Roadless Area (p. 69). public involvement processes in the history of federal rulemaking. Hundreds of thousands of citizens weighed in between 1999 and 2001 in support of protecting nearly 60 million acres of undeveloped national forests from road-building and associated industrial activity. During the 2000’s, conservation, recreation and sportsmen groups worked hard to defend the Roadless Rule from administrative attempts to weaken the rule and legal challenges. Ultimately those defensive efforts Distinction The forest structure within this area is late- prevailed. between Old- successional forest (Van Norman, 2012; USDA, Growth and Late 1993; USDA, 2006). Late-successional forests are We are also concerned about the impacts to the quality of water within the Middle Fork Successional composed of elements from older forest Nooksack River, which serves as a source of the safe and clean drinking water supply for Forests structure types such as mature or old growth more than 85,000 residents of the City of Bellingham. The underlying forest plan forests (USDA, 2011). A site visit on March 17, allocation for the expansion area is focused on protecting this municipal watershed. 2017 by the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Service Wildlife Program Manager As stated on the City of Bellingham website: identified the present area to meet late- The City of Bellingham operates a water diversion dam on the upper reaches of the successional forest classification. Further Middle Fork Nooksack River approximately 20 miles east of the City of Bellingham, at an consultation with Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National elevation of approximately 838 feet above sea level. The City has used the diversion Forest Ecologist verified the proposed area to be dam since 1962 to divert water from the Middle Fork into its water supply system. From late-successional forest, but not old growth. For the river, the water flows through a tunnel and pipe into Mirror Lake and then into more information please refer to Chapter 3.1.3 Vegetation (p. 43).

Page U

Anderson Creek, which empties into Lake Whatcom. The lake is the drinking water Mitigation to Comments noted. For more information please reservoir for over 85,000 City and County residents. protect late refer to Chapter 2.2 Best Management Practices successional or old and Management Requirements (p. 20). After reviewing the draft EA, we have the following comments to submit: growth forest and I. This project should require an Environmental Impact Statement level of analysis the ecological under the National Environmental Policy Act communities and wildlife habitat The Forest Service opted to prepare an Environmental Assessment rather than a more rigorous Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. However, Forest Service NEPA regulations identify classes of actions normally requiring Environmental Impact Statements including: “Class 2: proposals that would substantially alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area or a potential wilderness area.” [36 CFR 220.5(a)(2)]

The regulations provide a specific example that is directly relevant to the Swen Larsen Quarry Expansion: Figure 1: 2016 Satellite Image of Swen Larsen Quarry showing existing quarry and proposed expansion into Mt. Baker West Inventoried Roadless Area.

“Approving a plan of operations for a mine that could cause considerable surface disturbance in a potential wilderness area.” [36 CFR 220.5(a)(2)(iii)]

As evidenced by Figure 1 the current quarry operations has resulted in almost complete surface disturbance contrasted to the intact forest not yet impacted and part of the Mt. Baker West Inventoried Roadless Area.

We request that the Forest Service develop an EIS for this project to comply with their own regulations.

II. The draft EA should be clear about any decision limitations with respect to the General Mining Law of 1872.

This public process is different from many others due to the considerable impact of the General Mining Law of 1872. This antiquated law, signed by Ulysses S. Grant, gave miners a property right in valuable mineral deposits and is still the basic law governing hardrock mining on federal lands. The Organic Administration Act of 1897 does not allow the Forest Service to prohibit prospecting, locating, and developing hardrock minerals; however, it does require any such mining to comply with all rules and regulations covering the national forests (16 U.S.C. 478). Forest Service regulations

Page V

adopted in 1974 require that hardrock mining activities be “conducted so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources” (36 C.F.R. 228.1), but they do not authorize outright denial of a proposed plan of operations. . As a result, Forest Service officials feel that they are unable to “just say no” to mining related proposals.. This is reflected in the draft EA under the Environmental Assessment:

“Therefore, the role of the designated decision maker is to determine if the alternative should be selected as is or modified.” (EA Pg. 6)

To the extent that the agency feels they cannot choose the No Action Alternative, greater attention should be focused on addressing and minimizing the considerable impacts to the four key issues identified in the draft EA: namely, impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas, the City of Bellingham Municipal Watershed, fish and wildlife and old- growth forests (EA Pg. 9).

