Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 1213 02 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE APPROVING TWO } COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS} KNOWN AS MLA #02-235 ) [Fred Hill Materials-Mineral Resource Overlay]) WITH CONDITIONS and MLA #01-446, W.E. ) Seton, also a Mineral Resources Overlay ) ORDINANCE NO. 14-1213-02 WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.01O et seq., set in motion and now completed the proper professional review and public notice and comment with respect to any and all proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan originally adopted by Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended and; WHEREAS, as mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has reviewed and voted upon the proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan, and; WHEREAS, a modified version of the proposed amendment known as MLA #02- 235 [Fred Hill Materials-Mineral Resource Overlay Designation] has been approved by the Board during the second week of December as laid out in the County's Unified Development Code or "UDC," and WHEREAS, MLA #01-446, proposed by W. E. Seton, was also adopted by the Board during the second week of December as laid out in the County's Unified Development Code or "UDC," NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that it makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions with respect to MLA #02-235 and MLA #01-446,or "the amendments" or "these amendments.": 1. The County adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August 1998 and its development regulations or UDC in December 2000. 2. 4. Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 3. The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the citizens of this County [including corporations and other business entities] on a regular basis, generally no more than once per year. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1, 2002, the deadline for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. 5. MLA #02-235 was timely submitted by Fred Hill Materials, Inc. ("FHM") and seeks to have the zoning designation known as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay or "MRLO" placed on 6, 240 acres of land located in the Thorndyke section of the unincorporated County that now holds the underlying designation of Commercial 6. Forest Land-80 ("CF-80") and Rural Forest-40 ("RF-40"). MLA #01-00446 was timely submitted by W.E. Seton and represents a request that 20 acres owned by Mr. Seton on the Quimper Peninsula area of Jefferson County be provided the same MRLO that FHM is also requesting. 7. While much of these findings would apply equally to both the FHM and Seton applications, this narrative will now focus on the FHM CP amendment proposal. 8. The FHM application for a CP amendment was and is solely an application for an MRLO designation, a non-project action. 9. The FHM application is not an application for pennission to build the "pit to pier" project, which FHM always had the ability to immediately apply for pursuant to existing regulations in the Unified Development Code at all times relevant to this CP amendment review process regardless of the outcome of this request for an 10. MRLO designation. The application from FHM stated that, assuming it obtained the MRLO designation for the 6, 240 acres, some 1,270 acres within that 6, 240 would never be the site of mineral extraction because they constituted environmentally sensitive areas, often called "critical areas" in the GMA lexicon, and the buffers of 2 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. those environmentally sensitive areas as established in the Unified Development Code. The UDC, specifically UDC §3.6.3, contains a process that allows applicants to obtain an MRLO if certain criteria are satisfied and if the County legislators make the legislative or policy decision to grant the MRLO designation. Section 3.6.3 of the UDC, which became effective in January 2001 along with all the other provisions of the UDC, was never the subject of a Petition For Review before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board or "WWGMHB" and thus is valid and remains lawful. FHM, through its legal counsel, wrote a letter to the County's planning staff on October 23,2002 stating that FHM would modify their application to seek an MRLO of765 acres [a reduction of87.7% in the size of the proposed MRLO] and would provide other "carrots" [quarterly inspections to be paid for by FHM] to the County, subject to acceptance of the complete offer package by the County planning department in its staff recommendation to the Board. This amendment is one of 19 proposed amendments that worked their way through the entire process laid out in state statutes for such amendments. Nine of the 19 amendments (including this one) were specific to a particular site or region, the remainder are and were known as "suggested" amendments because they would implement or memorialize a policy decision made by the elected Commissioners of this County. Those proposed amendments went through professional review at the County and State level. By way of example, the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (or "WDFW") commented on this CP amendment in a letter dated October 1,2002. WDFW understood that the GMA does pennit the County to provide suitable lands with an MRLO designation, but urged the County to designate a smaller area as opposed to the proposed 6, 240 acres. WDFW was concerned that as few acres as possible be removed from Commercial Forest designation for the sake of 3 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 17. 