The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM060704 Æ>~~i~~. STÄ.<9~ °6\ &($ \~ ~\ , ~~. \ \\~ ~J ~8/¡ 0<\0/ - -I~_/- District No. 1 Commissioner: Dan Titterness District No.2 Commissioner: Glen Huntingford District No.3 Commissioner: Patrick M. Rodgers County Administrator: David Goldsmith Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Week of June 7, 2004 Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order. Commissioner Dan Titterness and Commissioner Patrick Rodgers were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Rodgers moved to approve the minutes of May 17, 2004 as presented. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PROCLAMATION re: Amateur Radio Week: John Ebner, Emergency Management, reported that amateur radio volunteers from around the world will participate in an annual "field day" on June 26-27. The local ARES/RACES volunteers will put up six radio stations at Old Fort Townsend State Park. For 24 hours, starting at 11 a.m. on Saturday, they will make as many radio contacts as possible. He added that everyone has a great time, but it is also an important exercise in emergency preparedness. Chairman Huntingford read the proclamation designating June 21 through June 27, 2004 as "Amateur Radio Week." Commissioner Titterness moved to adopt the proclamation. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING: The following items were discussed: · The County has received several e-mails regarding concerns about the handling and transport of radioactive materials. Bob Hamlin, Emergency Management Programs Manager, reported that the Emergency Preparedness Plan was revised to include radioactive materials, and special equipment has been ordered. A public announcement will be made after staff completes the training to use the equipment. Federal shipments are not required to display placards because they are exempt due to security reasons. These vehicles are closely monitored in case of an accident so that emergency responders can get to the scene quickly. · The Board did not adopt a formal moratorium resolution for naming or re-naming County roads. Instead, they sent a memo to the departments directing them to suspend any requests until the review of the E9ll Addressing System was completed. The Review Committee has completed the draft ordinance and they are requesting that the Board allow the departments to resume processing of road name requests with the condition that all requests are reviewed by a Jeff Com Technical Committee before they are approved by the Board. Commissioner Titterness moved to direct DCD and Page 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 fJ,,,,,,,,· ~.~i ',p,.. . Public Works to begin processing all applications for the establishment of new road names or renaming of existing roads; to instruct the Public Works Department to have any request for naming or renaming of roads reviewed and approved first by the Jeff Com Technical Committee; and that said procedure shall remain in place until the County addressing ordinance is amended. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The State statute regarding fireworks displays includes fireworks displays by private parties. Several residents of Kala Point have expressed concerns about the fire danger from an annual 4th of July fireworks display near their homes. This is a very dry year and procedures need to be in place as soon as possible. According to the RCW, the "local fire official"reviews applications from a fire prevention and fire fighting standpoint and makes a recommendation to the Risk Manager. This designated official can be an entity or a person. David Goldsmith suggested that the Board designate Fire Marshall Al Scalf and the Fire Chief in the District where the display is located as the "local fire official." The County's Special Events Permit application is used for fireworks displays. Conditions can be added to the permit linking the level of fire danger at the time ofthe display and requiring the applicant to work with the local fire district to have representatives on site. Traffic control is already included in the permit. Commissioner Rodgers moved to designate the Jefferson County Fire Marshall, together with the local Fire District Chief for the area where the public fireworks display is to be held, as the Local Fire Official pursuant to RCW 70.77.177, and the application for said permit shall be the same as the Jefferson County Special Event Permit. Commissioner Titterness seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. There are three open positions that Department Heads are asking to fill. In the Natural Resources Department, there are two grant funded half-time positions that they want to combine into one full- time position and at WSU/Extension, there is an Administrative Clerk vacancy and the Administrative Assistant is retiring. The Board asked that the Department Heads come in to talk with the Commissioners. The City of Port Townsend may be interested in purchasing the DSHS building that the County owns at Castle Hill Mall because they need a temporary location for the Police Department. The original plan was for the County Public Works Department to move into the building, but it would take some remodeling to make it work. An analysis needs to be done before any proposal is made. The County Administrator will work with the City Manager to put together a letter of intent. The Auditor has asked the County's Personnel Consultant to supply receipts for additional expenses above his monthly retainer but he would rather increase the amount of his contract per month. Currently, there is a letter of agreement for his services. Commissioner Titterness moved to accept the County Administrator's recommendation to increase Braun Consulting's monthly retainer from $900.00 to $1,125.00 which includes all travel expenses. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The State has developed an outline for "priorities of government" to help educate citizens about how government tax dollars are spent which would serve as a format for the County. · · · Page 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 '. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following comments were made: the preferred site for the water treatment in the General Sewer Plan needs more review regarding possible contamination ofthe aquifer and other risk factors, and the odor will affect property values in the area, the Planning Commission is considering this site and other options should be looked at; the rules for the Fred Hill Materials public hearing on May 25 stated that, due to the State law, the Commissioners wouldn't take testimony on the final SEIS, and there is no State law that says this, and it is a citizen's right to comment about any legislative matter that is before the Board; the Commissioners can decide the relevance of comments made regarding the final SEIS at the public hearing, the MRL has nothing to do with the Pit-to Pier project, but deals with Fred Hill Materials right to mine under the GMA; County employees need to alert the Auditor if they find long distance phone calls charged to their phone that they didn't make; comments on the policy for an employee's use of a County telephone for personal calls; and, is there a policy for people who want to carry picket signs at the Courthouse? APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Titterness moved to delete Item #10 and approve the balance of the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 24-04 re: Vacation of Unnamed Road Lying South of Lot 10, Block 2 in Trails End Homesites 4th Addition Volume 4 of Plats, Page 16; Veronica Redman, Petitioner 2. RESOLUTION NO. 25-04 and HEARING NOTICE re: Intent to Declare County Surplus Personal Property; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, June 21, 2004 at 10:15 a.m. in the County Commissioners' Chambers 3. HEARING NOTICE re: Renaming a County Road; Dilly Dally Drive to Burnt Tree Lane; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, June 21, 2004 at 10:05 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 4. HEARING NOTICE re: Amending the Six Year (2004-2009) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); Hearing Scheduled for Monday, June 21, 2004 at 10:30 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 5. HEARING NOTICE re: Proposed Ordinance Regarding Enforcement Against and Abatement of Public Nuisances in the County, Including Repetitious Loud Noises and Junk Vehicles; Hearing Scheduled for Monday, June 21, 2004 at 11 :00 a.m. in the Commissioners' Chambers 6. AGREEMENT re: Employment Services; Jefferson County Assessor's Office; Peter Schuck 7. AGREEMENT re: Peer-In Program; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Jefferson County Community Network 8. AGREEMENT re: Parent to Parent Program Coordinator; Jefferson County Health and Human Services; Penny James 9. AGREEMENT re: Professional Services to Provide Technical Assistance with GPS Locating Wellheads in Support of Hydrogeology Studies for the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 16 Planning Unit Project in Brinnon; Sound Hydrogeology 10. DELETE AGREEMENT NO, G0400341 re: Coordinated Prevention Grant Funding for the Moderate Risk Waste Facility Operations; Jefferson County Public Works; Washington State Department of Ecology (Approved Later in Minutes) Page 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 .' 11. AGREEMENT NO. 04-DG-ll06-0900-0014 re: Secure Rural Schools and Community Act Title II Program Grant Funding for the Linger Longer Feasibility Study on the Lower Big Quilcene River, Project #QF1506; Jefferson County Public Works; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 12. Final Amended Long Plat Approval, #SUB03-00015; Boardwalk Long Plat Located at 35 St. James Place, Port Townsend; Russell Gourley, Applicant The Board then conducted an interview with Valerie Johnstone who is interested in serving on the Solid Waste Advisory Board representing District No. 1. APPOINTMENT to the Solid Waste Advisory Board: Commissioner Tittemess moved to appoint Valerie Johnstone to a 2 year term on the Solid Waste Advisory Board representing Commissioner District # l. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Her term will expire on June 7, 2006. The Board met in Executive Session from 10: 15 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. with the County Administrator, the Human Resources Manager and the Public Works Director regarding personnel. From 10:45 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m. the Board met in Executive Session with the County Administrator, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and the Clerk of the Board regarding actual litigation. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Monday and reconvened on Tuesday. All 3 Commissioners were present. Mooring Buoys at Port Ludlow: David Goldsmith explained that the notice sent to the buoy owners informing them that their permit had been issued inappropriately was revoked because it was not in the proper format according to the ordinance. He asked the Board if they want to refile the order to have the buoys removed? Commissioner Titterness moved to have the Director of Community Development redraft the letter in the correct format with assistance from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office and res end it. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. AGREEMENT NO. G0400341 re: Coordinated Prevention Grant Fundingfor the Moderate Risk Waste Facility Operations: (Item #10 on the Consent Agenda) David Goldsmith advised the Board that the local match for this DOE grant is staff resources to operate the facility. The grant covers the operations except for packaging. The facility is open all day Friday and Saturday and two other days are set aside for packaging the waste for shipment. From a demand standpoint, the Department supports the current hours. Page 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 --~'-'''''.,(. =>.. ..- ~.:~:~ 1·..'/r......\·' Commissioner Titterness moved to approve the grant agreement with the DOE for Moderate Risk Waste Facility operations. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. Marrowstone Island Water System: Chairman Huntingford stated that the PUD has not made a formal request for the County to join in any action taken against the decision to go ahead with the water system on Marrowstone Island. The County adopted a resolution in February, 2003 that acknowledged the development of a water system on the island as a goal in the Comprehensive Plan. The system can help to resolve sea water intrusion issues. The Board concurred that they need to reaffirm this resolution. Commissioner Titterness stated that the County needs to make a formal offer to the PUD to support them in whatever manner the County's resources allow. Commissioner Rodgers stated that the water system is a prime solution to seawater intrusion issues and the County needs to support it. Commissioner Titterness moved to direct Staff to draft a letter to the PUD offering assistance that is consistent with the County's policy and is within the County's resources. Commissioner Rodgers seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting was recessed at the close of business on Tuesday and reconvened on Wednesday. At 11: 15 a.m. Judith Lucia was interviewed regarding her interest in service on the Parks Advisory Board representing District #3. The meeting was recessed and reconvened at the Chimacum School Auditorium at 7 p.m. to continue the hearing on MLA02-235, the Fred Hill Materials proposal. All 3 commissioners were present. HEARING re: MLA02-235 Fred Hill Proposal: (Continued from May 25,2004) Chairman Huntingford reconvened the public hearing on the Fred Hill Materials MRLO. Approximately 300 interested citizens were in attendance. Chairman Huntingford stated that the rules for this public hearing were revised since the hearing was opened on May 25 because Rule #1 had stated that the Board wouldn't take comments about the completed environmental review. The Chair read the rules (See permanent record - written hearing rules.) He stated that the Board will probably not make a decision at the hearing, but will do so within a week or two. The hearing was turned over to Associate Planner Greg Ballard who reviewed the staff report dated June 9, 2004. He explained that there were changes in Section 1.7 and Sections 1.91, 1.92, 1.93, and 1.94 that were added to address 113 comments (111 opposed and 2 in favor) that the County received. The comments will be incorporated into the Board's decision when they deliberate on the issue. He reviewed the three alternatives: 1) the Proposed Action Alternative which is the original proposal by the applicant with the mining size determined by DNR; 2) the Approved Action Alternative approved by the County Commissioners that has a 40 acre limit on mining segments and a limit on mining depth with no mining closer than 10 feet above any underground aquifer; and, 3) the No Action Alternative which means that Page 5 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 f;j) ~ mining could take place as a permitted use with no more than 10 acres disturbed at anyone time. He also reviewed the Intensity of Use section and the Summary of Impacts Section. Staff recommends the approval ofthe Approved Action Alternative with the conditions from Ordinance No. 14-1213-02 with two modifications. Condition #l2 changes the definition from a maximum 40 acre segment to a maximum 40 acres disturbed area size and clarifies the County's intent to keep the disturbed area at an appropriate level and not have large areas of forest lands removed for production which would displace wildlife habitat. Condition #14 was modified to clarify that the process regarding any application for a conveyor and pier facility for barge loading in Hood Canal would receive a Determination of Significance and require a project action EIS. Transportation of the extracted material will be a component of any extraction permit application and permits issued shall be based on the transportation methods and anticipated rate of transport stated in the application. Any change in the rate of extraction associated with an extraction project approval shall require a new or amended permit and a new threshold determination issued by the County. Chairman Huntingford opened the public testimony portion ofthe hearing. James C. Tracy. Poulsbo, stated that he represents Fred Hill Materials regarding their Comprehensive Plan amendment application for a Mineral Resource Land designation. (See permanent record for written statement.) He endorses the content of the staff report, including the modifications to Conditions #12 and #14 pertaining to the submission of the Pit-to-Pier project application. All three of the alternatives that have been presented were found to be reasonable in the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board final decision order on the Comprehensive Plan amendment. The reason for the remand to the County was additional environmental review and the WWGMHB indicated that the question of adequacy of mitigation measures would not be reviewed until the completion of the environmental review of the identified alternatives. The WWGMHB found that the MRL does not violate GMA, Jefferson County's Comprehensive Plan, or the UDC. They also found that the process was not "clearly erroneous" and that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden to prove that the County's action substantially interferes with the goals ofGMA. The presumption of validity remains with the County's MRL approval and a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement has been issued. Most of the people who are against the MRL are against the Pit-to-Pier project. The two are not linked. Fred Hill Materials has a Pit-to-Pier project application before several government agencies and an EIS will be prepared. The company is in Jefferson County to stay and will continue to grow. He listed tactics used by opponents to discredit Fred Hill Materials. The responsibility of each citizen is to provide factual accuracy and allegations need to be supported with evidence. He stated that the County Commissioners' task is to assess whether the additional environmental analysis, required by the Hearings Board and recently completed, provides any conclusions or data that would make them change or modify their decision on the original approval of the 690 acre MRLO subject to conditions. He commented on information from the FSEIS. Section 1.4.1 indicates that no regulated critical areas are to be included in any portion of the proposed MRL where mining activities can occur. The MRL application makes specific provision for field verification to validate the presence or absence of regulated critical areas and further exclude them if they are discovered during the actual mining permit process. Fred Hill Materials Page 6 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 1)',',",',""'- ;;'<,......- .-.