III. The Affected Environment Analysis in the Draft EA relating to impacts to Inventoried Roadless Areas is Insufficient

The draft EA makes the point that specific exceptions related to mining under the General Mining Law of 1872 are being utilized with respect to this project’s impacts on the Mt. Baker Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). However, several statements are perpetuated in the draft EA as additional rationale for diminishing the impacts to the IRA values that are incorrect and not compelling:

“This Inventoried Roadless Area is assigned to non-wilderness uses and therefore the project site does not fall within a designated or potential wilderness area. The quarry’s site makes up a small (0.0025%) fraction of the overall Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest N.F. Inventoried Roadless Area and is located on the western edge of the National Forest.” (EA Pg. 69)

The statement that the Mt Baker West IRA does not fall within a “potential wilderness area” is incorrect and misleading. Potential wilderness areas refer to inventoried roadless areas when being considered as part of an inventory process for a forest plan revision. The terms are largely synonymous. No underlying forest allocation or other factors would strip a roadless area identified under the 2001 Roadless Rule of its protections afforded therein.

Whether the proposed expansion into the roadless area is on the periphery or only a certain percentage of the whole is not a useful rationale for diminishing its importance. The site’s elevation, forest cover, species diversity, slope and other factors are equally relevant to its value and importance as its size.

IV. The Discussion in the draft EA relating to new or temporary roads associated with the expansion lacks transparency and sufficient detail

We are aware of the many challenges the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) faces with its

Page W

oversized and undermaintained road system. With nearly 400,000 miles of roads as a byproduct of logging decades ago, the maintenance backlog is in the billions of dollars. The Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest has been a leader in the efforts to identify a minimum and sustainable road system. The Forest went the extra mile to gather public input toward a required sustainable roads analysis and then invested in two Access Travel Management plans for specific watersheds including the Nooksack adjacent to the project area.

Due to the significant social, economic and political investment in the goal of establishing a sustainable road system, any project that proposes additional roads on the Forest needs to be looked at honestly and carefully.

There is little to no discussion about new or temporary roads that would be needed as part of the proposed quarry expansion. There is no discussion of new or temporary road miles that would be proposed as part of the expansion. This is perplexing due to the nature of hauling and transporting material required within the expansion. We could only find three passages in the entire draft EA that reference plans to construct or establish new roads or transportation corridors in the proposed expansion within the Mt Baker West Inventoried Roadless Area. The first references the possibility of roads being added after the current NEPA review:

“For this project, claimants under the General Mining Law of 1872 can seek approval from the responsible official to build roads if needed. The Roadless Rule states “access for the exploration of locatable minerals pursuant to the General Mining Law of 1872 is not prohibited…access may include, but is not limited to, helicopter, road construction or reconstruction, or non-motorized transport” (36 CFR § 294.12(b)(3), 2001).” (EA Pg. 73)

“For Alternative B, application of this [Roadless] rule would apply, but it would follow the claimant’s statutory right under the General Mining Law of 1872 to access locatable minerals for the development of valid claims, which may require road construction or reconstruction, or non-motorized transport.” (EA Pg. 74)

Roads have measurable and important impacts on the watershed and surrounding environment. Moreover, the specific environment proposed for expansion has been and continues to be managed for unroaded values. The question of whether the project needs additional roads to be constructed should be addressed as part of this NEPA process so that the environmental analysis and affected environment can be evaluated properly. It is unacceptable to suggest that later additional roads may be approved as part of the expansion.

Later in the same section, the draft EA apparently tries to suggest that “two-track trails” would be used by heavy equipment in the expansion area to avoid calling these roads.

“Roads are defined as a, “motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed as a trail. A road may be classified, unclassified or temporary” (USDA, 2001). To access the expansion area temporary two-track trails will be built

Page X

within the confines of the proposed expansion area.” (EA Pg 73) It appears that the agency is making the argument that because the surface impacts are so complete that there is no need to create a “road” to mitigate surrounding impacts. For example, one would not build a road for a bulldozer on a construction site.