18. 19. 20. habitat preservation, but added that it understood the protective provisions of the UDC would apply when a project-specific pennit or pennits was applied for by FHM. Specifically, this amendment was discussed in some detail in a combined County staff report/Draft Supplemental EIS dated August 21,2002, a staff memorandum to the Planning Commission dated October 25,2002 [in response to the FHM letter of October 23rd_-see #13 above--and to infonnation requests made to staffby the Planning Commission], and a Final SEIS dated November 25,2002, portions of which are described in more detail below. The Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS were undertaken and generated pursuant to the State Environmental Protection Act (or "SEP A") and a detennination by the County planning staff that the 19 proposed CP amendments warranted a threshold "Detennination of Significance" and thus environmental review for any potential significant adverse environmental impacts, although they were all non-project actions as that tenn of art is defined in SEP A. The FEIS was prepared in confonnance with SEP A requirements and the amendments in this Ordinance are within the range of alternatives and scope of analysis contained in the FEIS and associated documents. The FSEIS dated November 25,2002 included staff responses to 71 different categories of questions, comments and concerns expressed orally and in writing by the public regarding the FHM application during the public comment period. It represents a detailed response to the concerns of the citizens, precisely what is intended by SEP A. At page 3-2 of the FSEIS (comment #1) the staff responded to the concern that FHM was piece-mealing its application by asking for only an MRLO now when it fully intended to use the resources it would extract at the MRLO site to support the "pit-to-pier" project that would negatively impact the region by pointing out, in part, that a SEP A-driven analysis of a project that is speculative and not yet presented in any detail is impossible if not futile. 4 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 21. At page 3-10 of the FSEIS (comment #34) the staff responds to the claims of those opposing the FHM application who are concerned because' environmentally sensitive areas' will be impacted if mineral extraction occurs in the MRLO region by stating that there are "few mapped environmentally sensitive areas within the proposed 690-acre area" and that no mineral extraction would be pennitted in those areas (to be field-verified during pennit application review) or their buffers or within mining setbacks from the extent of those buffers pursuant to DNR- 22. sponsored best management practices for mineral extraction. Similarly, in the response in the FSEIS at page 3-10 to comment #36 county staff points out that there is "little correspondence [between the 690 acres of the MRLO] with the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species database." That same response notes that the 6, 240 acre MRLO should be reduced to protect sensitive areas. 23. Stonnwater runoff would be handled through use of the 2001 Ecology Stonnwater Management Manual for Western Washington in future County and State stonnwater management approvals associated with mineral extraction proposals, according to the response to comment #39 found at the FSEIS, page 3 -11. The EIS prepared with respect to the 1998 adoption of the CP also provides 24. environmental review for this non-project action, because the SEP A-driven review for the CP understood that 1) the CP included a process for MRLO designation, 2) would place such a process in its UDC and 3) would then use that process, in the years following the adoption of the CP and the UDC, to provide MRLO 25. designation for certain suitable parcels. The planning department concluded that the acreage to be granted the MRLO designation should be reduced to 690 acres because 75 acres on the western edge of the 765 MRLO district proposed by FHM on October 23rd were potentially environmentally sensitive because they were within 500 feet of Thorndyke Creek and should be avoided at the non-project action stage of planning, effectively providing a greater buffer for Thorndyke Creek than that proscribed by the Unified 5 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions Development Code. The planning department, as part of the FSEIS, expressly recommended reiection of the proposal to provide 6,240 acres with the MRLO 26. designation. The State Department of Ecology (or "DOE"), in a letter to the County dated November 20,2002, persuasively argued for rejecting the 6,240 acre MRLO, primarily because there was not in place sufficient infonnation to detennine if a MRLO designation of some 6, 240 acres would cause significant adverse environmental impacts, such as possible negative impacts on aquifer recharge. 27. The DOE letter of November 20,2002 concluded that any mineral resource extraction occurring within the 690 acres that now have obtained an MRLO designation would neither puncture an aquifer nor decrease recharge to the aquifers that provide water to wells in the neighboring communities of Shine and Bridgehaven. 