~ "r·;·'".... -\,(/",..,\ requests that the Commissioners make a specific finding of fact in the resolution that is consistent with this FSEIS statement. Section 1.4.3 of the FSEIS states that under current Jefferson County regulations, mining is permitted within resource lands designations and as a conditional use within rural residential designations. There is a mining district of more than 330,000 acres in designated forestlands. This should also be included as a finding of fact in the resolution. Fred Hill requests that the Board approve the recommendation in the staff report. John Fabian, Shine Road in Port Ludlow, stated that he is testifying on behalf ofthe 2,300 members and 55 organizations that support the Hood Canal Coalition (HCC.) (See permanent record for written statement.) The future of Jefferson County depends on the Commissioners' decision on this issue. The County approved Fred Hill Materials Comprehensive Plan amendment for a 690 acre mineral resource lands overlay in 2002 and the HCC appealed it to the Growth Management Hearings Board. The Hearings Board found that the Commissioner's decision was not based on sufficient environmental evaluations of various alternatives, that aspects of the Pit-to-Pier project should be considered, and that the scope of mining activities and the resulting transportation of gravel should be considered. Since 2002, an application for the Pit-to-Pier project has been submitted and the Commissioners can no longer say they don't know anything about a project. There is evidence that Hood Canal may be teetering on the brink of environmental collapse due, in large part, to shoreline development. Further development without safeguards would be foolish and industrial development would be idiotic. The sales tax proposal by Fred Hill Materials was bogus and the State DOR has ruled that any attempt to give Jefferson County sales tax receipts from sales at the dock would be illegal. The FSEIS provides information about the scope of mining and related transportation issues. Ninety percent of the 7.5 minion tons of gravel annually mined from the MRL will be transported by ships and barges. With an expected life of 40 years, the gravel could last for hundreds of years ifthe Pit-to-Pier project is never built. What in the GMA mandates that counties set aside such excessive amounts? Is this MRL really about the Pit-to-Pier project? The FSEIS states that most of the 7.5 million tons of gravel delivered by truck will go to Kitsap County and only 1 % will be sold in Jefferson County and earn sales tax credit. The FSEIS states that truck and marine transport of gravel are complementary and neither can service the market place of the other. Fred Hill Materials has said that 29 gravel trucks and trailers would replace one shipload of gravel. They say barges are environmentally cleaner than trucks and they are concerned about wear and tear on the highways. In their response to the draft EIS, the State Department of Fish and Wildlife stated that a study had "identified the Toandos Peninsula as an area that should be maintained in permanent commercial forest production in order to maintain wildlife species population and diversity, " and, "adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitats will likely be unavoidable from mining operations." There are people here tonight because the MRL is all about the Pit-to-Pier project. That project is currently on the table, but the County and Fred Hill Materials are not moving forward on it until they get what they want on the MRL. Fred Hill claims that the MRL is necessary to protect the resource and prevent encroachment from future residential development, but the resource is already protected by the commercial forestland designation and a zoning change would be required for residential development. What they really Page 7 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 'IJ,"·,,'·,',,',','·' ;; , .... ~ 1t'\II(~":~,.... want is a massive industrial port facility inside a fragile and the threatened national treasure that is Hood Canal. The MRL designation is an enabling step in the process of imposing the Pit-to-Pier project upon the citizens of the County. Fred Hill Materials claims they will proceed with the Pit-to-Pier project even if the MRL is denied. The HCC has the same concerns as last year. The Canal, the Navy Base, the environment, the aquifer, and the local economy are all at risk. There is a new concern about the neutrality of certain parts of County government and the HCC has reason to believe that they are taking sides with the developer. When the public hearing on May 25 was convened, a non-existent State law was cited that prohibited the Commissioners from "hearing any comments, questions, or statements about the adequacy, contents, or substance of the environmental review that was done." Inventing a law to limit the scope and substance of debate is not in the interest of the democratic process. The efforts of the Commissioners and HCC attorneys to correct this injustice prior to tonight's hearing are appreciated. The HCC also has concerns about the FSEIS approved by the County's Responsible Official because it negates the No Action option which would rej ect the MRL. The document proclaims that doing nothing is far worse than approving a mining district because there would be less control. Tonight is the only time the Commissioners will be able to directly influence the future of the Pit-to-Pier project because permit approvals are handled by staff and the Hearing Examiner. It is an opportunity for them to undo their original decision that was based on less information and less concern about the future of the Canal. The Commissioner's decision can probably go either way, and it will probably be appealed. Melissa Arias, stated that she is one of the attorneys for the Hood Canal Coalition. (See permanent record for written statement.) Tonight the attorney for Fred Hill Materials stated that there are approximately 330,000 acres of mineral lands available to be mined in various zoning designations throughout the County and thousands of acres are protected by a forestland designation. Denying the overlay does not jeopardize protection against incompatible uses already secured for the mineral resources contained in the MLO requested area. The FSEIS claims that if an MRL is not imposed, the commercial forest designated lands could be encroached on by incompatible development. One residence per 80 acres is allowed in this land use designation. The allowable uses within the overlay district are the same uses as in the underlying designation according to the UDC, therefore the same development would be allowed under the MRLO amendment. The mineral resource lands will still be protected from incompatible development if the MRLO is not approved because the County's GMA planning recognized that commercial forest designation protects both timberlands and mineral resources lying below them. While not being mined, these lands can continue to be used as forest resource areas with identical protection against incompatible uses or development. The Hearings Board has rejected this "protection of resource" rationale. The County's insistence on adhering to this rationale demonstrates refusal to accept the Hearings Board's holdings and its refusal to accept the prior SEPA analysis. The FSEIS has provided no analysis of how the No Action Alternative fails to protect resource lands to explain how circumstances in the County have changed, why the County's 1997 EIS is wrong, and why the County believes it can disregard the Hearings Board's order. If the County believes that the current notice provisions provided to individuals who purchase property adjacent to resource lands is inadequate, the No Action Alternative should be modified to include a new notice provision. Page 8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 "'~ ~."... Duana Kolouskova, stated that she is the attorney representing Teamsters Local #589 and many other unions who have joined Local #589 in support ofthe application that is before the Commissioners. They request that the Board affirm the Mineral Resource Lands Overlay district. They are submitting a short statement in addition to comments already in the record. (See permanent record for written statement.) The State law about the priority and importance of resource lands is clear and the overlay district complies with a clear GMA mandate to prioritize, desibrnate and protect resource lands. The County has addressed all the issues articulated by the WWGMHB in their Final Decision and Order. The Teamsters are requesting that the Commissioners follow the law and confirm the MRLO district. She asked the union members present to stand and stated that, as a group, they stand firmly behind the Fred Hill Materials application. She said that to affirm the designation is clearly defined and amply supported by all the evidence in the record. The majority of the Teamsters left the hearing at this point. Ezra Eickmeyer. Port Hadlock, stated that he was involved doing public outreach in favor ofthe MRL in 2002. The HCC may represent a majority of the people present, but it is easy to encourage people to be vocal and active when they are opposed to an issue. In 2002, a petition in support of the MRL went door to door in the County. In Port Townsend, 50% of the citizens were in favor ofthe MRL and in Port Hadlock and Chimacum, 75% were in favor. In a few months, they got 2,500 signatures. He has talked with several of the citizens who signed the petition and they haven't changed their minds, they just aren't vocal. He thinks they are the majority. He is one of the few active Democrats and an environmentalist who supports this proj ect. He is sorry that his party has taken such a firm stance opposing the MRL, but the last election showed where the voters stand. The working families of the Jefferson County need family wage jobs, support this project and understand the need for gravel. Fred Hill Materials intends to make their resource extraction environmentally friendly and they have the ability and the resources to see that this happens. Peter Schrappen. Bremerton, stated that Ezra Eickmeyer lobbies for Fred Hill Materials in Olympia. Mr. Schrappen stated that he represents the West Sound Conservation Council, a non-profit group, representing nine different organizations with over 2,000 members that are a part of the HCC. Everyone in this room treasures Hood Canal and having to decide between protecting the Canal and protecting jobs is a false choice. Companies will relocate here because the Canal has been protected and they will add more than 29 jobs. Protecting the Canal for our children should be our legacy. Bonnie Phillips. Olympia, stated that she is speaking as Chair of the Olympic Forest Coalition. They are members of the HCC and are firmly opposed to designating the 690 acre gravel mine area owned by Fred Hill Materials as a MRLO in the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. OFC is a peninsula-wide organization that focuses on protecting and restoring forest ecosystems and the water into which forested rivers and streams flow. They began as the Quilcene Ancient Forest Coalition in 1989 in Jefferson County. The Pit-to-Pier project could do great damage to the ecosystem and communities in the area. They realize that the Commissioners are not evaluating that project at this time, but they agree with Congressman Dicks who stated that the Board cannot consider the MRLO designation as an isolated action unless properly considering the environmental impact of the entire project. They support Congressman Dicks and Governor Locke in their recognition of the environmental degradation occurring in Hood Canal. There are numerous environmental concerns associated with the project. By developing this site to the maximum there will be further degradation and fragmentation to upland habitat in the area. Regional aquifers could be affected that Page 9 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 .'."',',',.,"", t','-'~ ~f . .:'.-.;~ ·If"....\ would effect salmon streams, and specifically Thorndyke Creek. The project could impact and increase shoreline erosion which would affect threatened shellfish and salmon. The large number of barges used in this mining operation would increase the threat of oil spills or other pollution. Ballast water discharge could lead to invasive species introduction and this is currently a critical problem throughout Puget Sound. She urged the Commissioners to protect local communities by rejecting this risky project and denying the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Ron Helmonds, Port Ludlow, stated that the attorney for Fred Hill had commented about the accuracy of facts presented by the HCC. The HCC stands by their facts, including what is printed in the newspaper. Hood Canal is suffering and dying and we can't afford to let that happen. As custodians ofthis land, we owe it to ourselves, and generations to come, to make sure that it doesn't. Donna Nolan, Port Ludlow, stated that she is a member of the HCC and opposed to the MRL. The appearance of fairness is a concern to her. This project has been handled differently by all the agencies involved from the beginning. There is a draft resolution circulating with language for the Commissioners to approve the Approved Action Alternative although the public testimony hasn't been given and the Board has not made a decision yet. Larry Mayes, Renton, stated that he disagrees with everything that the attorney for Fred Hill Materials said. He takes exception regarding Fred Hill Materials threats to sue people who are exercising their rights to express legitimate concerns. This MRL is absolutely linked to the Pit-to-Pier project and, if it is ever built, it will have adverse consequences on what is already a fragile environment in the national treasure of Hood Canal. It will have adverse affects on the sole source lifeline of the Hood Canal Bridge. It will have impacts beyond Jefferson County. Fred Hill Materials has said that they just want to protect the resource and has denied that the Pit-to-Pier project is relying on the MRL. The County is using the excuse of the mandate from the GMA to approve the MRL in order to protect the resource. The Commissioner's option should be the No Action Alternative because the resource is already protected under the commercial forestland designation. There is already enough land in the County designated as MRL overlays to supply the gravel needs for the future. The Commissioners don't have a good track record when it comes to dealing with difficult, complicated issues. The County needs strong leadership and critical thinkers who can think beyond their own back fence and into the future. He asked the Commissioners to make the right, legal, and moral choice and say "no" to the MRL and to support, advocate for, and protect the citizens of Jefferson County, the State, the Hood Canal and the Hood Canal Bridge. Tom Luce, from Congressman Norm Dicks' Office read Congressman Dicks' statement into the record. (See permanent record.) Public input in important community projects always serves to better the outcome of decisions by Elected Officials. Fred Hill Material's previous request to create an MRLO on 690 acres didn't consider the impact this project would have on the region's environment. The Commissioners can't consider the MRLO as an isolated action and need to look at the overall purpose of the designation. It will change the character and the environment of Jefferson County. Congressman Dicks has always believed and fought for both family wage jobs and protecting the environment and the quality of life of the people who live on the Olympic Peninsula. These two goals are not mutually exclusive. Page 10 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 ~ W His concerns are about the future of the Peninsula if aI, 1 00 foot pier is constructed on the south side of the Hood Canal Bridge for transporting gravel by barge and ship. This project would change the character of the Canal and lead to industrialization. Barges and ships would be a hazard to the environment which is already fragile due to the dissolved oxygen in the Canal. He fears the economic impact on the Olympic Peninsula if a barge collided with the bridge and forced a closure for repairs. Redesignating the MRLO does not authorize construction of the Pit-to-Pier project, but it offers a chance to speak publicly about how such a project would impact the Peninsula. Dave Woodruff. Port Ludlow, stated that he began in Democratic politics on the Peninsula forty years ago. He is a faithful supporter of labor unions for workers and has belonged to three unions over the years. He regrets that the Teamsters walked out of the hearing because they won't have a chance to hear what people on the other side of the issue have to say. He summarized a King 5 news release from June 8 entitled "Development Suffocating Hood Canal and Its Creatures." There has been less oxygen in Hood Canal each year for the last 50 years and scientists warn that more fish will be killed as more oxygen is lost. The Pit-to- Pier project would be the largest single development in the history of the County. The Commissioners need to put an end to a project of this magnitude in the dying waters of Hood Canal. Nancy Dorgan, Port Townsend, stated that she was offended by the fabricated, made-up rules that were read at the beginning of this hearing on May 25. The HCC legal staff brought the gag order to the County's attention. She was also offended by Commissioner Huntingford's explanation of why it was done. She warned the Commissioners not to try anything like that again. GMA does not require an overlay to protect mineral resources, it is an optional tool. The FSEIS says, "Fred Hill Materials stated its intent to extract mineral resources regardless of the outcome of the MRL overlay adoption process." The Commissioners aren't required by law to do this. The overlay will lead to the massive Pit-to-Pier project application. The industrialization of Hood Canal is the worse possible thing that could happen to Jefferson County. She recommends that the Board deny the request for a special district and that the Commissioners protect the County and Hood Canal for the reasons others have stated tonight. Dee Schmidt, Port Ludlow, quoted an excerpt from William Maxie, Director of Forestry in another State. "It was 1996 before he fully realized the magnitude and permanent elimination of forest land by mountain top removal. It will take at least 100 years before trees would become reestablished. All native plants and animals are practically eliminated. This irresponsible excavation makes the landscape very unsightly, few mines are reclaimed to their original contours and most strip top soil and do not replace it. The ground becomes too alkaline for trees. Vv'e need to stop mountain top removal." Following this quote, Mr. Maxie resigned because Elected Officials were being supportive of very bad practices and he didn't want to share in the blame or guilt for the loss of forests and resulting consequences. At Shine, there is a bridge that would be opened many times or damaged due to a mechanical or human failure. In their DNR application, FHM denied the presence of eagles, herons, and osprey and other migratory birds and other wildlife, including salmon and trout. Will they be protected? Will they also protect the aquifers that they failed to mention in their application? Page 11 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 t),,"',',-' "" ;"...........~ "':, '.'