This underscores the significance of the surface impacts on the roadless and ancient forest values that would be completely lost as a result of this expansion. It is disingenuous for the agency to spend the bulk of the draft EA articulating how the impacts will be limited or acceptable, only to admit that they will actually be dramatic and wholesale in the transportation section.

V. The Affected Environment Analysis in the Draft EA relating to impacts to Old-Growth and Late Successional Forests is misleading and insufficient The draft EA recognizes impacts to old-growth forests and their possible destruction as one of four key issues on Pg. 9. This was clearly a value that was common in scoping comments received by the agency. However, when articulating why an alternative focused on old-growth forest protection was not considered the EA references: “Forest Service specialists confirmed that no old growth structure exists within the project site, only late-successional forest.” (EA Pg 15)

We assume that a technical definition of old-growth was used to make this assessment. While a threshold of old-growth structure (i.e., snags, woody debris, platform formations, canopy cover) may not have been reached during a site visit this does not eliminate the value of these uncut virgin forest, some in excess of 160 years old. The term old-growth has a variety of definitions to include scientific, social and political values.

Intact forests with complex structure due to their age and the avoidance of impacts from plantation logging are under-represented on the landscape due to unsustainable logging in the past. These values are present within the Mt. Baker IRA and the expansion area and we believe they should not be dismissed, but should be protected.

The statement on Pg 15 of the draft EA also differentiates the terms old-growth and late successional as if the former has ecological and social value and the latter does not. This could not be further from the truth.

The intent of the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan is to protect the integrity of the remaining late-successional old-growth forest ecosystems and wildlife habitat that remains as well as manage for additional old-growth habitat to meet habitat needs in the future through Late Successional Reserves. Late successional habitat is the next generation of old-growth forests and shares the same value.

While we might debate the definition used for old-growth forest, the draft EA acknowledges that the expansion area is characterized by late successional forest which are on the spectrum of exhibiting oldgrowth characteristics. To be clear, this project would eliminate all of these old previously uncut forests within the expansion area which provide emergent habitat for imperiled wildlife species such as the northern

Page Y

spotted owl and marbled murrelet. The draft EA does not sufficiently articulate the value of these forests for wildlife habitat, ecosystem function and social values in this region.

VI. Mitigation in the draft EA does not address the issues we have raised

While we appreciate that the draft EA identifies several mitigation measures, none address the concerns that we have identified in this letter. At issue is that the late successional or old growth forest and the ecological communities and wildlife habitat that have been protected under the 2001 Roadless Rule within the Mt. Baker West Inventoried Roadless Area would not just be impacted but obliterated by this proposed expansion. The nature of the quarry expansion is akin to mountain top removal mining, where virgin forest will be transferred into a moonscape mining pit.

While there is discussion about timely reclamation in the draft EA, no reclamation is going to restore the existing late successional or old growth forests over the next 120 years. Moreover, the claim that any reclamation will be timely is in doubt given that the drat EA admits that to date only 1 acre has been reclaimed since 1971 (Pg. 74-75)

We are interested in exploring opportunities for mitigation that would give some real protection from further expansions into the roadless area in the future or support late successional or old growth forest protection or potential wilderness area identification elsewhere on the Mt. Baker District. We appreciate the opportunity to give substantive comments in this public comment period. Feel free to contact Tom Uniack, Executive Director for Washington Wild directly, on behalf of the undersigned organizations, at 206-633-1992 or [email protected].

Please receive the attached joint comment letter form 21 conservation and recreation organizations and local businesses in response to the proposed expansion of the Swen Larsen quarry. " Also, the heavy truck traffic on the Middle Fork Road already makes this area dangerous Heavy Truck Traffic Comments noted. Transportation activity under for any other uses like recreation, and since the entire Sisters range is one huge block of the proposed project would remain consistent olivine, I can't understand the need to expand into the roadless area. with present transportation levels. There is no public access to the site. Weyerhaeuser Rd. #9000 (private) is the only way to access quarry. For more information please refer to Chapter 3.2.2 Inventoried Roadless Area.

Page Z