28. While County planning staff recommended MRLO designation for only 690 acres, they also placed 15 conditions on the approval, which are listed in the FSEIS, and are made a condition of this approval. The conditions serve to, in part, . limit mining to a depth that is not less than ten (10) feet above seasonal high water table in order to protect the aquifers of the Thorndyke region, particularly those that refresh domestic wells in the Shine and Bridgehaven communities (condition # 11), . prohibit processing of raw materials in the land that has now obtained the MRLO designation (condition #10), . reflect a County staff decision that any application for a conveyor and pier facility would receive an automatic Detennination of Significance under SEP A, requiring a full-blown environmental impact statement (condition # 14), . require that if FHM makes any application for mineral extraction on the lands that are now being designated as an MRLO, then the environmental review of that application would include a study 6 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. of all transportation alternatives, be they marine or overland (condition #14), . require FHM to finance a quarterly inspection report (condition #9), whether submitted by the company with third-party peer review contracted by the County or prepared by a third-party contracted by the County, and . immediately subject the 144-acre Shine Pit hub, consisting of121 acres of an existing MRLO plus 23 acres added to an existing DNR Surface Mining Pennit and which was part of the 6,240 acre proposal submitted, to operational standards and minimums pursuant to condition #2. DOE made the representations of its November 20, 2002 letter based, in part, on condition #11 found in the FSEIS, i.e., that mining would never reach below a point that was not less than 10 feet above the seasonal high water mark. Those proposed amendments went through review by the County's Planning Commission or "PC"; specifically there was a public hearing with respect to this amendment before the PC on August 21,2002 and infonnational discussion on November 6,2002. On November 13, 2002 the PC recommended approval of an MRLO for 690 acres, as suggested by the County's planning department. The PC also recommended to the elected County legislators that they include mitigation measures and fund an enforcement officer or procedure. The 690 acres that obtain an MRLO designation via the approval of this proposed CP amendment are located in a valley between two ridges and are not visible from the Hood Canal Bridge or the residences located about one mile south and east of the current FHM operations site of 144 acres, colloquially known as the "Shine Pit. " This proposed amendment was the subject of public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners on December 5,2002. 7 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. The County Commissioners and the planning staff received hundreds of e-mails and signed petitions representing literally thousands of signatures urging the County Commissioners to reject this proposed FHM MRLO amendment. Opposition to this amendment was expressed fervently at the August 21 st hearing before the PC and the December 5th hearing before the Board. A smaller and less vocal portion of this County's citizenry expressed their support for this FHM MRLO amendment. Signed petitions were submitted to this effect. The Board also notes that the CP, as a legislative policy decision, reflects and memorializes the overall opinions and intent of the entire citizenry of this county and that the CP includes numerous provisions that would support this MRLO designation and the maintenance and enhancement of mineral resource extraction activities in general. This is reiterated in the staff response to comment #56 in the FSEIS, atp. 3-14. The Board also notes that the development regulations known as the UDC, as a legislative decision, reflect and memorialize the opinions and intent of the entire citizenry of this county and that the UDC includes a specific provision that creates a process whereby parcels, if criteria are satisfied, can be and should be designated as another MRLO. Again, see the staff response to #56 in the FSEIS at p. 3-14. The presence of such a section in the UDC supports the Board conclusion to approve this request of FHM and Mr. Seton for an MRLO designation. Why? Because adoption of this CP amendment is in furtherance of the GMA mandate to maintain and enhance mineral resource extraction activities in general. In general, then, decisions arising under GMA are to be made pursuant to what the statute mandates no matter how unpopular such a decision might be. Decisions made pursuant to GMA should never be subject to what amounts to a plebiscite. F or example, as distasteful as the decision to provide more lands with a MRLO designation might be to some persons in this county, equally distasteful to others residing in this County is the GMA mandate that rural commercial lands be strictly 8 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 43. 44. 45. 46. 