~'- ."" '"".,' The Pit-to-Pier project will cause inherent damage to the fragile ecosystem of Hood Canal. Can FHM be trusted to comply with all regulations and conditional uses? Nobody seems to be monitoring the current processes and this includes hours of operation. She knows that they have been working around the clock including Saturdays. She asked that the Commissioners think as Bill Maxie did: for the greatest good for the land, and people, and for Hood Canal which is already in trouble. Stan RusselL Qui1cene, stated that he agrees with almost everything that has been said. The opponents to the MRLO are citizens motivated by a desire for sound environmental, social, and economic policy. They have no financial incentive and are pursuing the opposition on their own time, effort, and expense. The advocates for the Pit-to-Pier project are professionals who are being paid, directly or indirectly, for their support, or individuals who intend to profit from the project's completion. He's worked with people like this for thirty years and has been threatened by union members before. The enhancement of wealth for a few individuals should not be the determining factor for a project that has such adverse affects on public and private property. The Pit-to-Pier project will affect the environment. FHM says that their opponents don't understand, but FHM doesn't understand. They also use the term NIMBY, "not in my backyard," but if we can't defend our yards, what can we defend? He stated that he doesn't understand the three alternatives, but they were written by bureaucrats and lawyers. By itself, the MRL sounds benign, but it is obvious that it is integral to the Pit-to-Pier project and the Commissioners authority is limited in that process. He asked the Commissioners to oppose the project. Philip Hansten, Port Ludlow, commented on the risks of barges and ships to the Hood Canal Bridge if the MRL is approved and the Pit-to-Pier project is constructed. He asked four questions. 1) How can one calculate the risk of a catastrophic accident that would close the Hood Canal Bridge and wreak havoc on the citizens in Jefferson County, including men and women who use the bridge to get to and from work and smal1 businesses in Jefferson County that depend on the bridge for tourism and clients? The risk can't be calculated. 2) Why can't you calculate the risk of a catastrophic accident to the bridge? We are dealing with a complex system with numerous sites for breakdown that are interwoven and interdependent which include mechanical devises, human beings and weather conditions. Factoring this into a risk assessment is not possible, He stated that he researches and teaches at the U of W about the assessment of risks in complex systems. He deals with medications and the human body, but the same models are used as those for assessing risks from industrial accidents. The same principals apply. 3) Even though the risk cannot be accurately calculated, why worry about the bridge if the risk is small? The risk of a catastrophic accident is only half the story. Jefferson County would incur serious economic damage and personal suffering. 4) Is there a disconnect between those bearing the risk and those reaping the benefit? Yes. It is ethically untenable to force one person to take a risk for the benefit of another. The citizens of Jefferson County have to assume 90% of the risk, but 90% of the benefit goes to the owners of the corporation in another County. He urged the Commissioners to consider the needs of their constituents over those of a large corporation in Kitsap County and do everything to prevent the Pit- to-Pier from becoming a reality. (See permanent record.) Page 12 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 ...,,~"'." õ..",;,.... Joan Reynolds. Port Ludlow, stated that she is a HCC member and agrees with the previous speaker and with Congressman Norm Dicks. She is opposed to the MRL. She also submitted an article from the Seattle PIon the low oxygen levels in Hood Canal. (See permanent record.) Curt Thomson. Bridgehaven, stated that every day when he goes home he goes past the mining operation. He is a member of the HCC and he concurs with previous speakers against the proposal. He is offended that the HCC opponents have said that some people opposed to the MRLO should keep their mouths shut. They have a right to express legitimate concerns and opinions about the environment and the community, and about projects being proposed by people who aren't part of the community. He represents the Bridgehaven Water Commissioners. Their private water system serves about 190 users and recently they completed a second storage tank so they can serve 350 users. They have good, pure water from a very narrow aquifer 395 feet below the surface. It is a valuable resource and important to the community. If too much of the area is set aside for mining, there won't be a lot of residential building. He isn't satisfied with assurances that the aquifer will not be jeopardized by the mining. An engineer told him that very often there is a lot more art than science in testing reports. The Commissioners should just say "no" to the entire proposal. Mark Rose. Brinnon, stated that he is representing the Better Brinnon Coalition. He reiterated that the decision the Commissioners make on the MRL will have an impact on the Pit-to-Pier. It was spelled out clearly in the Hearings Board decision. The Commissioners have an obligation to say "no." A few years ago, there was a proposal in Brinnon to rezone about 370 acres and a portion ofthe property was for single family homes on Hood Canal. Commissioner Titterness and Commissioner Huntingford voted for it and Commissioner Rodgers, who was a Planning Commissioner, was also in favor of it. It was given a Determination of Nonsignificance by the County and there was no environmental study done. The BBC appealed it to the Hearings Examiner, who contracts with the County, and he said that the County had circumvented all environmental review. The County made a few changes and it was appealed again. The County still hadn't done environmental review. The County was forced to do additional environmental review on the MRL. It has been demonstrated that the County doesn't care about the impact ofland use decisions on natural resources. The Commissioners need to restore and maintain Hood Canal to be able to pass it on to future generations. In the past, if the Commissioners wanted a land use decision to go a certain way, they went ahead and did it, no matter what the State law said. John Cambalick. Sequim, stated that he is the local liaison for the Puget Sound Action Team partnership in Clallam, Jefferson and Kitsap Counties. (See permanent record for statement.) The PSAT is a partnership of federal and state natural resource agencies, tribes, businesses, and non-profit organizations working to protect and restore the biological health and diversity in the Puget Sound basin, including Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca through implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. The heightened awareness surrounding the degradation of the Hood Canal ecosystem is evidenced by: ESA listing as threatened the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum; continuing severe low dissolved oxygen problem and associated fishing closures; and threatened listing of commercial shellfish areas under the State's Early Warning System. Page 13 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 Ii.. .~ '\.~.,.. PSAT recommends that the County choose the No Action Alternative at this time to allow time for results on a number of studies that have begun on how the Hood Canal ecosystem functions. Several entities are working together to gather and analyze data to find the causes for the low dissolved oxygen and how to correct the problem that is threatening aquatic life in the Canal. The Hood Canal is a fjord and is inherently complex and sensitive to change from small scale development. Large scale industrial projects will potentially impose risks to the ecosystem beyond the borders of Jefferson County. The decision to shift from a working forested landscape to an expanded industrial mining operation in such a sensitive area should be avoided because mitigation is not always successful in restoring ecological functions. This is a critical time in the future of Hood Canal as an ecosystem. The Puget Sound Action Team has offered their assistance to enable the Commissioners to make an informed decision regarding the MRLO and any further project-specific decisions. Jay Newkirk, Poulsbo, stated that the Commissioners know the details, the process, and the public sentiment and there is no fooling anyone about this. The Commissioners have the responsibility to represent the wishes of the people who elected them. The MRLO is a prelude to the Pit-to-Pier project. The Commissioners have the ability to deny Fred Hill Materials application and require any reapplication to address the total Pit-to-Pier project. Bill Biery, Port Townsend, stated that he supports the other people who have testified against the MRLO and he represents the Jefferson County Democratic Party. In November 2002, the Democrats passed a resolution in opposition to the MRLO. With a few exceptions, the Democrats maintain their opposition to this date and want the Commissioners to deny the MRLO. It is the Commissioners' duty to advocate for the public's long term economic and environmental benefits. Democrats are united with the other organizations in voicing their opinion against the MRLO. Jefferson County has a unique environment and geography. In order to foster the development and growth of local economic opportunities, government needs to act as an agent to promote original and creative opportunities which capitalize on, rather than destroy, the environment. Dick Keithahn, Port Ludlow, stated that everyone is aware of the fragile nature of Hood Canal. The introduction of an industrial facility into this already threatened body of water is courting disaster. If the MRLO and Pit-to-Pier project are approved, the resulting pollution from ballast water discharge, diesel smoke, dust, and invasive species from barges and ocean going ore carriers will further degrade the water quality in the Canal. Although the application is from Fred Hill Materials, the marine transport will be performed by other companies, not likely under the supervision or control of FHM. Lack of adequate County personnel will make monitoring potential pollution problems almost impossible and assigning responsibility for damages caused by shippers will be very difficult. According to the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, fisheries in Hood Canal represented $7 million in revenues in 2003. Will the production of salmon and shellfish be threatened ifthis project is approved? Can we afford to take the chance? He asked the Commissioners not approve this action because the survival of Hood Canal is at stake. Gloria Bram, Port Townsend, stated that she has been against this project from the beginning. She is upset that the Teamsters left after showing their support for the project. She was a union member in the past and her son is currently a union member. As an accountant for 40 years, she has seen a degradation of ethical Page 14 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 :~~ .~ ·\111"'" responsibility to society on the part of businessmen and politicians. She feels that business has a responsibility to society. There are people today that will do what they can because they can. Fred Hill Materials and its representatives and supporters have misrepresented their position and their project in many ways. They can support the level of business they have right now for several generations. The only reason to approve the overlay is so that they can build the conveyor belt and the pier in a very fragile environment where the risk of a barge running into the bridge may be 2%, but the risk to the community is 100%. Elizabeth Meyer. Port Ludlow, stated that she agrees with John Fabian, Larry Mayes, and others who have spoken. Within the last year she read a comment from an experienced navigator who said the waters of Hood Canal are unpredictably risky, especially with a huge barge loaded with tons of gravel. If Fred Hill Materials employees 12 people right now and they will employee 30, that is an increase of 18 employees. Most of their employees live in Kitsap County. FHM proposal to bring $200,000 in tax revenue into Jefferson County was a misrepresentation and was disproved. In the discussion of aesthetics in Section 4.1 regarding land use, the Approved Action Alternative would not prevent mineral extraction from highly visible locations. Most people moved here because of the aesthetics and the natural beauty and it shouldn't be destroyed. Donald Moore. Bridgehaven, stated that most of the folks who have spoken have said what he feels. He is not against gravel and getting building materials ifit is done in the proper way. He has known some of the Hill family and they are very fine people. They ran a small operation in Kitsap County and they moved over to Jefferson County. He doesn't think Fred Hill Sr. would approve of how this MRLO is tearing the community apart. The Commissioners can see this and they need to stop and think. Debbie Helmonds. Port Ludlow, stated that everyone knew there was a problem with Hood Canal, but the balance is very fragile and it is crumbling a lot faster than anyone anticipated. In the newspaper, there is a list of things individuals can do to try and help save the Canal including reducing or eliminating fertilizers, keeping septic systems well maintained, and preventing pollution. While individuals are trying to do their best to save the Canal, this major project may be approved. This new information about the Canal is much more important than all of the discussions about this issue over the past several years. Janet Barnes. Port Ludlow, stated that she used to live on Southpoint Road, but couldn't stand the pit so she moved. The majority of the people who have spoken are against the MRLO, but the staff recommendation is in favor of it. Staff is just saying what the Commissioners want to hear. She asked the Commissioners to vote against the MRLO. Wendi Wrinkle. stated that she is speaking on behalf of her family (about 77 people) who are 4th generation Washingtonians. She thanked the HCC and the Hearings Board for giving everyone an opportunity to revisit this decision. This hearing isn't about the MRLO, it is about the life blood of our environment and the rich and varied natural resources that are sustained by it. What does a successful solution look like? A historically well respected local and regional business proceeds in an environmentally responsible way on a long term basis; existing local and regional jobs, union and otherwise, are not jeopardized; certainty that the land being mined can be reclaimed to DNR standards and subsequent use. Success means learning by our mistakes and knowing our partners in business. Page 15 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 tJ w She supports the No Action Alternative on Page 2 ofthe staff report. This action would produce realistic measures and allowances that would meet the needs of the existing successful business, sustaining the current union employees, providing measures for protection for the environment, and allowing the Pit-to- Pier project to succeed or fail on its own merits. The Commissioners have created the energy in this room and they also have the opportunity to harness it to use it to heal and create or to destroy and devastate. This is the crossroad that will decide our legacy. We will continue to be persistent. Donna Fabian. Port Ludlow, asked the Commissioners to vote no on the MRLO because it is tied to the Pit- to-Pier project. The Teamster's attorney talked about jobs in her comments, but there aren't any jobs mentioned in the MRLO. Fred Hill Materials has tied this to jobs. The petitions signed by 2,000 people in favor of the MRLO were collected by people who were paid. HCC turned in petitions with over 3,000 signatures against the MRLO and these were collected by volunteers. Becky Stanley. Seattle, stated that she is representing the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club and read and submitted their statement. (See permanent record.) The Sierra Club has over 27,000 members in Washington State that are involved in environmental protection and political accountability. They have gotten many phone calls from members throughout the region who are upset about this issue. The Sierra Club supports the No Action Alternative. They join Senator Cantwell, Congressman Dicks and the HCC in opposition to the MRLO. They share concerns as outlined by the Port Gamble S , Klallam Tribe and WashPIRG and they want to add degradation of regional air quality due to diesel emissions rrom ships and trucks. The MRLO is part of a series of proposals to allow Fred Hill Materials to create one of the largest strip mining complexes within the State. It cannot be considered as an isolated action. The cumulative impacts of the proposed projects must be analyzed. They represent an alarming threat to the character of Jefferson County, the lifestyle of its citizens, and the natural environment. She doesn't agree with the idea that a silent majority of people are in favor of the MRLO. She thinks that the majority of people agree with the people who have commented tonight. These projects benefit the few at the expense of the majority. The Sierra Club is strongly opposed to the MRLO and the Pit-to-Pier project. Kelly Brandon. Port Ludlow, stated that he is an architect and, in his professional practice, he believes in sustainable development in the building industry and the natural resources which his industry uses. He understands that the MRLO designation is necessary for preserving natural resources for managed harvest at later times. He opposes such a large MRLO designation which is unmanageable with current permitting and oversight by agencies and staff. The GMA is not a specific mandate from the State, it is a process by which local authorities are to make decisions in a balanced way about the uses and rates of uses of the resources. The Commissioners have the right to designate an MRLO of less than 690 acres if they choose. The 690 acre designation would mean a "green light" to the mining industry and it would be very valuable if Fred Hill Materials chose to selL Look at the impact to the land for generations to come. He asked why the Commissioners are favoring this idea when the majority ofthe people are against it? Ifthey intend to approve the MRLO, they need to explain publicly why it is necessary and why a more gradual approach Page 16 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 - ,. would not be workable. Willard Nelson, Coyle Road, stated that he and his wife live within a mile of the proposed project. The Commissioners have a responsibility to the community to look out for their quality of life. They love their property and want to pass it on to generations of their children. He suggested applying to the Federal government or Bill Gates for a grant to buy the Fred Hill Materials property. About 5 years ago he talked to a man at DNR who said that trees don't really matter in the environmental condition on the Toandos Peninsula. He does not favor any expansion of Fred Hill Materials and thinks that it should be left the way it is. Dave Wickersham, Port Hadlock, stated that he is very concerned about the danger of destroying the Hood Canal Bridge with a barge accident. He urged the Commissioners to ask the Coast Guard for the latest statistics. A bridge on the Duwamish River in Seattle was hit by a small barge and put out of commission for 16 months. It is almost a certainty that there will be a barge accident. Is FHM ready to pay millions of dollars to repair the bridge and can people on the Peninsula wait months while it is being fixed? Paul Roblan, Port Townsend, stated that he is also concerned about the bridge. He lived in West Seattle when the Duwamish