47, 48, limited in size and intensity of uses. Yet both are mandated by the GMA, although they are requirements of that state law that are not universally loved. Furthennore, the Board concludes it is likely that when drafting the GMA the State Legislature fully understood that resource extraction industries, particularly mining or excavating, would never be a popular "neighbor" and thus the Legislature made it clear that the resource industries are to be protected from incompatible development such as homes and not vice-versa. This amendment was the subject of a vote to approve, modify, or reject by the Board of County Commissioners. That vote to approve was made only after the three elected County Commissioners recognized, heard and seriously weighed the strong opinions held by various members of the Jefferson County community both for and against this proposal. Ultimately, however, the decision rested with the sole legislative discretion of the elected County Commissioners. This amendment was approved by the Board of County Commissioners because, in part, it is in confonnance with the requirements of GMA that counties such as this one that are planning pursuant to GMA designate mineral resource lands [RCW 36.70A.170] and assure the conservation of mineral resource lands by, in part, not pennitting the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such lands [RCW 36.70A.060]. This amendment is also in confonnance with the County's CPo Numerous goals and policies described in the County's CP are supported and furthered by adoption of this MRLO designation. They are designated as a Goal each of which has related Policies listed under it. In order the CP goals and policies most prominently furthered by this CP amendment are: . Land Use Goal ("LNG") 12.0 [locate new resource industries in rural areas near the resources to be extracted], 9 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions . LNG 13.0 [conserve and manage mineral resource lands for sustainable natural-resource based economic activities that are compatible with surrounding land uses], . LNG 24.0 [foster sustainable resource-based industry in rural areas of the County], . Natural Resource Goal ("NRG") 1.0 [encourage the conservation of resource lands and the long-tenn sustainable use of natural resource-based economic activities], . NRG 2.0 [encourage resource-based economic activities which are environmentally compatible], . NRG 6.0 [conserve and protect mineral resource lands for long- tenn economic use], and . NRG 7.0 [provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mining extraction and processing]. 49. The FHM proposed MRLO designation has been reviewed against Table 4-3 in the CP, entitled "Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as Mineral Resource Lands." That Matrix contains 13 topics, including such items as "Quality of Deposit," "Size of Deposit," and "Visual Impact." For each topic there is a spectrum of five possible responses from "Not Suitable for Designation" [the left- hand column] to "Designation Highly Desirable" [the fourth column from the left] and "Designation Critical" [the fifth column from the left, i.e., the far-right 50. column]. In reviewing this proposed MRLO designation against Table 4-3, the Final Supplemental EIS, at pages 2-29 and 2-30, reflects the staffs conclusions that in 11 of the 13 categories the appropriate place on the spectrum for the FHM CP amendment is either "Designation Highly Desirable" [the fourth column from the left] and "Designation Critical" [the far right-hand column]. For instance, this 10 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. proposal received "Designation Critical" six times, e.g., with respect to Quality of Deposit, Size of Deposit, Noise Impacts, Impact of Truck Traffic and Visual Impacts. Regarding the FHM proposal, staff detennined that the "Designation Critical" column was appropriate with respect to both Quality of Deposit and Size of Deposit based, in part, on an August 15, 2002 letter from DNR stating that "[t]he contention (by the applicant) that there are abundant gravel resources in the area is well founded." DNR further stated that the applicable maps "portray abundant Quaternary advanced and recessional Vashon outwash deposited by glaciers over the area." A finn known as GeoResources, LLC wrote a report dated April 27, 2002 on behalf of FHM that came to the same conclusion. The Board is aware of Action Item A.8 under "Natural Resources-Strategies" found within the CP and after review of the planning staff s memo dated October 25,2002 and FSEIS dated November 25,2002, finds that completion of a 50-year construction aggregate supply analysis is NOT a precondition to using the UDC criteria to detennine if any particular parcel or parcels are suitable for MRLO designation. Pursuant to Section 9 of this County's UDC, all proposed amendments have to be "considered," [the precise verb used in the UDC] in part, through the "filter" of the seven growth management indicators (or "GMI") listed at UDC §9.5.4(b), although those GMI represent only some of the criteria that the County Commissioners must consider when deciding whether to adopt or reject a proposed plan amendment. Because of the general nature of the GMI, each and every GMI will not be applicable or apropos for each and every amendment that this County Commission has considered. However, the County Commissioners, in order to comply with UDC Section 9, should and must make generalized findings of fact with respect to the seven GMI and do so now. 11 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 56. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(1), which concerns whether the rate of growth and development for the County is greater or lesser than was anticipated at the time of Comprehensive Plan ("CP") adoption in 1998, the County Commissioners find, that in the short-tenn the population of this County has not increased as quickly as the Comprehensive Plan envisioned, but that such a smaller growth rate is not relevant to this particular amendment, since the obligation to protect resource land and maintain and enhance resource extraction industries is stated expressly within the GMA at RCW 36.70A.020(8) and that mandate is not dependent on any 57. particular growth rate or lack of one. N or is the mandate to maintain and enhance the natural resource extraction industries dependent on current economic needs, both generally and for the applicant, i.e., the ability (or inability) of FHM or Mr. Seton to sell what might be 58. extracted is not relevant to the legislative or policy decision this Board faced. Furthennore, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") holds the opinion that Jefferson County is one of the counties that presumably will be net "exporters" of mineral resources to supply mineral resources to other 59. Washington counties that lack mineral resources themselves. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(2), the County Commissioners find that the capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not changed and will not change as a result of the decision to adopt this CP amendment. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(3), which speaks of whether sufficient urban land 60. has been designated, the County Commissioners find that resource extraction industries should never be located within an Urban Growth Area or "UGA" (pursuant to state law and County Wide Planning Policy 7, Section 4), and thus this GMI is not relevant to the deliberations or decision reached with respect to the 61. FHM amendment or the Seton amendment. It should be noted that the estimated average annual per capita need of construction aggregate in Washington state is some 12 to 15 tons (which come from extracted mineral resources). 12 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(4), the County Commissioners find that most of the assumptions that supported the policies and goals of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan remain valid, including the policies and goals that require the classification and designation of mineral resource lands, the protection of those mineral resource lands and the encouragement of the natural resource industries. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(5), the County Commissioners find that the Board recognizes that it must consider routes and actions that may create economic opportunity and a healthy economy. This becomes particularly important in the face of increasing unemployment and our current national recession. While this shift in priorities does not necessarily require any changes to the goals of the plan, it does and will require implementation of goals and policies intentionally placed inside the County's CP that refer to the natural resource lands and the maintenance and enhancement of natural resource industries. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(5), the County Commissioners find that FHM has estimated that the MRLO will allow [with whatever pennits might be needed] it to continue to extract (in economically feasible segments) mineral resources from the Thorndyke area for the next 20 to 40 years, and will allow FHM to increase its full-time employee roster by as many as 30 jobs, some of which will be held by Jefferson County residents. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(5), the County Commissioners find that to the extent that this amendment may generate in the future jobs located in the rural portions of the County, its adoptions supports the GMA mandate that any County planning under GMA must "foster. . .. rural-based economies, and opportunities to both live and work in rural areas," pursuant to RCW 36.70A.030(14)(b). With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(6), the County Commissioners find that there have not been any changed circumstances to dictate a need for amendments, instead this amendment implements numerous CP policies and goals that maintain and enhance natural resource industries. 13 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 67. With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b )(7), the County Commissioners find that any inconsistencies between the County's Plan and the GMA exist because Jefferson County has only begun to utilize or consider every 'tool' found in the GMA 'toolbox,' including, by way of example only, using its development regulations (only enacted two years ago) to examine whether any other locations in the unincorporated county are appropriate for MRLO designation. We also conclude and detennine that findings #1 through #3 inclusive, #6, #11, #12, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19, #37 to #48 inclusive, #52 to #63 inclusive and #66 through #68 inclusive are equally applicable to MLA #01-00446, Seton's application for an MRLO for 20 acres. The County has met and exceeded the public participation requirements of the GMA, the CP and UDC. The adoption ofMLA #02-235 and MLA #01-446 is consistent with the GMA, the CP and the Countywide Planning Policies. The adoption ofMLA #02-235 and MLA #01-446 is pennitted by and is consistent with RCW 36.70A.130. The Board bases its findings and conclusions on the entire record of testimony and exhibits, including all written and oral testimony before the Planning Commission and the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, as follows: Section One: With respect to MLA #02-00235 (Fred Hill Materials) the following real property constituting 690 acres, be and hereby is granted a Mineral Resource Land Overlay, subject to conditions listed below in Section Two: See Exhibit A for legal description, Section Two: The MRLO designation granted to Fred Hill Materials, Inc, shall be and is subject to the following fifteen (15) conditions: 14 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 1, 2, Prior to approval and operation of a surface mine in the Wahl Lake or Meridian area of the Thorndyke Tree Farm, the proponent shall submit and satisfy all requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) including, but not limited to: a, Protection of environmentally sensitive areas per Section 3: Mining is prohibited in Fish and Wildlife Habitat areas or their buffers, Mining is prohibited in Wetlands or their associated buffers, Submission of an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, and Grading Plan, the combination of which shall demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause degradation of groundwater or surface waters, Submission of a Habitat Management Plan, . . . . b, Performance standards of Section 4: Full compliance with the Washington State Surface Mining Act (RCW 78.44) shall be required prior to any mining activity that exceeds 3 acres of disturbed area, Extraction report prepared by a professional geologist with elements required pursuant to UDC 4,24,2,a-f, All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a,m, and 7:00 p,m, . . . c, Development standards of section 6: Stormwater management standards and practices, Best Management Practices for drainage and erosion control and sedimentation control. Mineral extraction Best Management Practices in Aquifer Recharge Areas, . . . d, Jefferson County procedures and policies at UDC Section 8 for implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), e, Any failure to abide by Jefferson County regulations shall be investigated and enforced as provided by the requirements and procedures of Section 10, As a matter of policy, the legal, nonconforming use (i.e" established prior to adoption of the UDC) at the Shine Pit hub of 144 acres (including an existing MRL overlay of 121 acres) shall be subject to operational standards a, and b, upon adoption of a Wahl Lake/Meridian MRL overlay and operational standards c, and d, when (and if) approval is granted through a permit review process for mineral extraction activities in the Wahl Lake/Meridian MRL overlay: a, The maximum permissible sound level at any and all receiving properties outside of the Thorndyke Tree Farm shall be 57 dB(A) between 7:00 a,m, and 7:00 p,m, on weekdays and 47 dB(A) on weekends, holidays, and between 7:00 p,m, and 7:00 a,m, on weekdays, Compliance protocol shall be established during review of future mineral extraction permit application, Any planned, temporary exceeding of these standards must be authorized beforehand by the Administrator and documented in the compliance case file, Outdoor lighting shall meet the specifications of the US National Park Service Interim Design Guidelines for Outdoor Lighting, Building lighting shall be located b, 15 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions c, high on the structures and include forward throw optics to direct lighting away from the sides of the buildings and onto the ground, Lighting required for mineral extraction, processing, and transportation activities shall be independently mounted (not directly attached to equipment) to allow for a more downward throw of light to further limit the potential for direct light to reach offsite areas, Transportation options shall be fully studied in project action environmental review, including optimum hours for truck access to SR 104, A visual impact mitigation plan shall be a mandatory element of project action environmental review, including but not limited to the establishment of berms, vegetative plantings, and other measures to mitigate offsite visual impacts, d, 3, Gravel mining operations shall, prior to approval and operation, obtain from the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program a national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit (NPDES) for process water, stormwater and mine dewatering water discharges, All activities within the MRL overlays shall be subject to the standards of the latest edition of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, 4, Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause degradation of the groundwater quality below the standards described in Chapter 173-200 WAC (Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington): a, The proponent shall prepare a Best Management Practices Report pursuant to the criteria explained below, describing how the operators will integrate other necessary and appropriate mitigating measures in the design, installation, and management of the