Bridge was hit by a pilot under the influence of alcohol. There are a lot of people that take medication or drink on the job. With all the barge traffic, it will only be a matter oftime before the bridge is put out of commission. It would be a terrible thing for the entire Peninsula. Michelle Sandoval, Port Townsend, thanked the Commissioners for locating a larger room for the hearing. For six years she was on the County Planning Commission and participated in writing the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. They took into consideration the protection of natural resource lands in that document. To create the MRLO is redundant at best and kowtowing to special interests at worst. The protection of mineral lands wasn't intended to be at the complete expense of all of other natural resources. Her concern about the health of Hood Canal has been voiced by others, but she also has serious concerns about interconnected water systems and the fragile aquifer. The shorelines and the drinking water are the future. She encouraged the Commissioners to change their vote, show leadership, and listen to the community. Nora Regan, Port Townsend, stated that the Pit-to-Pier project will be the next step after the MRLO designation. There will be environmental degradation and a bridge mishap due to human error and severe unpredictable weather conditions in Hood CanaL The owners of Fred Hill Materials will make money. There may not be more jobs or any economic gain for Jefferson County from this project. Who will monitor FHM to make sure they stay 10 feet away from critical aquifers? Who will make sure that FHM keeps its promises regarding the environment? She urged the Commissioners to vote for the No Action Alternative. Lloyd Randall, Poulsbo, stated that he hopes the Commissioners are listening to the people tonight. This area needs jobs and tourists come from all over to visit Olympic National Park. People come here to enjoy the natural beauty and the pristine environment. They enjoy fishing and hunting here. A few individuals shouldn't be allowed to potentially destroy it. He urged the Commissioners to vote no. Page 17 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 e~ ~ Sandy HilL Shine Road, stated she has been an active participant in the Growth Management process in Jefferson County since she moved here from Kitsap County. The intent of the law was one thing, but that doesn't mean that the intent is reality. Is it the concept of the law or the letter of the law? Is impact just quoting numbers? People need to ask questions to improve their knowledge base. People need to go outside of this area to improve their knowledge of the mining industry. Fred Hill Materials should be able to continue to mine as they are doing right now, and do business in Jefferson, Kitsap, and Clallam Counties because they are natural suppliers for this area. It is very different to take the resource to far away markets instead of developing outwardly as a local business does. She isn't a NIMBY. It is important for citizens to get involved in County issues. Frank Kelly. Port Ludlow, stated that he started commenting on this issue two years ago. He thinks it was a mistake for the Commissioners to approve the original Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Environmental Impact Statement required in the Hearings Board order omits mitigation measures for the No Action Alternative, but includes them for the Approved Action Alternative. Proposed Condition #14 defers study of maritime transport until the project analysis stage. This is bad public policy and legally futile. He reviewed the recent application for mining in the Wahl Lake-Meridian Mine. There is no study of the marine transport alternatives, but there is a study of trucking materiaL The document states that SRI04 will be at capacity by 2013. The County needs to consider the affects of maritime transport and bridge openings. A report by Pentech Environmental done in February 2003 notes that, during operation, the conveyor system will transport up to 3,000 tons of materials per hour to vessels docked at the pier. Depending on the vessel's size, it is anticipated that 1 to 6 vessels will be loaded at the facility each day. It is assumed that vessels will be loaded up to 300 days a year and up to 24 hours a day. FHM argues that the MRLO and the Pit-to-Pier project are not connected. However, in the SEP A worksheet filed on April 30,2002, on page] of 10 it states, "Development and implement a cost efficient and environmentally sound infrastructure, support the excavation, processing, and transfer of resource materials via ground and water routes, both existing and potential local intrastate and interstate markets." He asked the Commissioners to reconsider their decision and select the No Action Alternative. Daniel LaBlanc. Seattle, stated that he recently purchased three houses off of Thorndyke Road. He is considering building a large house, but doesn't know if it is in his interest to build something if it will be looking down on some nightmare. Desiree Helmonds. Port Ludlow, stated that she is 19 years old and she fully supports the HCC. What the Commissioners decide will have a big impact on her generation. It would be devastating to have an adverse impact on such a beautiful area. She asked the Commissioners to say "no." Jan Thompson. Port Ludlow, stated that she has sat through many meetings on this issue but she has never commented. At the last large meeting before the vote, she couldn't imagine that the Commissioners would approve the MRLO after the comments they heard. Most of people here are against the project. It seems like only Fred Hill Materials will benefit from this. The County won't benefit. Page l8 Commissioners Meeting Minutes: Week of June 7, 2004 ;~~ ~ \fl,..~.\ Ron Archer. Gig Harbor, stated that he can't even understand why this hearing is being held. The lawyer for HCC mentioned that people had harmed his client by their accusations. What about all the people that will be hurt in this area by employing 30 people? He hopes the Commissioners have compassion for the people and what they want when they make their decision. Ann Daily. Thorndyke Road, stated that she concurs with the comments Gloria Bram, John Fabian, David Woodruff, Dee Schmidt, and Donald Moore have made. She owns property on Hood Canal and it is important that Fred Hill Materials doesn't expand to hurt more land, more water, and more animals than what is necessary. The Canal is in jeopardy right now and allowing this to happen just for money is not a good reason. Due to technical error, there is no recording for the last 5 citizens who spoke who were: an unidentified person from Port Hadlock, Christian Johnson of Shine, Merrill Hodges of Port Ludlow, Steve Foster of Teal Lake Road, and Dan Baskins, FHM. Hearing no further comments for or against the MRLO, the Chair closed the public hearing. SEAL: ~_, .... r ", t I I.' MEETING ADJ~\JÜi~~' ", , ' .J '. . f¡ .j . .' . . v' .- . tj\ \ I <I : ~ J \ ;.. ":J"" · .' ., -".~_:.~.. . '11I'.. ..' ATTEST: ~??a~;emc ~lie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board Page 19 , ~'-' ,r~~ 5 {p 11104 . liCe. L \'VÌló{ es Leslie Locke rage 1 01 1 From: David Alvarez Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 200410:34 AM To: Lorna Delaney Cc: Greg Ballard Subject: Rules for the MRLO hearing Here is a revised statement for Glen to read. In the footer it states · June 9 version.· Please make sure it gets to Glen. DA 6/9/2004 This is the public hearing for MLA #02-235, a request for a Mineral Lands Resource Overlay designation made to Jefferson County by Fred Hill Materials, Inc. as part of the 2002 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. This matter is before the County Commissioners again because of a remand order from the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The remand order was issued because further environmental review of the potential impacts of designating an MRLO was required by the Hearings Board. The County has done further environmental review and the County Commissioners have before them a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (or FSEIS) generated in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act or SEP A. The County Commissioners will make a legislative decision after the conclusion of this hearing, but cannot state when that decision will be made. But there are certain rules that the County Commissioners wish to establish and make public before this public hearing begins. JUNE 9 VERSION Our decision will be based, in part, on the environmental documents that have been prepared. The language and contents of the Final SEIS will not change unless a future event such as an adverse Hearings Board decision occurs and more environmental study by the County is required. However, the environmental documents in their current form will, according to regulation, be "considered" by this Board during our deliberations and can be considered by any persons who choose to give testimony today. Citizens are encouraged to comment on the merits or shortcomings of the three alternatives that are now before this Commission: the No- Action alternative, the alternative approved in 2002 and later challenged, or the Alternative originally proposed by Fred Hill Materials. Citizens may refer to statements in the Final SEIS to support their comments regarding which of the three alternatives should be adopted or to argue that some other alternative should be adopted. We have to exit this building no later than 11 PM. Since it will take some time to disassemble our equipment and close the building JUNE 9 VERSION - , , down, the Board has decided to not take any additional testimony after 10 PM. The first rule I must make public is that after the presentation of the report from the County staff both the applicant, Fred Hill Materials, and the opponent, the Hood Canal Coalition, will be provided with ten (10) minutes each at the beginning of this hearing to provide testimony. The second rule I must make public is that everyone speaking should give their name and full address. Please spell out your last name if it is unusual or if it might be confusing upon fust hearing. The third rule I must make public is that after the initial statements by Fred Hill and the Hood Canal Coalition, all other speakers will be limited to three minutes. The fourth rule I need to make public is that I am encouraging those who have new or different testimony to speak to go ahead and do . so. Repetitious or redundant testimony will be discouraged. If you agree with a speaker who went before you, then you are welcome to come to the microphone and state that you agree with the statements of Mr. Smith or Ms. Jones. JUNE 9 VERSION · Finally, in order to show all speakers respect I will not, as the Chair of this Hearing, toierate any-public displays of applause, hissing, booing or other methods of showing pleasure or displeasure with what the current speaker is saying. You should remain quiet while other persons are speaking. You would want the same respect if you were speaking. Thank you. Now I will begin this hearing by turning the microphone over to staff for their report. JUNE 9 VERSION - in ! ;/ 1': ~¡¡¡ ci i1 . ,( . ,- I - ~JQ(:¡ ~.. . _~_iLo r ¡f.ì, . h~~~jlJ I~'~ :::{(§JJl1Vv I ~al2~ Rood +ð~ljt~ ().M ß ~ ¥#JJ1 ¡¡. J :·H ~,-~~~..~_.,--...L:U- , ',!I ¡ , ,~,? ~ -- lRJ~ ,~- ¡ ¡' 11-\ í ' i ¡ '¡; . ~ i ! :¡ I ¡ : \ ; 11 !; : ; jll r1 i . . Ui ---+4- L; ¡ \jJ ,- j ¡ ¡¡ PI ,j, i l, fí I l' . 111 IP ¡ í} II; h1 Jl· Hi Hi î¡ { Ii¡ q; I,! !II :? d H. W 1 '- ~ . !! I! , , JJ' ;.1 ¡ Hl Ij ¡ -11+- .....-' 'è,*,,"'" .c>';·"'K'.,., lï.t - 567, _ ,.,.,~¡. tl n ~1 ~1 U U ~ 'i Rd, _;.~!j'i"": þ ~·=-"':"~>:¡·~-"-~;*J¡¡rt'J."':'.J;_~~i~·~ \SL>e> l\'"\" i'oJb 5 é ~ Ic>L ~ 6lL~ ¢ 0 0 -=rø ~ (~t~ \ I~' ':µ¡, D D,Øc ftf /Þó, 7,) I [J ~ D ß/n~ 1~7Ivd/~ D §,D EI D D DD~ D ~'D DfRlD ~DD DD~ D~D D I:j D D D~ ')ý D D DD~ D [X'D cc.DcD ¿ , ~~tÎ 5 L~/.1.sþ~ L· '~\.["-ye1 JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY 'f 51 fY1a. VI f\i/V d ( }1~ I~ù f01f-dudl,pJ (? ~/'- H~~lo("k ~""'~~ 'f It' 13\ ~,S""-'Al1e \.. , f :2.. a_ It: J~J.4 1ST AV~ # tic c¡ '7/- C AI th¡g ,JOI-~ /~ I~ í J. (./ 1/ L ()¡/ Testimony? YES NO MAYBE JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium Testimony? YES NO MAYBE o 1&0 000 o [X] 0 0'0 Off 0 o fX1 0 OØO ~OO ŒOO O~O o 0-0 O~O VJ 00 000 ?tN'-i l--J(~ 13- 0 0 ~ O~O ~ c( ~~;. c-...... t'1'), 0~ JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY \1> Vt-sev Ù'\ \L~V\~ lðI f¡ WW ~((oö"d- 'll7th Av~ 5f ~\b~ÎrJ S}v<.",J if f¿ fo.;{íf)vJ C) q..\ L~ {M-Lu. \ \ l<. ":¿7~f o/3£jlA/rJ.Sr JJW 3,";- Sk.'1w ~.O~Cßo \ð.-70 ~ fì> ð L:S. (S.o Ptl Pov' &~O °D~T Testimony? YES NO MAYBE DD~ DD~ D [!D D 0D D'gD D~ D Œ'D D ~D D ~D D~D D Ga D D ~D D~D D~D DD~ D ffD ,I JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9,2004 at 7:00 p.m, Continued from Ma 25,2004) PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY IY7d/-(Z C7~ .~t/'~IE" tJ p;Ó{Ú~L ( ( I t 11j 7 L-.:,#? q; /JI1, roê ~ rf- ¿/:< tf/( <.:»1oU' N ': ú ntl'r71lt'¿ A.ti.. '11 <t'- l' Testimony? YES NO MAYBE DB1J D @D D~D D 0D DOOD D [1([ D D DiD G-DD D0D DD~ D~D DDD D Gf'D DDD rrDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY f I c~.I: ~ (2...'\ Ö fU, '-4-AA 8lŒHetrb"{ \. ~ ED~ 6f<f\71 A \ S ~ s.~ \'itI....E'1 ~L..d-IID 10 \rJ fV\ f\f>U::: -:::'-r f 0 "-"T. LuJ:> /...0 "V Cf.-l-M<L~ ,\J. If)M~~ -1.7 /ð¡z> B6I~ $"".,.- NW 1'cvLS'Bo Testimony? YES NO MAYBE D~D DDD ~DD D 0'D DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DflJD D-ND DDD D~D DrlID JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE ·f e~1f' :i4bò~ ¡;at..j-¡./, rJtir:'#1¿r'¿', '\ OO~' o01J ODD D [J D o81J o EJW o [EJ D o ØJ 0 ,a 0 0 OO~ L8'DO DØD o ~O ~ DO D IKJ D DDO 't t( s.: R:::: tJ7f),.j ~rÎ 'Tc,~~ ~OR=ï Lv 1> 'Low \ l1r !. ¿) i> LoLJ Pou1~ f JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY *' ~T~{¡£ COU/+£¡- ;¡'5/ ë· /l;r æ,(ë ~ í: ~/O ¡; I)~ j) '2. S7J w 'o'<~ /ttIJ // J..q/ ¿~ í I {'tLJ ^~ fT1~ I Lv- I t,.J ,4..v¡- r.....uc:L- L Testimony? YES NO MAYBE [2(Óo G Ilt1J 000 O,[JO o [11] o rno D~ ~D IØOO wOo o [ið 0 Or¡rO 000 o B"o OJaO ifoo c c. JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE 0kJ '3 '1~ /1/, (allow ß ~ flit e.....!oVl D ~D D~D l( I' D [MD \ ( l( DOOD ~~V' 5& r ~,..~~., i?< ¿ V"'//ð~ D~D DDcÐ> Ð(p ï ,S+, I ~DD -Š 7 D &..YC l, , r1=- ~ Drg¡D D'/ÞIX1< Dl&1D CJ { IÑ'ð< C u VI- DD~ ~ C· DD~ -.JS-. ~ D ~D D ¡g1 D DDD II D ~D '?of'~ I 0 UNS~1'tt{ DDI8l JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY e.$~{"ee.. µ¿'~'T'Ib toW p+ ~lö Sl.L-t:. \-\ t's.~ ßvb G&:,O 2-'15 IJ.. h " P,LUDL~ Testimony? YES NO MAYBE o ~O O,EJO o ~O OŒlO O~O o ®..O OO~ ~OO o ~O 00[1] o l11 D o JM'O O~O 000 000 O~D /~ JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda . June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) Rr hc:::......T 3VM f STREET ADDRESS CITY T'7 /"" I t> s-' ....-;1./. c..'¡: :5. 4 { ol \{Wt I?lC Vi L-(1«-J" ~(( 2.2>( "$'. fb/ t(/~ 100 f{ ßé'~ &4 P tI'- L- ~r-t L(.I ¡Ibw .~ LUOLOv/ 1=>-) '1'~ f S'" i RA IfVt ~ ~-:. -I '0 , ( q ( +. --;; LA> r')$"" R.., J. (' Ch,"'\Cl' 1A~4.\ Testimony? YES NO MAYBE oraD Gr}(O 000 18J00 o ~O o ~O f!00 0aa.0 o ~O o ~O 0r&10 000 0[iq0 ~OO O~O OŒlO JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro 05al DATE: Wedne5da ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY /r f I, (, Testimony? YES NO MAYBE DDçt D ŒD D 0'D Dœ1J DD~ DEt1J DDD øDD DDD D0D D~D ~DD ~DD D r&.D DDD 'DD~ JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium ~ 7l'6 ·k Testimony? YES NO MAYBE D ~D D~D D [2}.D D ~D ~DD D~ D DID D~D D~D D~D ~DD DDØ- D œD DDD DDD ODD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9,2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY ~ 5 Testimony? YES NO E o 0 OOD ~œ(D D%-CJ o [ðD OKlD ODD ODD DDD OOD ODD OOD ODD OOD OOD DOD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY ~. ~'C;-t/1.-~ø-wL 1>2-0 ~ "( S w 11 D~ Pl. :..e '(.s ~o.._\~, \'\~\ ~ rJð)~ rV~Á~/t ¡{oid ßøJ~ /1 "( I Z/?I '¥ AI I3ItrÞII¿ 11 '26 ÝfK" #ü/(~ -f ~.+ L"J.. \0 l..Ù ) LC~~ f~Ä¿c!7 ~v1~1ð Testimony? YES NO MAYBE o D LSJ( DD~ DD~ D g'D o 0 Dt DDI2f D [)J(D o ~D 0/1]0 DD[j' ODD ODD ODD ODD DDD ODD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro sal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY .s 21\f" ~c£, . Pie ~7;}? ~~J'7,,^~J a((¿43~J-~hltì~ qiP 7J4/~Wa-.J Cr -'{- -t..-/- 7/f# ~ S c {)( & lð?~ /11 d .;$Æt'/l .v °L Testimony? YES NO MAYBE D ~D D 0D DDØ D ŒD D ~D D 3D DDD D ~D DDIJ1 DD~ D~D D ~D D (}(D Ji1D ~DD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro sal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9. 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE oft 0 D ŒD D ~D DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Pro osal DATE: Wednesda ,June 9, 2004 at 7:00 .m. Continued from Ma 25,2004 PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY IT- (, S Okt\- \..t., Testimony? YES NO MAYBE DD~ D btD ØDD DD[X DDD DDD DDD DDD ODD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD JEFFERSON COUNTY GUEST LIST HEARING: MLA02-235 re: Fred Hill MRL Proposal DATE: Wednesday, June 9,2004 at 7:00 p.m. (Continued from May 25.2004) PLACE: Chimacum School Auditorium NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE I0ll~ fu-lYh Jt>1I1 / ? 1 t 1117) H1d I" ILo f ß~Ut(;1 k~ ~DD ( { DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD DDD nnn r f f ~ II. 3: it J : , : ¡ I Þ f : .. §: z ! ¡ c f ª=i a' I .ž:~"" .. I ......................................................... ~ ~ I ¡fa ¡¡¡ ~ ...~. li:'í!! S-§'''' 'g.~ " Ii 5'~ §,t;'¡;î"" ~i:g ~ ¡¡i~~1 f:: ~ i'1r" ~ g~[e ~ ~ ª~:e~~ ~ãg !!I-~" . - ~jï'''fB: ~>;;'ii~~;!~g = ! åã~~=~ ~~žilr[~[ i~ g. ;¡¡¡~::!'§~ ~gis·;;,~!. h, &1' g:!~::~!!i '~-!fli¡j:~i I; ~. ~¡~~~~. ~I ~tl!~ §' S' ~¡tJ~~~ t~u·~¡i ~~ g,~r[~ ~ ~ i'ã gl a g¡<¡ §= &~~ a [!:?~ a "'1 Ii ~!.15. ~ ~(t;ll~~~~:I~Jil¡i e lä i;¡.~i" ii'~.!~ ~"!f~ ~ a'g § g~ifl ª' B ~~.f-ãl g g,¡t III ~h'~ .,,§~~þ....:;I¡.:e ~';1_ i~m [~19. ~ Þ.·1~::; s ~i ~ l~~~[ki!¡· 1-f~~B' ~----- 8~ ~~ 5:~ SO I::i": ~~ þ"' -. g.::S ~.~ tn(J"Q S9 s- n~ ""1_ tn z o ·0. a- n DI :s DI - ::r it t\ .. -- .. -- t\ DI - ~ cu u:a tD· () r; =:. -=r \) d ::s 0, ~ f",. ~. ("'. -< r--) _ r -\._ rt; ~:~ y:;- ~ ~" . ----..-------...'. .c,r:) ~ I:T::I j~i' i IJ,I ~ L 1 ~. ""',:..~,'~,.'.. ·,~~,w ~"""'?"'- " '- - ," - -. - - - - ~-- , i'ii<l~ ~ rrs o Z '" V> o > :< C z '" :;c '" o o ... VI III ... -t Õ Z . ~-- Slu:mJUJaAOS J1I.13P"J ptœ ;¡¡e¡s 'p;IMOJ1I S! qsg¡pqs ptœ dwµqs 'uown JO:J Su¡qs¡,¡ ~ U8< "'!1 æ1IW en pa¡:>adxo am SI!¡:> '!IJO ":J!IPI!M pUIIIS!z ;J¡I!¡S pUll \úe -nIqa, a:>uJS ~q¡qo.td =>q m¡ ¡eu -e:> aq¡ Ulsapads¡SOWJO:J Su¡qsi.zl .~ 01(t .¿ua8ÁXO ..01 .I! JO S1:>oJ 'J" otp Su¡¡aoJ am1111p sSu¡tp J.tpO .I! JOJ 'Joqmn:mJ v.. "'!1 JO:J "I'!J -):!OJ .I! JOJ ¡npsn S! 1111p ssou¡¡omµ v JO oq 1! II!'" 'OAOJdlll! sSu¡tp JI,; ·.m .u¡rem O¡ pOSTle:> 8u¡oq .s1nll1lp II1lO1-Su01 .I! 1noqv UJOJuoo S! 0J0tp 1n8 'u<Q8u¡t¡svM JO .ú¡sI""!Ufi æ JO<\IJOUI JÚ¡n:>1!J pUll Á80003: 1fI!'" .mqdVJ80UIIOJO JO!IkIS 'UoIMON m!f PJIIS 'poqrn:> SlIM uopuUod .I! '""'" poAOJd -Ill! OAIII 'WI<¡ aI1!MVO(] JO "'(1IOd -1!R1p III 1pUS 'S¡OAO¡ ua8ÁXO Io\Oj moq P=:IJI1S :amp SIIaJ1! .GIII() 'S1puow -"'IUJN< oq:¡ u¡ ÁUOm -moo OJOID smddvq 1111p :P\81Ú!J1'nb .101_ OAOJdlll! 1I1!J _ UIIOJO I!!", ~ ptœ.101_ 1SOJJ JO 1$1ID V ._ P;QOldop-ua8ÁXO 'Jodoop 1fI!'" UONI x¡m en 100 pu;n ua8ÁXO OJOW 0A1II 1111p saÁ"I .JOddn "'U. 'p.ro~ 8UO¡"J!Wi)9 "'!1 u¡ uoµ1IJn:>'!:! iood iqiISJ"'" .pI!II1 SJ IIIO'(qOJd "'U. '001 JOJ p;qs;>AJIII 8u¡¡>q JOij1! padump ......1111p SOSS1IJJ1!J UOUlJI'S ptœ amllllUl UIJ19 iq p;IIo\OßOJ 'uoµ -nnod ¡sow .I! JOJ ¡munOOJll ~ -w :mdos 8m8v moq po81!OOJ o8'e -MOS :smoo¡q'I!8v "'!1pnJ 8u¡dpq 'Iea.