proposed facility or use, b, The report shall be prepared by, or done under the direction of or designed by, a qualified person with demonstrated expertise in the industry or field as demonstrated by a statement of qualifications and at least three references from parties familiar with common business practices in the subject field or known expertise in the field, c, The report will identify appropriate BMPs and how they will be employed to prevent degradation of groundwater, Examples of BMPs are available at the DCD Permit Center, All necessary technical data, drawings, calculations, and other information to describe application of the BMPs must be supplied, d, The report shall identify how the applicant will satisfy the requirements of the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC, in the event that hazardous material is released into the ground or groundwater, e, The Department of Community Development and/or a qualified consultant contracted by the County at the applicant's expense shall review the report, The County may consult with the Jefferson County Department of Health and Human Services, State of Washington Departments of Health or Ecology, independent reviewer, or any other parties, as determined at the County's discretion, 16 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 9, 10, 11, 12, 5, Establish a written agreement with the County providing that all employees at the mining site will be notified that the operation lies above an Aquifer Recharge Area and all employees shall receive documented annual training concerning all measures set forth by the BMPs established in the reports required above, 6, Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall at all times comply with Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority/Olympic Region Clean Air Agency permit requirements, Prior to operation, the proponent shall submit documentation from Olympic Air Pollution Control/Olympic Region Clean Air Agency to the Community Development Department verifying that the operation is in compliance with Olympic Air Pollution Control permit requirements, 7, Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall engage a third-party, selection of which is approved in advance by the County, to monitor compliance with regulations and conditions pertaining to their NPDES/State Waste Discharge Permit. Reports shall be prepared and distributed as required in the NPDES/State permit, with copies to the County each month unless the permit requires quarterly reporting in which case copies will be provided to the County quarterly, 8, Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall submit an annual report to the County evaluating implementation of the Department of Natural Resources-approved Surface Mine Reclamation Plan, A qualified, independent consultant approved by the County shall prepare the report, The report shall identify how restoration of the site compares to the approved Reclamation Plan and whether any corrective action is contemplated by the applicant or required by the Department of Natural Resources, The proponent shall submit quarterly inspections prepared by a third party selected by Jefferson County which examines the activities within the MRL overlay to assure compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures of applicable codes, statutes and ordinances, FHM, Pope Resources, and any future permit holders and/or landowners shall allow unlimited access to Jefferson County or other governmental agencies for the purpose of inspection and determination of compliance with applicable conditions of approval and applicable statutes, codes, and ordinances, Uses within the Wahl Lake area and Meridian area MRL overlay will be limited to extraction and transportation via a conveyor system to the Shine Pit hub, No heavy equipment maintenance or crushing operations shall be allowed in this MRL overlay, Mining will be limited to a maximum depth of ten (10) feet above the seasonal high water table, which shall be established and monitored pursuant to standard techniques and verified through independent review as arranged by the County at the applicant's expense, Maximum active mining area (segment) size shall be determined in consultation with Department of Natural Resources, but shall not exceed 40 acres, Reclamation shall be conducted on an on-going basis, pursuant to progressive 17 Ordinance No, 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions 13, 14, 15, segmental reclamation standards and according to the specific mining segment sizes and timelines established in DNR-approved Reclamation Plans, During mining operations, dust shall be controlled by the proponent, through means of watering or other methods that are acceptable to the SEPA Responsible Official. Any application for a conveyor and pier facility for barge loading in the Hood Canal would automatically receive a threshold Determination of Significance (OS) from Jefferson County, requiring the preparation of a project action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), The permit application review process for any application for mineral extraction in the newly adopted Wahl Lake/Meridian MRL overlay shall include a full environmental review of all transportation options of mined material, including terrestrial and marine options, If an application is submitted for mineral extraction in the