( q:>1I3 IIIII!J .I! enUl posIIOO.I 8u¡¡>q am S1IMnnodJO sum 00& en dn 1111p ¡mJRUµSO ÁflUOJOJ \!:mo2v 011QS V 'Um;u. uOµJV PUllOS 108nd .q¡, 'ssa.QS!P u¡ Álqv -0Jµ00 'SMOIJIIIS "'!1 u¡ pouods...... SPO JI"'" OAJSIIpaI ptœ po:> 8u;¡ 'p!"s s¡sµuops O1'1nS 'punoJ oq p¡noo JI!IS 1UOSi1Jd s.1111p ua8ÁXO .U!J otp OJOt¡M '.101_ JO 100} œ d01 "'!1 enUl saAlos -ump pomuœ.D Stpdop Jf<-v) "'!1 """I IIHYOIl:l P~1~~1 S! l~wwns 10 P~1P Wl~~-~UOI p~SS~.QS s~p~ds ÁW?W l['HM :1YNÐ __~II~.IO ~._...- _",,"~hI .'pIIS ÁIOA S! poæ¡;u.UI!UIl\q 0<Á1III1 ptœ 0SJ0h\ 8u¡uo8 S,I! llI1p ¡;)tg .q¡, >ú!JI'I-IOI1I 8¡q SJ1P ... en pllS ÁJU!1II.IOJ S.1I. ·uos -S11d .UÁI!M ¡s¡8010¡q "J!IPI,M p"" 1S!zI PJIIS . '1!q .u!J v 8u¡s'e0JJU! pUll .¡q'lnS u.oq S1!q uoµv11dod;nu.. '1IiU1I.I! u¡ saAlosm.'P qS!Jq~'OJ 'qsy>poJ S1! q:>ns '..pods >OA!J-8UOI uoos OAIII SJ01f.1l'IOSOJ 'n.I! OJU¡S '0811 ~pv:> -"I' v lnoqV 8u¡qsy en SlJUI!I-JlO 100 ..... '1rodspooHJOtpJOUmsv '>po¡ punS 'suo¡:Il!JI1dod qsy SJI!UII:! "'!1 UI .¡mn su¡vS1UOJOJ alp JO OUIOS ouop -un m¡ JÚ!8Ub .I018M JOod "'U. '¡m .I! UI 1""111 SII JPSI! 8uµ:Jauoo 10U ::.. ~ ~""= ~"'!IIO "UOµnnod o:m¡m 1I!"':amp SIJOfo.rd JO tp.mII\ 000'009$ JO:J soqµ¡ ptœ Slu:mJUJaAOS 'SJooq:>s 'suo¡¡1IZJUII8J0 'S3SSOIJ!SIIq moq SI!SodOJd 8uµ¡:I!Jos u-.I!oq I!uow SJ1P pm! 8u¡o8uo S!1111p tp.œOSOJ POPUllJ OA,ÁOq¡, -wo¡qOld .I! OAOS O¡ Án 01 uo¡¡JÌ! u;»J1Q OAIII 'WII'XO)II/dop:>I ¡npo~'W5JctMMM OJ ofi '¡t!UO) IOOH uo UOIIWOU ~ 4 "WII'I!UI!)-~ ¡AOti'WlOsd'MMM o¡ ofi JO ~1>ÞS-SZH)9£ ¡e '.....11JO!PY punos IiIIind 'uaopn o¡uet¡da¡s IÐ 'WOCQId uo6.(JO.MO ',¡iue:¡ poo X deI OJ spofoJd.lO Aauow .IO Addv 014 'UHIKH)09 II! ",,!IOI ,fiIioo)3 D UOUJJI!do(¡_ "'" U'" ~ "'" U SWOCOJd J"'IIO JO, 5WOOC ¡eIiv 'siR IS! IJOdo¡ 01 4 Qj^10ANI ~NIln~ KINS .COM . "'-",--' . CC~r, < iÐl~')iUI L- 'r\~ye?J Development suffocating Hood Canal and its creatures I # 10:14 PM PDT on Tuesday, June 8,2004 By GARY CHITTIM I KING 5 News BELFAIR, Wash. - The Washington State Department of Ecology says oxygen levels in the Hood Canal are far below average and more fish kills are likely this summer. As Hood Canal crabbers show off the catch of the day, they know each catch may be their last. "Hate to see it. I've lived on the canal for over 30 years," said Bill Sibley. Hood Canal is gasping for air. Each week, researchers test the water for oxygen, and the rapid loss is obvious. "Especially a lot ofthe really deep ones, you look at it and know, there's no oxygen in there," said volunteer Gretchen Anderson. And the oxygen depletion is growing. A study released Tuesday shows each year there is less oxygen. It's an undeniable downward spiral. Studies go back to 1952. During those 50 years, the Hood Canal real estate market has boomed. Homes are crammed in like sardines on its banks and scientists are convinced runoff from those homes, yards, driveways and septic tanks is sucking up the canal's precious oxygen. Add that to the canal's naturally lower depths and poor circulation, and KING the future looks bleak. "It has the potential to keep getting worse and worse, and I think more and more fish and shellfish will die off," said Anderson. The oxygen depletion of Hood Canal keeps on growing. It's already happening. While wildlife seems to thrive topside, pictures from under the surface of Hood Canal show dead and dying creatures, and healthy populations seem to be moving away. Scientists warn to be prepared this year for more oxygen loss and more fish kills. The department is asking people who live along the waterway to reduce runoff and make sure septic systems are 6/9/2004 Page 2 of2 ,Þ working properly. Parts of the canal have been closed to fishing the past three years because of the stress Resources on fish from low oxygen levels. Anyone noticing large fISh kills, strange algae blooms or anything unusual in the water is urged to call the Washington State Department of Ecology. Washington State Department of Ecology: Oxygen at historic low in Hood __________________ _____________ Canal waters Online at: http://www_kingS.com/localnews/stories/NW _ 060804EN BhoodcanalKC. 2424a4fOb_ html rl ¿Jj ~ ~ --t;k ~ ~ ~ 9} io~o <¡ fV1 t0L ~ CFJ¡M)~ ¿-W~ 37/ S;- ß.¡ cJ ~_ 6/9/2004 p~~tJft 9~3~5-- - (Cl)C \) ') ~~è^0 ~ ~ t}/j!CY ~ ~Z{) /~~/~ ~/~~~~,// e/~~ åf F~ -£%¿) ~ü~ !J~~~~~ ~~r¿u~~ ~~~~~ /ß/~~~~~ E-mail CC ~E ? i&11~CY L I'(\li_Y'3) E-mail I Reply I I Reply AI I I Forww:d I I Delete I Page 1 of 1 Voice: 5/9 Fax: 2/12 E-mail: 3/22 [f) I Close I Message 1 of 22 From: "Curtis Thomson" <thomson@bww.com> To: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us SubJect:'ftIManct MLA02-235- [«~Prey] (Next»J Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 19:19:13 -0300 . .l,.OMkn~; I reside in the community of Bridgehaven and will be !l§ñificantly impacted by the continued expansion of the FHM mining. I OPPOSE the requested MRL designation. First, because such a designation is not needed to simply continue at their present rate of mining, and Second, because it clearly is only a preliminary step toward the proposed 'Pit To Pier'. I have spoken to you before at previous hearings, on behalf of the Bridgehaven Water Commission, which I chair. Our water system currently serves 190 users and is authorized 350 connections by the State Department Of Health. Our water system is served by two 400' wells, both of which are fed by an aquifer that is in the path of FHM mining. The integrity of the aquifer cannot, in my humble opinion, be adequately protected or safeguarded by the promise FHM. I am also not reassured by the language of the FINAL UST OF ITIONS recently published by Jefferson County staff. As one e . er commented to me some months ago, determining precisely where the aquifer is and how close is safe when it comes to mining is "more art than -,I science". I submit that there is too little benefit to fiow to the County ~an~ ~ens to justify this Proposal..:)~~curt Thomson '~~ 1fz- ~;;¡"j.~ IF.......II~~~~ ~ Printer Friendlv Version / ~t.? https://login.katebww.comlcgi-bin/email.cgi?email_id=1619& _snum=711702568290961 &em... 6/9/04 12(: DcD ~ {:\tYì"'l . / .' .\-\CL. (c1;,).~/GL.\ L. ff(.,,~e.s i 0/ Testimony to Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County, 9 June 2004 by Philip Hansten, Port Ludlow, W A I would like to comment on the risk of barges and ships to the Hood Canal Bridge if the MRL is approved and the pit-to-pier is constructed. I have 4 questions. Question 1. How can one calculate the risk of a catastrophic accident that would close the Hood Canal Bridge and wreak havoc on the citizens of Jefferson County, including working men and women who use the bridge to get to and from work, and small businesses in Jefferson County which depend on the bridge for tourism and clients? The short answer is that you can't calculate the risks. So if anybody tells you they have anything like an accurate estimate, they are either stretching the truth or they do not understand the nature of risk assessment. Question 2. Why can't you calculate the risk of a catastrophic accident to the bridge? Well, as Danish physicist, Niels Bohr said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." We are dealing with a complex system with numerous sites for breakdown that are interwoven and interdependent: mechanical devices, human beings, weather conditions, and more. Factoring in all of these into a risk assessment is simply not possible in any realistic way, notwithstanding the assurances from the proponents that the risks are minimal. I have spent the past 40 years, most recently at the University of Washington, researching and teaching about the assessment of risks in complex systems. In my case the risks are combinations of medications and the complex system is the human body. But we use the same models as those assessing risks of industrial accidents, and the same principles apply. Every human is different just as every bridge is different, and predicting the outcome of an interacting pair of drugs in a particular individual is just as problematic as predicting the risk of a catastrophic accident for a bridge. Question 3. Even though the risk cannot be accurately calculated, why do we have to worry about the bridge if they tell us that the risk is small? It is because the risk of a catastrophic accident is only half the story. Years ago, physicist Louis Slotin died after a screwdriver slipped and a radioactive block fell. He had unconsciously miscalculated his risk by failing to multiply the admittedly low risk of the block falling with the near infinite likelihood of serious injury if it did. So it is with the bridge; one must multiply the likelihood of catastrophic damage to the bridge times the near infinite likelihood that Jefferson County would incur serious economic damage and personal suffering. Question 4. Is there a disconnect between those bearing the risk and those reaping the benefit? Clearly yes, and it is ethically untenable to force one person to take a risk for the benefit of another. For the pit-to-pier project the citizens of Jefferson County are asked to assume 90% of the risk, but 90% of the benefit goes to the owners of a corporation in another county. I would urge the County Commissioners to consider the needs of their constituents over those of a large corporation in Kitsap County, and do everything in their power to prevent the pit-to-pier project from becoming a reality. êC 84M ~ I d t\cc ~ ~ wP~1M JEFFERSON COUNTY ...~N C'o~ L'm1sARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ \: ¡.; ""':i ~., ~ 621 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 AI Scalf, Director STAFF REPORT DATE: June 9, 2004 TO: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jefferson County Department of Community Development SUBJECf: To re-examine a 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MLA 02-235 - Fred Hill Materials Inc.) based on new environmental information as required by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) 1.0 Background: 1.1 The adoption of Ordinance 14-1213-02 on December 13,2002 for a 690-acre Mineral Resource Land (MRL) Overlay District with 15 conditions of approval (MLA 02-235) was appealed to theWWGMHB. On August 15, 2003 a Final Decision and Order 03-2-0006 (FDO) was issued. The FDO found deficiencies with the environmental review and raised other issues with MLA 02-235. Around February 18,2004, a revised compliance schedule was established by the WWGMHB. The county is required to have all actions completed by May 25, 2004. A County Compliance Report is due to the WWGMHB on May 28, 2004. A Compliance Hearing is scheduled for August 3, 2004 before the WWGMHB. 1.2 Jefferson County prepared a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services to address issues raised in the FDO. On October 29,2003 and November 5,2003 the RFP was published in The Daily Journal of Commerce and the RFP was published on November 5, 2003 in The Leader with a deadline for submission of proposals of November 21, 2003. 1.3 Four proposals were received by the deadline. The County selected the Wheeler Consulting Group and Intergroup Development Corporation proposal because: they have over 20 years of experience preparing Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) documents; their experience with mining proposals and the WWGMHB; and their ability to prepare a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (FSEIS) within the allotted time frame for the proposed budget. 1.4 To ensure that Jefferson County had control of the EIS process, Jefferson County enacted a three party agreement where the consultant would report to Jefferson County and submit invoices to Jefferson County. The County would pay the consultant and would then be reimbursed by the applicant Fred Hill Materials Inc. (FHM) for the costs incurred. Building Permits/ Inspections Development Review Division Long Range Planning FAX: (360) 379-4451 (360) 379-4450 Staff Report for MLA 02-235 June 9, 2004 Page 2 1.5 The county's instructions to the consultant were to prepare a non-project DSEIS and FSEIS in accordance with SEPA and to address the issues raised by the WWGMHB. The county provided the consultant with direction and input in the preparation of the DSEIS and FSEIS. 1.6 On March 3, 2003 the DSEIS was issued and widely distributed for a 30-day comment period. Six comments were received by the April 2, 2004 deadline. The FSEIS addressed comments received on the DSEIS and also included additions, corrections and clarifications to the DSEIS. The FSEIS was issued on May 12,2004. The notice of the May 25,2004 Public Hearing for MLA 02-235 along with the Notice of Availability of the FSEIS was published in The Leader on May 12, 2004. 1.7 SEPA gives the lead agency more flexibility in preparing EIS's for non-project actions because there is less detailed information available. The lead agency is required to discuss impacts and alternatives at an appropriate level for the scope of the non-project proposal. (WAC 197-11-442 & 197-11-443). For this proposal Jefferson County the lead agency is essentially reviewing the impacts that different development regulations for mining (such as mining size & conditions of approval) would have on the three different alternatives. In addition to meeting the requirements of SEP A, the scope of what should be examined in the non-project SEIS was provided by the WWGMHB FDO. This is what has been included in non-project SEIS. 1.8 The FDO indicated that it is not yet appropriate to evaluate the Pit-to-Pier project action at this time, but it is appropriate to examine the transportation impacts of the three non-project alternatives (which do not include the Pit-to-Pier) as part of the non-project EIS for the MRL. Section 2.9 of the DSEIS addresses resource transport and states that extraction rates depend on the product demand and the ability to transport material to the end user. This section also indicates that SR 104 is at/near capacity but the FSEIS adds that increased truck traffic originating from FHM's Shine Hub will contribute only 7 vehicle trips to eastbound SR-104 for every 1,000 vehicle trips currently occurring there. Should other transportation methods (Le., marine transport) become available new or expanded markets may be found resulting in higher extraction rates. Section 3.23 of the DSEIS addresses transportation impacts of the three alternatives. This section also provides clarification that the conveyor proposed for transport of material from the point of extraction to the Shine Processing Hub is different than the conveyor associated wilh the delivery of processed material associated with a possible marine transport facility (pit-to-Pier). In any event, truck traffic will continue whether or not marine transport is approved. 1.9.1 Because FHM submitted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment in 2002 (MIA 02-235), the County is required to review this proposed MRL against the criteria found in the Unified Development Code (or "UDC") for a Comprehensive Plan amendment along with the information provided by the EIS. The County documents its decision in an Ordinance that includes finding and conclusions regarding the justification for its decision in the context of designating mineral resource lands under GMA.. 1.9.2 When a project specific action (like construction of a conveyor and pier facility is proposed, the new project specific action EIS, which has not been started, will focus on the Staff Report for MLA 02-235 June 9, 2004 Page 3 impacts and alternatives including mitigation measures specific to the project action proposal. These impacts will be analyzed to a degree not possible through the non-project EIS for designation of a MRL. Because this non-project action is focusing primarily on development regulations that would apply to mining in an inland forested area, the DSEIS and FSEIS for MLA 02-235 will not have any relevance to a marine transport proposal. This means that when a project specific EIS process is started for a marine transport proposal we will be starting the SEP A process from the very beginning. This will include ensuring that the EIS prepared for the marine transport proposal is the County's document by ensuring that the consultant reports directly to the County, the process which occurred during the preparation of the DSEIS and FSEIS for MLA 02-235. The project specific EIS will then follow the EIS process which will include scoping the issues, issuing a DEIS for comment, and addressing the comments in the FSEIS. 1.9.3 After the SEPA process is completed, a marine transport proposal would be reviewed at a public hearing before the hearing examiner for a Zoning Conditional Use Pennit. The criteria for a zoning conditional use pennit is found in the UDC (see Section 8.8). The conveyor and pier within the shoreline jurisdiction would also be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Pennit before the Hearing Examiner at the same hearing. The criteria for a shoreline review are found in the Jefferson County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act (Section 5 of the UDC, RCW 90.58 Shoreline Management Act; WAC 173-27 Shoreline Management Pennit and Enforcement Provisions). If the proposal does not meet all of the criteria the proposal will be denied. The W A State DOE makes the final decision on all Shoreline Conditional Use Pennits. Numerous other State and Federal approvals would also be required. (See Spread Sheet labeled Cases Involving Fred Hill Materials). 1.9.4 Phased review is a component of a non-project action. This means that the lead agency shall detennine the appropriate scope and level of detail of environmental review to coincide with meaningful points in the planning and decision-making processes. Environmental review may be phased if it assists agencies and the public to focus on issues that are ready for decision and exclude from consideration issues not yet ready. Broader environmental documents may be followed by narrower documents such as site specific analysis (project specific) (WAC 197-11- 060(5) of SEPA Rules). 1.9.5 Although the SEP A process has concluded with the issuance of the FSEIS, the purpose of the DSEIS and FSEIS (the complete product is known as the SEIS) is to allow government agencies and interested citizens to review and comment on proposed government actions, and to ensure that decision makers can make an informed decision (WAC 197-11-400). Below is a summary of the information found in the SEIS. 2.0 Alternatives: 2.1 Three alternatives were analyzed in the SEIS. 2.2 The Proposed Action Alternative is the 6,240-acre MRL (excluding critical areas) proposed by the applicant. The Proposed Action Alternative does not include a limit on mining size so mining size would be detennined by DNR. Staff Report for MLA 02-235 June 9, 2004 Page 4 2.3 The Approved Action Alternative is the modified 690-acre MRL approved by the Board, through Ordinance 14-1213-02 on December 13, 2002, and includes the 15 conditions of approval. The Approved Action has a 40 acre limit on mining segments and a limit on mining depth, i.e., no mining shall occur closer than 10 feet above any underground aquifer. 2.4 The No Action Alternative (described in Section 2.7 of the DSEIS) examines not designating a MRL and relying on the current Unified Development Code (UDC) requirements for extraction and processing outside of a MRL. This alternative examined the possibility that mineral extraction could occur in any Resource District as a permitted use, and examined the 10 acre maximum of disturbed area for mineral extraction activities outside of a MRL. The significance of the term "Disturbed Area" is that under the No Action Alternative once an area has been reclaimed to DNR standards (see Section 3.2 below), a corresponding additional area could be mined, provided that no more than 10 acres is disturbed at anyone time. This means that a large area could be mined in this fashion. 3.0 Intensity of Use 3.1 The SEIS addressed the implications of regulations related to the size of mining areas and the intensity of use. (Section 2.8 of DSEIS and Section 2.3 of FSEIS.) 3.2 The term "disturbed area" is defined in RCW 78.44.031(5) (Surface Mining Act) and this is referenced in Section 2.8 of the DSEIS. "Disturbed area" is a broad and inclusive term that includes cleared or altered areas in preparation of mining along with mine related extraction, pit floors, areas for processing, stockpiles, spoil areas, and equipment staging areas. RCW 78.44.031(5)(b) states that "Disturbed areas do not include lands that have been reclaimed to all standards outlined in this Chapter (RCW 78.44), rules of the department (DNR), any applicable SEPA documents, and approved reclamation plans." 3.3 The term "segment" is discussed in Section 2.8 of the DSEIS. Typically, with segmental reclamation, which is required by DNR, mining areas are divided into "segments" (or phases) where the order of mining and reclamation is determined. An example of this is after the first "segment" is mined, the miner moves into the second "segment" and if the first "segment" is no longer needed or impacted, this area would be reclaimed typically within 2 years (RCW 78.44.111). DNR starts with 7 acre "segments" but will allow larger "segments" if the miner can show why larger "segments" are needed [RCW 78.44.031(15)]. DNR will typically allow more than one "segment" to be disturbed at one time, because reclamation may lag several "segments" behind a "segment" being actively mined. A mining operation would include areas to be mined in the future in the segmental reclamation plan. However, as long as these areas remain untouched, these areas would not considered disturbed areas. Areas being reclaimed (but reclamation has not been completed to DNR standards), areas being mined, or being prepared to be mined (See section 3.2 above), would all be considered disturbed areas, and would counted against the 10 limits on disturbed areas for the No Action Alternative, and the 40 acre limit on disturbed area proposed in modified Condition 12 of this report. Staff Report for MLA 02-235 June 9, 2004 Page 5 3.4 Section 2.8 of the DSEIS indicates that larger segment sizes (allowed in the MRL alternatives but not in the No-Action Alternative) are more efficient than smaller sized segments based on the nature of the resource found in the Shine-Thorndyke area. Ten Acre segment/disturbed areas incorporated into a larger plan for mining outside of a MRL in deep unconsolidated deposits would be inefficient in terms of non-renewable resource recovery because of the reclamation setbacks anticipated under RCW 78.44.121(1) of the Surface Mining Act. Furthermore, since the maximum slope angle that can occur between the ground and the extraction 'face' is 45 degrees in order to prevent dangerous slides and/or erosion from occuning, the consequence of that limit is that deeply-buried resources will not be accessible if the disturbed area cannot exceed 10 acres. 3.5 Section 2.8 of the DSEIS also concludes that for deep deposits of unconsolidated deposits of sand and gravel that small segment sizes would result in the need for more disturbed area to obtain the same quantity of resource recovery than larger mining segments. The inefficiency related to resource recovery with the No Action Alternative appears to be in conflict with the RCW 36.70A.060 that requires counties to adopt development regulations that assure the conservation of designated resource lands. 4.0 Summary of Impacts 4.1 Table 4-3 of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan has 13 factors utilized for assessing lands for MRL designation. These 13 factors were analyzed in the SEIS for the three alternatives, as was requested by the Hearings Board. The 13 factors were categorized according to WAC 197-11-444 (Section 2.5.5 of the DSEIS). These factors include: earth, air quality, water resources, plants and animals, environmental health, land use, and transportation for the three alternatives. These impacts are summarized in Section 1.5.5 of the DSEIS. 4.2 Earth- The Proposed and Approved Action would protect mineral resource lands by providing nuisance protection to mineral extractors, and providing notice to adjacent property owners as provided by areas designated MRL by Section 3.6.3 of the UDC. The No Action Alternative does not provide nuisance protection to mineral extractors, or provide notice to adjacent property owners as provided by areas designated MRL by Section 3.6.3 of the UDC. 4.3 - Water Resource - The Approved Alternative has a 10 foot limit on mining above the water table to protect aquifer recharge and surrounding wells. The Proposed and No Action Alternatives do not include this safeguard. 4.4 Plants and Animals - The Approved Action Alternative is outside of known tenitories of priority species. Mineral extraction could occur near known tenitories of priority species under the Proposed and No Action Alternatives. 4.5 Environmental Health (noise) - With the Approved Action Alternative, mineral extraction would occur at the western edge of the study area away from sensitive receptors, i.e. residences. Mineral extraction could occur near sensitive receptors under the Proposed and No Action Alternatives. Staff Report for MLA 02-235 June 9, 2004 Page 6 4.6 Land Use (aesthetics) - With the Approved Action Alternative, mineral extraction would occur at the western edge of the study area away from residences to the south and east and away from SR 104. Mineral extraction could occur in highly visible locations under the Proposed and No Action Alternatives. 4.7 Transportation - Transportation impacts should be similar for the Proposed and Approved Alternatives, roughly seven (7) additional truck trips on eastbound SR 104 for every 1,000 vehicle trips already occurring on that segment of SR 104 according to a State DOT study from 2001. Impacts associated with the No Actions Alternative would be dependent on factors for mineral extraction and processing proposed. ' 4.8 Section 2.2 of the FSEIS addresses transportation issues and provides additions and clarifications to Section 2.9 and Section 3.23 of the DSEIS. This section provides additional transportation infonnation on the extraction rates on FIlM truck based operation (including general traffic impacts) and potential marine transport, which are independent of each other because they would serve different markets. Recommendation Based on these factors above, staff is recommending the adoption of the Approved Action Alternative with the conditions from Ordinance 14-1213-02 with two modifications. Proposed Condition #12 Condition #12 - Maximum "disturbed area" [as that tenn is defined at RCW 78.44.031(5)] size shall be determined in consultation with Department of Natural Resources, but shall not exceed the lesser of 40 acres or the appropriate size for a specific proposed site according to consideration and implementation of the 'best management practices' promulgated by DNR. Reclamation shall be conducted on an on-going basis, pursuant to progressive segmental reclamation standards and according to the specific mining segment sizes and timelines established in DNR-approved Reclamation Plans. Condition #12 from Ordinance 14-1213-02 Maximum active mining area (segment) size shall be determined in consultation with Department óf Natural Resources, but shall not exceed 40 acres. Reclamation shall be conducted on an on-going basis, pursuant to progressive segmental reclamation standards and according to the specific mining segment sizes and timelines established in DNR- approved Reclamation Plans. Staff Comment: The proposed change is from a maximum 40 acre segments to the lesser of 40 acre disturbed area or as recommended by DNR. This change is more restricted that what was initially adopted by Ordinance 14-1213-02 and reflects the difference in definition of segments and disturbed area discussed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 above. This also clarifies the county's intent to keep the disturbed area at an appropriate level and not to have large areas of forest land removed from production, which would displace wildlife habitat. Staff Report for MLA 02-235 June 9, 2004 Page 7 Proposed Condition #14 Any application for a conveyor and pier facility for barge loading in the Hood Canal would automatically receive a threshold Determination of Significance (DS) from Jefferson County, requiring the preparation of a project action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Transportation of extracted materials to anticipated markets shall be a component of the environmental review of any extraction permit applications. Any permit issued shall be based on the transportation methods and anticipated rate of transport stated in the project application. Subsequent to extraction project approval, any substantial change in the rate of extraction associated with that extraction proposal shall require either a new or amended permit, and potentially a new threshold determination issued by Jefferson County as is allowed by WAC 197-11-600(3)(b )(i). Condition #14 from Ordinance 14-1213-02 Any application for a conveyor and pier facility for barge loading in the Hood Canal would automatically receive a threshold Determination of Significance (DS) 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 LakelMeridian 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 SEP A review, the absence of an application notwithstanding, or the 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. Attachments: Applicable Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Applicable Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Comments Rëceived as of the June 9, 2004 hearing en «1 "¡: en Q) +-- ~ «1 "'"'~ 0>_ o "'"'I fl.. c:~ "'"' enu- mo> «1 c: o '> o > c: ~ <D .:.:: cu ::: C o '0 'õ <D o 3: .0 <D ~O ~ C <D<DO occ -0 CIJ.)_~ a.~.g "S; 0 . E a. Q. <D e,Eq cu a.(/) ~.SJ~BE~ .- C ø cP CO. 3: 0 Õ <D.20-g (I) E CU ;;'.!2 C\I <D üj-oa.cuooE (I)-g.ÉE~~« CU .¡:; <D - -¡:; o 3: <D -S; <D CI: oð >C oð <D.2 C g;.!2 .2 I- ~ <0 ø(/)O 0 0-- _ 0 ~¿-Ë 9 o.<D.... C\I «E<D 0 =:«Q. rh Ec"';" 0 êD~coø =#: Q.Q.<D:ß m g ~~ E ð =>0 <DQ._m co <D C\I m J: c::~cb:::::: .2 <D '-E <D _ (!) õ·S;....:D(/);: <D<D<DCU~> (I) a: Q. 1-..:: > ..J a: ::: .... o - C o U « -0 <D -0 <D <D Z (I) W...: _0 !9E C .!2 <Do E >- -º2cu a. ;:: o.~ ~O C o ~ o o ..J oð <D > :0= o <D :ë o CÕ (/) '- « <D J::-o...J.... ~~.~5~ .... . a._LO <D-oEJ::C\I ><D CULO 0€8;:oð :t:: :J ..-.. -oiñ(/)(/)I'- <D -- <D <D I'- C .... -0 t; t; C") .~ '5 rn CU CU 0 -0 0-~oL09'¡:; a:<D 0 () CD C") ~ CUCDY""O....::: - o <D 6~ Q. -:- C <D ELO >- «C") CU C C\I ;:: CU 0 ~ ë:9 o :2 ~~ ..J.þo« a: .!2 0 ...J ::: 0 _::: ëü ";~=5 <D J:: CU :0= C C .- .- w 0 -0 EO C 5 . ~ 0 .2 U ~ w <D .!2 <D E -OC.... 0) CU <D .- <D ·E û5 -0 ~ Q. cu<D « ëü 0 <D :>cJ::(/) J:>;¡:(I):J cr ø~ O(/) :ßQ._Ocu C<Do=>!!l.....J:: 0-0 .....-'0 ._.a....oE....- -cu <D..... cul-Q. .__ (/) .2 <D C\I « CU ~ 0 ëi. 'Q.(/);> o.<DCOwOEO « (/) <D a. :J --(1)00...._ .- .a .... .~ E cu oð a.êi) 0 E ....1-0 ~ C"'- .... <D CO·-.;t <DQ....xY"" .CU<D. Q. "U. CO·¡:; .... CD =cco <D..... O-ooc=:<DC") ,.... <D·-,.....2....J:: C ..... a.(/).....- 0- 0 => >-'õ => 0 C\I 0._ I-<D <D -- CO ""'-<D(I)Y""<D0 ...... -<D<D c3:_<DOëüoo:::(I) °<D'-E ..:: :0=.- E 0'Q) « ~¡¡;Q)~=><Dr--;(I) (I) a: Q. W .S E CD W Y""ø 15 â oð cO (/) E :ß -0 C\I .~ .§ ~ g ~~ :É "8 æ ~ ~ ø~è:e'C~~o~~t; g<DC\lQ.æc,gJ:.Q~m 8:<DcOQ)(/)~(I)cDëü;:<D «(/) <Diñ<D.... c;::;.cO= =:-cu::Jo°<D.2 = =:E-900:::(/)'t:co=:CI:ctS E .... 1-'" ..:: .!2 <Do. 0 c -0 <D - ....<D ..... +==ctS-o<D<D If. Q. oð '5 ~ oð ~ .2 CU ~ <D =c:::ctS(/)....:!::~cE S¿ a; .2 <D e .~ & ~ cu .2 iñ ~ o..!2 :É .a .2 èñ <D õ E::J ..; -' >- 0 <D (/) O· Q) <D ,... CO I- ~ <5 <D o.~ ~ J:: Õ ctS ~ c~ J::(/)o....·--.... .... O;>=:(I)(/):;::ctS3:::::-o.(/)a. .- .~ E <D 'õ -0 <D ctS <D &. a. '5>.... ·-o<Dc-C- ctS <D <D <D q 'C o.!9!9 ctS!9 e ....0 (l)a:Q."")ctS(/)(/)(I)O(/)D.._ .... <D ø 3: ·E (I).... -0 W_ o (/) ;¡:oð 'õ Q. <D=> f}o -0) gc=: ......,: E e 0 Q) Q.Na. - C <D E . a. ~ 0 WoðCD .2 Q. ¡¡; ~=>O <DO- a. <D .~ (/)c'E õ~!9:t:: .!!!. <5 ~ E eJ::::J<D Q.(I)(I)Q. .... .~ oð 0._ oð:ß .... .... ~& <D . > E 50 OOLO <D C .. 0'- Y"" ~Éa: Q.3:a: ø .S <D .S ~ É Q) :5 Q)03: _.... ._ 0 _ _ ~ ~ Q) a...J 12 0 ;> 0 >oð....:ctS-oJ::cu o (/) ctS 3: æ .2> <D ....-0 c-O_J::(ij ~coctSæ'Q)~ <D~ c<DCUoð..; >~'C -C':'::<D cooctSo·-...._ OJ:: 0 ~0'E CUE cu O(/)J:ctSC\lO 3: .... <D ä: ~:ß oð-8c; ....<Doo ~:ÉMrh <D~OO ~,gD..::S 0(1)000::: 0_(1) ....::: I'-LO Y""LO OY"" 00 .... 00 g.êìrhM <DCOO >,:z« COO...J oN 00::: O_N..:: « ;: ~ .~ -S; COO .Q ~ a. øC(/) o .2 <D :E 0 "¡: 1::<D<D ~(I)~ Y""~U: O<D_ ~.~~ W 0)0 gill6 ;:15 ¿ C) .- o e- E -0-0 80« W<DO tot- "'C "¡:: +-= o ::J <D ::J . Õ J:: a. õ..S f}.s <D(/)O<D °ëüE32 ...:>-> (1)0«0 « a. oð a. ;:g.æ~ --ëü <D E <D .... 0 :E<DO~ ;giëücu ;:LL.CZ ...x ..2 oð "U<D- J::(/)cu'E (/) ctS Z cu U:-º2oð::J . (/) <D (!) êi) .2 :E iñ «ø::2ctS ::J'- 0 ;:0-;:0 E:oð--:.. o <D J:: <D ~ e .!2 -æ -::JLL.- «0 ·cD Q. (/)(1) . J: <D .:.:;::. -a:=>=: ~ëü~ê 0~<D<D ...._J:: a. o.cu3:<D a.z ~ > « . 'Õ ctS -õ.CJ:: g<D~>- '0 0 ã5 cu .... . ~ E Q.êi5-¡::(/) g«.$.~ æ;:~~ '-.- (/J -g, E .s u: J:~<D« cu O).g> « ..e<Do ~Q.-oz ::J ........ õ'5;;;;oð .s ::: -; ~ ....<D=:oð .~ C E . Q.O....LL. .... N <D . o - a.(I) _ cu ~ . -oiño=> ~ ~ ~ . <DOoð,ê <D_-E C 0 ~ .... (/)3:<D<D ëü<Døo. ~ 'S; 3: e- a.~~ 0 a.w .a 0 cu 0 t\.s .$ 0 'S; "5 cu 'CUo. êi5 êi5 .s.C WAC 197 -11 CHAPTER Page 36 of 97 avoided, although rare, threatened, or endangered species should be indicated. (ii) Describe and discuss significant impacts that will narrow the range or degree of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long term risks to human health or the environment, such as storage, handling, or disposal of toxic or hazardous material. (iii) Clearly indicate those mitigation measures (not described in the previous section as part of the proposal or alternatives), if any, that could be implemented or might be required, as well as those, if any, that agencies or applicants are committed to implement. (iv) Indicate what the intended environmental benefits of mitigation measures are for significant impacts, and may discuss their technical feasibility and economic practicability, if there is concern about whether a mitigation measure is capable of being accomplished. The EIS need not analyze mitigation measures in detail unless they involve substantial changes to the proposal causing significant adverse impacts, or new information regarding significant impacts, and those measures will not be subsequently analyzed under SEPA (see WAC 197-11-660(2». An EIS may briefly mention nonsignificant impacts or mitigation measures to satisfy other environmental review laws or requirements covered in the same document (WAC 197-11-402(8) and 197-11-640). (v) Summarize significant adverse impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated. (d) This section shall incorporate, when appropriate: (i) A summary of existing plans (for example: Land use and shoreline plans) and zoning regulations applicable to the proposal, and how the proposal is consistent and inconsistent with them. (ii) Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures, including more efficient use of energy, such as insulating, as well as the use of alternate and renewable energy resources. (iii) Natural or depletable resource requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. (iv) Urban quality, historic and cultural resources, and the design of the built environment, including the reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. (e) Significant impacts on both the natural environment and the built environment must be analyzed, if relevant (WAC 197-11-444). This involves impacts upon and the quality of the physical surroundings, whether they are in wild, rural, or urban areas. Discussion of significant impacts shall include the cost of and effects on public services, such as utilities, roads, fire, and police protection, that may result from a proposal. EISs shall also discuss significant environmental impacts upon land and shoreline use, which includes housing, physical blight, and significant impacts of projected population on environmental resources, as specified by RCW 43.21C.110 (l)(d) and (f), as listed in WAC 197-11-444. (7) Appendices. Coriunent letters and responses shall be circulated with the FEIS as specified by W Ae-197 -11--s60. Technical reports and supporting documents need not be circulated with an EIS (WAC 197-11-425(4) and 197-11-440 (2)(k», but shall be readily available to agencies and the public during the comment period. (8) (Optional) The lead agency may include, in an EIS or appendix, the analysis of any impact relevant to the agency's decision, whether or not environmental. The inclusion of such analysis may be based upon comments received during the scoping process. The provision for combining documents may be used (WAC 197-11-640). The EIS shall comply with the format requirements of this part. The decision whether to include such information and the adequacy of any such additional analysis shall not be used in detennining whether an EIS meets the requirements of SEP A. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.IlO. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-440, filed 2/10184, effective 4/4/84.] -7 WAC 197-11-442 Contents ofEIS on nonproject proposals. (1) The lead agency shall have more , flexibility in preparing EISs on nonproject proposals, because there is normally less detailed information available on their environmental impacts and on any subsequent project proposals. The http://www.leg.wa...Jindex.cfm ?fuseaction=chapter&chapter=197 -11 &RequestTimeout=50 7/31/2003 WAC 197 -11 CHAPTER Page 37 of 97 EIS may be combined with other planning documents. (2) The lead agency shall discuss impacts and alternatives in the level of detail appropriate to the scope of the nonproject proposal and to the level of planning for the proposal. Alternatives should be emphasized. In particular, agencies are encouraged to describe the proposal in tenns of alternative means of accomplishing a stated objective (see WAC 197-11-060(3». Alternatives including the proposed action should be analyzed at a roughly comparable level of detail, sufficient to evaluate their comparative merits (this does not require devoting the same number of pages in an EIS to each alternative). (3) If the nonproject proposal concerns a specific geographic area, site specific analyses are not required, but may be included for areas of specific concern. The EIS should identify subsequent actions that would be undertaken by other agencies as a result of the nonproject proposal, such as transportation and utility systems. (4) The EIS's discussion of alternatives for a comprehensive plan, community plan, or other areawide zoning or for shoreline or land use plans shall be limited to a general discussion of the impacts of alternate proposals for policies contained in such plans, for land use or shoreline designations, and for implementation measures. The lead agency is not required under SEP A to examine all conceivable policies, designations, or implementation measures but should cover a range of such topics. The EIS content may be limited to a discussion of alternatives which have been fonnally proposed or which are, while not fonnally proposed, reasonably related to the proposed action. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-442, filed 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.] WAC 197-11-443 EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS. (1) The provisions for phased review (WAC 197-11-060(5» and use of existing environmental documents, Part Six, apply to EISs on nonproject proposals. (2) A nonproject proposal may be approved based on an EIS assessing its broad impacts. When a project is then proposed that is consistent with the approved nonproject action, the EIS on such a project shall focus on the impacts and alternatives including mitigation measures specific to the subsequent project and not analyzed in the nonproject EIS. The scope shall be limited accordingly. Procedures for use of existing documents shall be used as appropriate, see Part Six. (3) When preparing a project EIS under the preceding subsection, the lead agency shall review the nonproject EIS to ensure that the analysis is valid when applied to the current proposal, knowledge, and technology. If it is not valid, the analysis shall be reanalyzed in the project EIS. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.IIO. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-443, filed 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.] WAC 197-11-444 Elements of the environment. (1) Natural environment (a) Earth (i) Geology (ii) Soils (Hi) Topography (iv) Unique physical features (v) Erosion/enlargement of land area (accretion) (b) Air (i) Air quality (H) Odor (iii) Climate (c) Water (i) Surface water movement/quantity/quality L- http://www .leg. wa....Iindex.cfm?fuseaction=chapter&chapter=197-11&RequestTimeout::::50 7/31/2003 WAC 197 -11 CHAPTER Page 10 of 97 impacts are attributable to the applicant's proposal, and the capability of applicants or agencies to control the impacts in each situation. -,) (5) Phased review. ~ (a) Lead agencies shall detennine the appropriate scope and level of detail of environmental review to coincide with meaningful points in their planning and decision-making processes. (See WAC 197-11-055 on timing of environmental review.) (b) Environmental review may be phased. If used, phased review assists agencies and the public to focus on issues that are ready for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ready. Broader environmental documents may be followed by natTOwer documents, for example, that incorporate prior general discussion by reference and concentrate solely on the issues specific to that phase of the proposal. (c) Phased review is appropriate when: (i) The sequence is from a nonproject document to a document of narrower scope such as a site specific analysis (see, for example, WAC 197-11-443); or (ii) The sequence is from an environmental document on a specific proposal at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a subsequent environmental document at a later stage (such as sensitive design impacts). (d) Phased review is not appropriate when: (i) The sequence is from a narrow project document to a broad policy document; (ii) It would merely divide a larger system into exempted fragments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts; or (iii) It would segment and avoid present consideration of proposals and their impacts that are required to be evaluated in a single environmental document under WAC 197-11-060 (3)(b) or 197- 11-305(1); however, the level of detail and type of environmental review may vary with the nature and timing of proposals and their component parts. (e) When a lead agency knows it is using phased review, it shall so state in its environmental I.-- document. (t) Agencies shall use the environmental checklist, scoping process, nonproject BISs, incorporation by reference, adoption, and supplemental BISs, and addenda, as appropriate, to avoid. duplication and excess paperwork. (g) Where proposals are related to a large existing or planned network, such as highways, streets, pipelines, or utility lines or systems, the lead agency may analyze in detail the overall network as the present proposal or may select some of the future elements for present detailed consideration. Any phased review shall be logical in relation to the design of the overall system or network, and shall be consistent with this section and WAC 197-11-070. [Statutory Authority: 1995 c 347 (ESHB 1724) andRCW 43.21C.llO. 97-21-030 (Order 95-16), § 197-11-060, filed 10/10/97, effective 11/10/97. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), § 197-11-060, filed 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.] WAC 197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process. (1) Until the responsible official issues a final detennination of nonsignificance or final environmental impact statement, no action concerning the proposal shall be taken by a governmental agency that would: (a) Have an adverse environmental impact; or (b) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives. (2) In addition, certain DNSs require a fourteen-day period prior to agency action (WAC 197-11- 340(2», and FEISs require a seven-day period prior to agency action (WAC 197-11-460(4». (3) In preparing environmental documents, there may be a need to conduct studies that may cause nonsignificant environmental impacts. If such activity is not exempt under WAC 197-11-800(18), the activity may nonetheless proceed if a checklist is prepared and appropriate mitigation measures taken. http://www.leg.wa.. ..Iindex.cfm?fuseaction=chapter&chapter=197 -11&RequestTimeout=50 7/31/2003 LOQ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Item -':".u fJ...c J (rYA ,IJ ¡ ,/) ,-..-r .~ g, (\ I f L L.r}'f0t .f=rA. 'A ~~~ /- ({¡¡UJ I Q. "Jr~i \:1 _I. .. u... J;i{AiA 1~1 0 r.i ¿.... Pno S) k e( .:o..U_ - MlLt r--ÌA. ~U CtM ~ D....Il'{J J ¡.,....... .~..,. ()., \A 11 ,e4 1. pl-f-e,,' ).. . f\J~)rr~ J,·d~,",\ \..~ é ~)d:> ." ø, ~~ M 11 .11'1. JA LL t' Ch... ,. ':. I ~, . r",....... ~.D r:;; ,-. (in , ..¡- u.. ......., ~AIA""",t+? ..¡..f)f1.Vf" \ -l\ruA' \.l (r. ('ð(" iAlA \/\. r ~C""1- ~ ~T .......A ... \~ A-t-. rA r1AA \..l. \ n ,^,lA ~ \\. J,.., ,. I~ \ 1 . f'I." ( 0, ~ u.. DP' ~ \r?\ lA. r'lA vi '~+-{PÁ~l'..\.-\ ,\. "DC + V t'\1lJ.. "Th~ \..i ~ p 1" "- \A. '-I t~ ~ \À. \ JJ ~ ~ Pi rc.. ~ ~D\ V\,IA ~rt,~ t dAA. \L I""" ~-n, f~ ~.~ U- ~~A.A ~ \¡ ee If\;\ c... r C\ \A '^ P L' \...'- \A, IA... ~ I 1\ ~ 1= r ç ~ u... lp-fJ. V_ -'-_ - { \s.. <; \APA '{:: t' ( ù' r K.ef"'nPfJ u.. P-f>..~ (6 ~ II' \\... r t1.. r k.. /' ',.., ,~ p b() l +- \À r.( t)cl I\.Æ ItA:.. k ~ rr.. ,c·u, <::;'~ ~ H\' r (An of ~ u.. -Pa -:r ~ ( 'Ç ^ '^' U ~; l ¡) ¡.-(A CI t"'e.P \il (:) ^-v '-\f-eWIi.rT ~ r "),t 'f'L, ~ í.., \.-" fJ+ ¡ IA \,\.. <. ~ ~ ,^-p LI \).. S~\I ~ ~ fr-l c"'J. ,1I~t"'~ l, '> r. .>.. 11, \,,\. '"-j ú.._e. \'".... 0 ~ ~ "'- 1 I P 'ø h?' p J '0 , 1J.A...h'A I LA U. I 'n uÁ ~'.P.AA ""- \ ;, 'Ii t _ Í( ,^..I 1'1 ,^ \II \i"- -, ( I AA .L +-r- P Þ.I... ("')rJ Idrll..L I -~ A7 f1 u r.l ç _,\ . -.. \J.-. .. (_ ¡ lA r' A ( 0 ,r- 7_..... :i-er \,\. - ~r { f-I p ¡ ~ '- \.;\ .- ~Vl 's:.... " rrL" \.'- I- t n ...., .J. _IA +_r AA tl Dð ..LJ 0 ~ -( ~Jñ \ -·10 Q ø '\ r;o! T.,,'.o Ilœr Date Do Ç"¡ 7 I. -z+'1' ( ~ I.¡ 71 0 ..., f z e:;- o/') ~ 1~ Ç7 'f ;::;-zc;- ~7~ ~~r ')2 ( o ( .I r ,0 r~ lõ '7 :D r f)' r I ~ (' :< t ? 114- ~, C+- o 'c., ... '(. , '~ . '..J 04- /'4: '-; 1. '''''''I n '; o I, D'" jf-; ( ~ {¡ ...' '-) [D r- , ~~ ~'I\ I, '- iJ r- ," ,- In 1C,j o (" ., '~ I., ~ A-/F Type ,l .1- /0 ~ )~ J ~ ,.I.- r ~ ~ /0 ). ¡. A j. ~ j. ~ .l- I- ) ¡.~ ~ .A ). } ~ A La.. .)~ A '" ~ A ,4 ~ ,i. j ~ ~ ) A- LOQ 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 -- 85 86 87 88 89 90 Item A U CJ' ~I'">\.A ~ 1?,:> N^ 7 , ..,^ J iA AIJ fu J lUAJ \..(. T h \A L- f4.- n '7 Q r ~ l i"\6..{"\t{. \Á. -( ~ÍA .,.. { \. H (LlAi ~.QA.¡ \J.- ~} -e..-c l {,~ '- tb l tA. :>t"\ VI '^ (J... i\ 1\( n ,A u. 1""SnU\IA_Ie' ?\..ul\¡¡)( i, 11 ( ,. <f-YÐ "'^- (') _"i 1ILf)",:'- ~rert ./b r l,q.c.~ ..)t"J\JìtÚ ~'t+"-^,,, ~,. (',UA.,. e- :.J \ ;. to- "......Ii · \.,~ ""1'ìA 'I'\. I. ~ r1 A C'>_ '^-1 '~l-4-er' ~"'VI j' 1, \ J ,.. G. !I!)j~rl; D ~lH.u...· In r-. I.. (/I r-,'C!.rl.lIL u... -);J \f P {( oc. _~ ~:-'ÜVl f \..L l 1. (L.u L-. WlA ¡ ~~ '-\. U.1..., H-\ ,A Ii> ~ ~ ('\ r- ,.AJ::) \..\.. r')t'..UCO nA SrA,ÞweJ ~ Ve_ \-e.r' (,:S ....... r' . A=r CAA.f..l. ì rl i ,ñ Ir '\.L :5 -hL'^- ''¿. r-t- ~ p l ( '""- K r- .-\::::....i ~ .ÅJ ( \k....S I ~ lAI ~ C' J 1" .A-\ F> f > l H rl. ~ An v..... ¡;.c)£) '0 ¥:=1-.," \ \ ...J V\ u.... - op r \n .{.... r'\.../n h. C, \d.>, r..... \..\. A- \ï it R. :: - iA Ð At ' v..- C (1 ('" A l ..-: ::>.11\ ru ~ ~,\ {\ \..p \( a.\A' ~ T~ '^ l. ~ tr'P '^ V'\LA u.... ~¡ u. I rI J "K r cH.v \II. \.l <.."'~ lA. alon- l? ..... ~ "7 pH ~ (\ \A.A .f- µ 1\ ..., l"t. t Ul ,,...lc:.õ1't- ~ ..... _C<> ~ y:::: I Il\" ~ ( "'....... r:- A l~e.. '^ V\A> \ '-\.. f./ -... fu ...&- -:\ñ \A L I......n. '7 P H p \L ( fn. "'\..1 r ( ... -,I IA..A \.L ~n \')1 ~ ~ r ,J...._ - ril foIÁ ~ - - éÚI~"S au:..-' Il\.. ~ IL ._,.. \-i'O I .1. ,.... lðlt.J ~ "B^" Kto...,^1I\ Q ¿: PAA f-4.. tt\A Cc'MA u.. pp ter lSc¡.u:L .ç. AI f J."" Tiì... {t\ú ~\.. r h.. , f- M fl fi 1. .. if T n (A C p.ÄI\.l \,\" - -,,& I lit IA'A II' / ï iA~ it r ' ~ l _C'\ \'H~f""\- ~ Ç'c. .". ú,..... - ~l\ ~ :> ~ .ß rJ .. \L....'1 ..... -__A Q ~,.... r \a -..... _va.. fv1 ,., 1-<, p \" 0() ~ "" _d, +-t.... HI'. ¡. >Ii' -.l...PA ~ V II '1 .,... g~... .i. \.lPJi ( Date r 0 f-t:; ì.I'e:;- ¡:¡- '" ( ç;- 'n " .0(' n'1 It 'ï I;; . n r-' I. ',+- 'ß -- '0. 'c.f I.. «+ . -4- >I '~ .,~ 'c..¡.. n i -;- ~ ~ D ~ ) .ft '..I I D 'n ,I -D D ~ n :} .n ~ J r, j '- r- '" , . ) I.. 'C (,I .. ) ~ g .. L -D (,) Type /.f- ~~ /. ) A- A- A- A "t. ) ~ , :: J ~ ) /.. /. ,) I J I- ~ ~ ~ A ~ l- f /- ¡. ~ A ~I- A ~ ~ ). ~ ). ~ ¿, ¡. A 4- A- LOÇl 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 ~'" 130 131 132 133 134 135 Item r-.... ..": J rr~' F\fV ,-j 'ßd r.J:..ef \...\... ~~ , ~,,' +-C 'i1. If'e \.Á.'FY-.-,., ~ <...~ I €A ~ '),. 1A ~'rrl [ ",11 U- "'" Ie:> V}~\,r" lÃ , [2\, \ \. p ( I ~ ~ ; I (~ I- '^ \A C" I 11 \ rrl I t p u.. I r-...A " , rV Iv Lu It\.I2... '-\. ',,,.. - r,jf / ~ .. r ø\,f+-.-@ \..\. <- I. l Þ j...{ 0 <- r-rrtA U. :/r1 \I; 'i) .t.. i(A y bn\rl..t (\¡.t""JÇciù \.L . ,^A ("'. ~^ 'A 7 r.J ( ~7 \.\. ...: ,-( ( ~j P_rL ---S~fPcö D~....u S ~ ~_i -HAY' U HIÃA [A U. r~ V"Of" '^ ~ 4-\ U ¡() 0 u: ... n ¡ AT,.,. Fl (, AO (It l. \..L (¡("") lA, I' e-....,. \J\ , 1/1 p ~l \\.. 1... ,1,. f r'\ \. (U;, ..rcL\J) j I "'''' {. 0 j'} .rr ,. K cur k: ~ UÁJ ,.,.l&:::::... TiA b' .~.A.A ~ _Or-I: ~\~Co~\ç7^V\ t.l I rv/"'-,u u ~^r /.t:1 U. , I ~í r ... -[ A ^, 1./\ ~ tn.... Q 1& n\ ~ '1-<" trn. ,. tit W'h \ - Date (ð I~ ,., ~ " ~ In '$ ". C ~ ~ " C I 'q D c: I, '<:::: III J , '(í n ~ ill ~ (0 Ii::. 1q D- r\'; II " D '<:: 4 '( n (0. ¡¡{Ci; 7-- ~ t 1=: I. j.,.. .,¿ A... ~ ~ 7- .A þ .i. 7- J, J, l- /o Þ... A- Type r: c:c: 'Dc-- D } ~~~~. 'P~C'1 L. .1"l,-y(~ THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. TRACY ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW OLYMPIC PEAKS BUILDING 18887 STATE HWY #305 NE - SUITE 500 POULSBO, WA. 98370-7401 Ph: (360) 779-7889 Fax: (360) 779-8197 June 9, 2004 Board of County Commissioners Jefferson County Courthouse Port Townsend, W A 98368 In Re: MRL Application MLA 02-235 - Fred Hill Materials Inc. Gentlemen: As you know, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (WWGMHB) issued its FHM MRL Final Decision and Order ("FDO") on August 15,2003. In that decision, the WWGMHB remanded the decision for additional work (adequate analysis) regarding the environmental effects of the " no action" alternative (Le. maintaining the status quo with mining segments no larger than 10 acres), the 6240 acre original proposal (with no mining segment size limitation) and the 690 acre staff/planning commission recommended and approved MRL (with mining segments less that 40 acres). These three alternatives were specifically found to be reasonable by the WWGMHB. (See FDO at page 24, lines 11-13.) Further, the WWGMHB indicated that the question of adequacy of mitigation measures would await the completion of this enhanced environmental review of the identified alternatives. To the County's credit, the WWGMHB rejected all other claims of the Petitioners, specifically finding that: ~ 1. The MRL does not violate the Growth Management Act (FDa at page31, lines 21-26); and, 2. The MRL does not violate the Comprehensive Plan or the Unified Development Code of Jefferson County (See FDO at 37, lines 26-31); and, 3. Public participation during the MRL process was not "clearly erroneous", the standard of proof necessary to find Jefferson County's procedure out of compliance with applicable law (See FDO at page 33, lines 21-24); and, Page 1 of 5 4. Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the County's action substantially interferes with the goals of GMA and therefore the "presumption of validity" remains with the County's MRL approval. Jefferson County has issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), May 2004, to comply with the WWGMHB remand in this matter. At previous hearings held before the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners in this matter, the applicant observed and cautioned that testimony against the FHM MRL would be emotionally charged and highly exaggerated if not hyperbolic and hysterical. This has proven to be the case. This testimony has been organized and orchestrated by a cadre of individuals who are opposed to FHM's "Pit-to-Pier" proposal which is the subject of an application pending before Jefferson County and other relevant state and federal agencies. Unfortunately, this patently false, speculative and largely irrelevant body of opposition testimony continues to be used as the rallying cry of those groups and individuals opposing this MRL Application. Various opposition groups, coalesced primarily in that organization calling itself the Hood Canal Coalition (HCC), have chosen to utilize a variety of scare tactics designed to inflame the general public and thereby enhance the "support" they claim for their opposition to the continued existence and operation of FHM. These tactics include, for example, misinformation (alleged FHM permit violations that are not supported by a scintilla of record evidence), misdirection (the repeated assertion that the MRL request and the "Pit-to-Pier" application are inextricably linked), ad hominem attacks (unproven charges of lying and unethical conduct on the part of specific FHM personnel and/or agents), purposefully inflammatory language (use of improper characterization ofFHM excavation activities as "strip mine"), scare tactics (bridge disasters, environmental rape, terrorism, etc.) and injection of fallacious and slanderous charges against FHM (purported "lying" on environmental forms, that FHM is not forthcoming regarding its "true" intentions). These behaviors are clearly not acceptable in civil and responsible public discourse, and FHM has been forced into response on ancillary and irrelevant matters because the HCC has put its character and integrity at issue. This opposition has been supplemented by other members of the nearby community who mistakenly believe that FHM requires an MRL designation in order to continue and expand its excavation operations. There appears to be a belief that if the MRL can be prevented that FHM would cease to exist and operate in the current Shine Pit in the near term future. These mistaken beliefs and misconceptions must be disregarded by the Board in its deliberation and recommendation on this MRL application. While FHM fully supports the proposition that each citizen has a right to express opinion and demonstrate the passion of their conviction, FHM will continue its policy to caution all participants in this process thatfacts matter and each participant is responsible for the accuracy of any factual allegations made in the public process, particularly if an untruthful Page 2 of 5 factual allegation causes harm to the person or business of another. Enough. While it is obvious that the County is headed for a controversy of near biblical proportions regarding the "Pit-to-Pier" application, the Board of Commissioners has a specific task here: to assess whether the additional environmental analysis performed as required by the WWGMHB and presented in the FSEIS dictates any change in their previous action. With regards to the FSEIS, the Board's attention should be drawn to Section 1.4.1, at page 1- 3. This section clearly indicates, as do all of the prior submissions of the applicant, that no regulated critical areas are to be included in any portion of the proposed MRL where mining activities can occur. In fact, the MRL application makes specific provision for "ground-truthing" (I.e. field verification) to validate the actual presence or absence of regulated critical areas and their further exclude any additional critical areas from MRL areas subject to excavation at the time of actual mining permit application. FHM requests that the Board make a specific finding of fact in its Resolution consistent with this FSEIS statement. Also, the Board's attention is drawn to FSEIS Section 1.4.3. This section makes clear that under current Jefferson County rules, mining is a permitted use within resource land designations and as a conditional uses within rural residential designations. Therefore, there already exists a "mining district" in Jefferson County in excess of 330,000 acres of designated timber resource lands alone. FHM requests that the Board make a specific finding of fact in its Resolution consistent with this FSEIS statement. FSEIS Section 1.5.5 summarizes the fact that neither ofthe MRL alternatives examined nor the No Action alternative require programmatic mitigation. FSEIS Section 1.5.5.2 clearly indicates that 'No unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of designation of one of the MRL overlay district alternatives." FHM requests that the Board make a specific finding of fact in its Resolution consistent with this FSEIS statement. FSEIS analysis, including Sections 2.0 through 2.4, clearly indicates that: the MRL does NOT authorize any specific mining activity; the "pit-to-pier" is NOT dependent on the MRL or vice versa; no physical changes to the environment would result from adoption of one of the MRL alternatives; that the "pit-to-pier" application currently pending will be pursued regardless of the outcome of the County's MRL Overlay adoption; that increased production (mining) within the MRL would be a result of rather than a cause of approval of a marine transportation system (i.e. "pit-to-pier"); Page 3 of 5 that both with and without "pit-to-pier" approval, transportation impacts on the Jefferson County roadway system would be the negligible, but actual impacts might vary with market conditions; that similar total volumes of resource would likely be recovered occur whether mining is conducted in segments of 10 acres or segments less than 40 acres (since total volume of material mined is a function of demand for mineral resources and the ability to economically/competitively deliver resources to market demand), but mining restricted to individual 1 0 acre disturbed areas would require opening more total acres to recover the equivalent volume of resource that could be recovered in a disturbed area greater than 1 0 but less than 40 acres. FHM requests that the Board make a specific findings of fact in its Resolution consistent with these FSEIS statements and conclusions. FHM submits that the overwhelming conclusions to be reached by consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances associated with the SEP A evaluation FHM's MRL request (including the No Action Alternative) are that: 1. Adoption of the Approved Action MRL perfects Jefferson County's compliance with GMA mandates to designate and classify Mineral Resource Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance and will provide the citizens of the County with complete and accurate notice that mining activities are likely to occur on lands so designated) as required by RCW 36.70A.160. The No Action Alternative does not provide the citizens of the County with complete and accurate notice that mining activities are likely to occur on lands proposed for this MRL designation. 