Thorndyke Tree Farm, but a concurrent zoning and shoreline conditional use application is not submitted for a conveyor and pier facility for barge loading in the Hood Canal, the marine transportation option shall be fully analyzed and considered during SEPA review, the absence of an application notwithstanding, orthe marine transportation option shall be eliminated from future consideration, This measure is established as a matter of policy and in an effort to fulfill the spirit and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act and the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, which call for full environmental review of all probable short- and long-term environmental impacts, A periodic review process shall be established in conjunction with any future mineral extraction or related permits granted for activities in or associated with the current and newly adopted MRL overlays in the Thorndyke Tree Farm, At five (5) year intervals from permit issuance, DCD will conduct a periodic review process, equivalent to a Type II permit process under Section 8 of the UDC, including applicable public notice provisions and appeal rights, to determine whether the site is operating consistent the most current standards and to establish other conditions as necessary to mitigate identifiable environmental impacts, Written notice that periodic review is commencing shall be provided to the public and to agencies with jurisdiction, The notice shall explain the purpose and intent of the periodic review process and other relevant details, Section Three: An MRLO designation is provided to 20 acres of the 37 acres of the real property that was the subject ofMLA #01-00446, also known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 001172001 and 001172004, 18 Ordinance No. 14-1213-02: Mineral Resource Overlay with Conditions Section Four: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended to reflect the addition of these two newly-adopted Mineral Resource Overlay districts. Section Five: Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. Approved and adopted this 13th day of December, 2002. " . , , , " ," . {",. ,'~ '.', , -""." ~ . , ~ :"~ J r ,..,' .i It'" '! SEAL; : I .. , . \. :. . . . ... 0'" . \\..,,'.' ...) ; ;. f 1#' t I \,~, - ,,/1 ", " ~ ~'<: ...\ ~',' , . . JEFFERS ON.C OUNTY BO ARD,OFC O!'1~.,MISSIO..'N"RS "f.,'7 á, ' ,--!, ~h"see below \ ./ ¡ ! '~. ' Richard Wojt, Chair ATTEST: C;~:::: ~ Clerk of the Board Dan Tittemess, Member Chaìrman Wojt: Seton In Favor TIM Opposed 19 EXHIBIT A 525 Acres - More or Less Meridian Extraction Area REVISED MRLO LEGAL The southerly 1,125 feet (plus or minus) of the SE 1/4, Section 1, Township 27 N, Range 1 W, W,M" The east 1/2 of Section 12, Township 27 N, Range 1 W, W,M, EXCEPT the west 500 feet of the east 1/2 of said Section 12, The North 150 feet (plus or minus) of the NE 1/4, Section 13, Township 27 N, Range 1 W, W,M, The North 150 feet (plus or minus) of the NW 1/4, Section 18, Township 27 N, Range 1 E, W,M" The SW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 27 N, Range 1 E, W,M" The SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 Township 27N, Range 1 E WM, 156 Acres - More or Less Wahl Lake Extraction Area LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WM" IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A 3" DIAMETER ALUMINUM MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE SOUTH 1 °36'37" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 1 A DISTANCE OF 906,69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°04'20" WEST 1533,75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1 °55'40" WEST 3279.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°04'20" WEST 363,79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37°39'30" WEST 1305,08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79°39'32" WEST 1535,88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1°55'40" EAST 2048,97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°04'20" EAST 2714,79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, 9 Acres - More or Less Conveyor and Maintenance Road Easement A 60 FOOT WIDE STRIP LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, WM, AND WITHIN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, WM" IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE NORTH 87°46'49" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 1219,72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS CENTERLINE; THENCE SOUTH 2°14'31" WEST 157,83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69°02'13" WEST 1498.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64°05'45" WEST 2966,83 FEET TO THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN SAID SECTIONS 1 AND 6; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 64°05'45" WEST 1742,15 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A LEASE AREA AS DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED ON A RECORD-OF-SURVEY RECORDED IN VOLUME 23 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 29, AUDITOR'S FILE NO, 443672, AND THE POINT OF TERMINATION OF THIS CENTERLINE, THE SIDELINES OF THIS EASEMENT SHALL BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED, AS THE CASE MAY REQUIRE, SO THAT THEY TERMINATE AT THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 AND THAT THEY TERMINATE AT THE EAST LINE ABOVE SAID LEASE AREA.