2. Adoption of the Approved Action MRL provides FHM's mining activities with the benefits of the nuisance protections specified in the Jefferson County Unified Development Code, Section 3.6.3.3(a). The No Action Alternative does not provide protection for mining activities against nuisance claims. 3. Adoption of the Approved Action MRL allows the size of an individual mining segment to be determined by the most resource efficient and environmentally sound bases utilizing the Best Management Practices of the Washington Department of Natural Resources, with the maximum segment size not to exceed 40 acres. Each mining segment within the Approved Action MRL will be subject to sequential segmental reclamation pursuant to the requirements of the Washington Department of Natural Resources. The No Action Alternative would restrict mining activities to less that 10 acres of disturbed area, an arbitrary limitation that does not take into consideration available best management practices for determining appropriate size of disturbed area for mining which would result in a less efficient and environmentally sound utilization of resources. Fred Hill Materials, Inc, respectfully requests that the Jefferson County Board of Page 4 of 5 ) Commissioners, after consideration of the objective and rational analyses presented in the Draft and Final Supplemental Impact Statements, ratify and validate its prior decision and approve MRL Overlay MLA 02-235 subject to conditions. Sincerely, Page 5 of 5 " CC:1)C'D j ~~r\ i G!2'j!Cll C· W\ô,y):/! 1'1 fAß/AN ~otl ,.- ~ s}d¡µt:. ..'\ A /0 0 ().J L ù P L o~ foiLf Gentlemen Thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening on behalf of the 2300 registereq members and 55 supporting organizations of the Hood Canal Coalition. c, Z ê. ..: '~/'') The matter that is before you tonight is the most important issue you will decide during your service as a county commissioner. The future of the county - its people and its environment - depends upon your good judgment and knowledge of the issues. In late 2002, the county commissioners approved a 690~ acre MRL for Fred Hill Materials. We did not agree with that decision and appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. N ow we meet to reconsider the MRL, but this time, with far more knowledge than we had last time. First, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board found that insufficient environmental studies were performed. They stated that the decision of the county commissioners had not been based on sufficient evaluations of the various alternatives, that aspects of the pit to pier project should be considered, and that the scope of mining activities and the resulting transportation of gravel should be considered. " Second, we now have "on the table" an actual application by Fred Hill Materials to build the pit to pier project. This totally changes the dynamics of the issue. The last time, the county was forced to take the position "we don't know anything about that, officially." Now we do. Third, we now have a much better understanding of the highly fragile nature of the Hood Canal environment. News items and government studies relentlessly show that the Canal may be teetering on the brink of environmental collapse. Shoreline development is the culprit. Further development without proper safeguards would be foolish. Industrial development would be idiotic. Fourth, we now know that the highly trumpeted sales tax scheme, defended by the proponents last time, is bogus. The State Department of Revenue has ruled that any attempt to give Jefferson County sales tax receipts from sales at the dock would be illegal. What appeared as a sales tax bonanza was only smoke. Fifth, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement provides useful information about the scope of mining and related transportation issues that are central to a decision. Ninety percent of the 7.5 million tons of gravel annually mined from the MRL will be transported by ships and barges. With an expected life of 40 years (we've heard 80 years before) the gravel could last for hundreds of years if the pit to pier project is never built. According to the FSEIS, "a period of time beyond the scope of any traffic analysis." While not precluded, what in the Growth Management Act mandates that counties set aside such excessive amounts? Or, is this MRL really about the pit to pier project? The FSEIS also states that of the gravel delivered by truck, most will be delivered in Kitsap County. That's fine, they need gravel too. However, of the total production of 7,500,000 tons produced every year, only one percent will be sold in Jefferson County and earn us a sales tax credit. That's hardly a sales tax bonanza. Sixth, the FSEIS clearly states that truck and marine transport of gravel are complementary. Neither can service the market place of the other. The Fred Hill Materials scare tactic of trying to sell a 29-mile long string of gravel trucks and trailers parked bumper to bumper to replace a single ship load is utter nonsense. So is their claim that they want to use barges because they are environmentally cleaner than trucks. So is their claim that they are concerned about wear and tear on our highways. It's another smoke screen. Seventh, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stated in response to the draft EIS that a study in which they were involved "identified the Toandos Peninsula as an area that should be maintained in permanent commercial forest production in order to maintain wildlife species population and diversity." They went on to state that "adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitats will likely be unavoidable from mining operations. . . " So, we are all smarter this time around. Well, at least most of us are smarter this time around. The question is what will we do with all of this new found knowledge? The first thing we must admit is that this MRL is all about the pit to pier proj ect. Otherwise all of these people would not be here tonight. The union guys probably would not come out in force to support a mundane land use issue. Our folks probably would not come in such numbers to oppose one. People are here because we know that the MRL decision is directly linked to the pit to pier proj ect. The pit to pier project is on the table. The county and Fred Hill Materials are apparently not moving forward on it until they get what they want on the MRL. Fred Hill Materials claims that they need the MRL only to protect the resource and to prevent undesirable encroachment through future residential development. We know that the resource is already protected by the commercial forestland designation. We also know that the chance of residential development is impossible without a zoning change. No, this is not about protecting the resources it is about a massive industrial port facility inside a fragile and threatened national treasure. While we fully recognize that there are separate and distinct approval paths for an MRL designation and a series of permit approvals for the pit to pier project that does not preclude the linkage. The MRL designation is an enabling step in the process of imposing the pit to pier project upon the citizens of this county. Fred Hill Materials claims they would proceed with the pit to pier project even if you deny them the MRL. I say, "fine." Let them demonstrate their claims. The Hood Canal Coalition has the same concerns we had last year: the Canal, the Bridge, the Navy Base, the surrounding environment, the aquifer, and the local economy. All of these things are at risk. There is, however, a new concern. That is a concern about the neutrality of certain parts of our county government. Rather than acting as honest brokers, they seem to have taken sides - with the developer. A near "gag order" was read at the aborted public hearing on May 25th. Citing a non-existent state law that prohibited commissioners from "hearing any comments, questions or statements about the adequacy, contents, or substance of the environmental review that was done." Inventing a law to limit the scope and substance of debate is not in the interest of the democratic process.-äíØ~ a uûï1tiltJ áttvJ I ;'.. =~ ~ -~:J But that is what happened two weeks ago in Jefferson County. Attempting to shut down the debate by these means is clearly not in the interest of the citizens of this county nor in the interest of you, our elected officials. I appreciate the efforts of the county commissioners and our Hood Canal Coalition attorneys to correct this injustice prior to tonight's hearing. Additional concern about the lack of neutrality can easily be justified by reading the FSEIS, where at every turn the document negates the "no action" option. The "no action" option is equivalent to rejecting an MRL. Without any supporting data or documentation, the county has proclaimed that doing nothing is far worse than approving a massive mining district. Too hard to control, too hard to mine, too difficult to analyze, too damned bad. But that's the document we have, the one approved by the county's responsible official. You 3 guys have the problem to deal with. This is the only opportunity you have to directly influence the future of the pit to pier project. You don't get a vote on the permit approvals - that's all handled by your staff and the hearing examiner. Now is the time to demonstrate leadership. Now is the opportunity to undo a decision that was based on less information and less concern about the future of the Canal. N ow is the chance to vote with your constituents rather than against them. This is an important issue and the decision can probably go either way. And either way, there is probably an appeal around the comer. You get a choice. You can go into court with your fellow citizens at your side, or you can go into court with them on the other side. You get to vote on this issue soon. Your vote will be watched and remembered. The old line "its out of our hands" will not suffice later if you vote for an MRL now. Whether you are for or against the pit to pier proj ect, this is : your only opportunity to faithfully demonstrate that position to the voters of Jefferson County. We will be watching. Thank you for your attention. u:.: DcD ~ f-' mv) " IjcL "/;)')f:"1 L rY\C~,/es . Good evening, My name is 3~D)O~O ~d ~~ ~5 elissa Arias and I am here on behalf of the Hood Canal Coalition. ~ would like to start off by :sayillY U,at Ðenyina this overlay does not jeopardize the protection aaainst incompatible uses already secured for the mineral resources contained in the MLØ-reauested area. The Final SEIS claims that if an MRL overlay is not imposed, the commercial forest designated lands could be encroached on by incompatible uses as development is allowed at one home per 80 acres. However, as stated in UDC § 3.6.3.2, the allowable uses within the overlay district are the same uses as the underlying designation. The same development (1 :80) would be allowed under the requested MRO amendment. This argument does not show that failure to approve an MRCfails to protect mineral resource lands from incompatible development. To the contrary, the County in its GMA planning recognized the commercial forest designation protects both timberlands and mineral resources lying below them. While not being mined, these lands can continue to be used as forest resource areas with identical protection against incompatible uses or development: Q) .. }Åel t $ S~ À Y' ì o/(s-- \ 4 'Ll L\Tlf) Ä\)(0 j SU,\-tv lD~5 SecdttQ, \)J A q t;3 l D \ The ~rowth Board has already rejected this "protection of resource" ratio~e. Yet, we have received further indications from the County that is still insistent on this already rejected argument. Adherence to a rationale rejected by the Board demonstrates the County's refusal to accept the Board's decision, its refusal to accept its own prior SEPA analysis on which the Board relied, and ultimately its refusal to accept the reality that the "protection of resource" argument simply does not stand up. The Final SEIS has provided no analysis of how the no- action alternative fails to protect resource lands from incompatible development. Such an analysis would need to explain how any circumstances in the County have changed, why the County's 1997 EIS is now wrong, and why the County believes it can disregard the Board's holding, and not simply repeat the discredited argument. This is especially so where protection against incompatible uses is the main justification stated for the proposal. If the County believes that the current notic of~ ~r9 provisions ( tAat-is J {vV provided to individuals that purchase property adjacent to resource lands is inadequate - then the County should modify the "rio action o · .. ~ alternative"~o provide better notice. But the argument that the current notice is not adequate does not justify the adoption of a N1 Mineral Resource Overlay. merefore I we LlY~e ~ to WYì.A1 rY'LLA Og-J3S. ~ @ <:c: J:X:D ') ~~~ ~ h!Jjþ'1 L- ¡Y\(Á.v'(5 ) I v 1 2 3 4 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONS 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 File No: MLA02-235 In re Mineral Resource Lands Overlay Fred Hill Materials, TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 589 AND JOINING UNIONS STATEMENT REGARDING MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS DESIGNATION Applicant. Hearing Date: June 9, 2004, 7:00 p.m. Location: Chimacum High School This statement is submitted on behalf of the Teamsters Local Union #589 and the joining unions, set forth on the attached signature page. This statement is submitted as a supplement to prior comments which are contained in the record. The Unions' focus is on both jobs and the environment. With this Mineral Resource Lands overlay, this County can provide excellent opportunities for employment while still ensuring adequate and appropriate environmental protection. The GMA requires counties to designate mineral resource lands "that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long-term significance for the extraction of minerals." RCW 36.70A.170. The GMA requires counties to adopt development regulations that will assure that uses of lands adjacent to mineral resource lands not interfere with the use of designated lands for extraction of minerals. RCW 36.70A.060 (1). The overlay is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's emphasis on the economic 21 22 23 24 25 benefits of natural resource lands. The mineral lands overlay would allow Fred Hill Materials or another future operator to extract minerals -PAGE 1 of2 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 114th Ave. SE, Suite 102 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 4512812/ Fax (425) 4512818 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 from known deposits. These mining activities will bring jobs to the surrounding area, as well as bolster the local economy by providing a need for local services. The County has already determined this general area should be committed to resource use. This proposed amendment, centered upon the significant mineral deposits located within the general area, is consistent with the County's vision for uses as resource land, as opposed to other uses. This MRL overlay has been extensively reviewed by all levels at the County. The County has complied with the requirements imposed by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. This Commission has done its homework and is familiar with the Growth Management Act mandates and priorities. This Commission is aware of the need for this MRL overlay district, as well all the work done by the applicant and the support of the unions to create a successful project. We now respectfully request this Commission to uphold its duties, follow the law and reaffirm the Mineral Resource Lands designation. DATED this q t.: day of ~ ) tv-.-... ,2004. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA, PLLC By d) )~ Duana T. Kolouskova, WSBA # 27532 Attorneys for Union 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 605-1 Comments for MRL hearing 6-9-04 -PAGE 2 of2 JOHNS MONROE MITSUNAGA PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 114th Ave. SE, Suite 102 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Tel: (425) 4512812/ Fax (425) 4512818 JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY FRED HILL MATERIALS June 9, 2004 SIGNATURE PRINT NAME CITY i-uh1f;'U4i- G/-tA/e-;<~ /&u!.~j,ð .' . "\ ''',,-Jt:.~. :A:.-:-:ì '" )'.;' "',,-\ \- V" -j" '-~>f> i '/l <.' ' ~Þ'~ >'f ) r! ~01J 'f'- ~C').:.."\>--,,, <>- ~ ()'.L\h.~(')"---" ~,~0- \\,~~ jlVL ') J~St:N Po JLS ß¡, , ¡(¿I /1 C;V¿t.-f!¡·,WI Le P o,~/j 6u REPRESENTING/LOCAL ¡:::: II ~ ~Æ1\11__,""', ' ,:-- V\V~~ Fut--. JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY FRED HILL MATERIALS June 9, 2004 REPRESENTING/LOCAL SIGNATURE CITY PRINT NAME (/l'~ 19~ /V/r)<, J ;;a-.de~ >tp'/L-ÍA1, _ } ð :2 ~,~ ~'^~II, S"",Jet-s S~ . ~èÞ ~ø- Jd4 >óí/-l- ð~~ a/tV' ko~~:d' ñ~ ~fPJ ,P/ s~ ¡¡:S-¡7-t~.~ jUV¡¿ LòCA-t- 3ò¿ )1'- V evt·J:> 1\ LIZ /.¿J~4.1 7~ fl-I¡vt hCA /36.2-. fl,rf Æ;) ~((,T /lw&hc fby//lacPllr Lù(f4 I 58; ~~.Jl(o~~ ?òrt~:j~{~~ JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY FRED HILL MATERIALS June 9, 2004 PINT NAME \(~~~ (ßo<j ~ SLt /, eA111W-. 6,qs SAJI.1 tyl.AfI.7J H CITY t+ AVkjeks for'()n,y!-e-5 B fI.i:iH fJf1:ið1( i1 l<t:. ~b MtR.() , I () ,,=h ue.1rct~ ~~ g~rJ ~L.J ~ yv¡ IC~( ¡:¿(¿~ '?cILt-tþvtbl( UG..v.1J f2 S'~ ])A, u ¡ d r -Srn irH lbr-t f/~.¡xlX( P-l fhJt ?)I/J /1111f(,,' (J(¡t,\l('-é'v(~~_ ~ 1<W(r;f'~'C ej,lpt"'~4'" REPRESENTING/LOCAL (HN\ Tflfi1 LW-8L -~ lAM hì~ IlD[) -LA)-{ tt4uJ / I --r-~ 4 EENfr. JLWt.L 51 ILlV4 s~1 # 3tJ;¿ It¿,o e 6/c JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY FRED HILL MATERIALS June 9, 2004 . PRINT NAME O'ÄJJ~¡(:-s"M CITY REPRESENTING/LOCAL ßUL$8:J fH /Vî ~ M",<\'^ R.",\<~;",. tl'l-I 'Po.;\,\,., FH M 1'r ~ ß~J'^" fI\" G,""^Jl w<-\\ Là\l fli ~ ~ ~ Lv 0. (.-"\......1'" ~,,¡.. \A.i\<Jc FHh. A~~. ~ Al~ ~l( .v~sBD Fwvvt rJwr~Voùt vJee~ ~~L ~ U·Ît~ ~L . . ~ ~~ ¥f\/l'i,J Fè6€XU ~M-r f\~flE5 t+-l~ 9uúAú- ~bs.~0~ ~\'\w.~ ~UJIIl'<:-..- ~U q'1clc~. ~ t'~ f1",(&c.fcf7 ~.vµ;I~, P//-'!, {::tC KQ~:~~:tk:;e~ep:160 ~~: â.-¡ ~ ~y Norc1ne< fð1.J;.bð F ffJl/ Û ¡q AI rn111À.. I T'ÍOcJ,.JSvt,1ø I {)ð pC 3 ð'L k.~ .5 TE(¡E Coulfcr tlAdlocl/( I.L-.I.J.U "._~, ._". dJ; @' JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS OVERLAY FRED HILL MATERIALS June 9, 2004 PRINT NAME CITY REPRESENTING/LOCAL j~ë/ (Ylv'ý'~J..1 51 (ve~Jø L..." S-hk AF'VCI 0 ~ß~ TÆ-~ YD(Z--Tð~ 3DL ~.~ ¡a//:;P- ¡:jM, ~ J16 ~ 5otf- M~1 :¡J,..¡. ¿':!!!.'l <~ 4-4 ~¡:><- ~fk";µ5e,,\j ~ 7ë¿J;ti// ~cÇl{H~ ~ ~ .:JØh';-5 ¿. ¿¡'T¿'I'" a#/ec~""{ Yf.¡Ja*;~ ~ <G. ~f{~j ß,Jò~ £~ e-- SM ~~t2LI<- "70U L-5 fSo ---¡:"", ())'H ~ Rt<r k.vrt')vð '"'jð 7.--' 70<- '3 {) Z-- 3¿) :2- $éJ~ ~ð~ £/¿ ð°2- ~ ... -~ ec:.~V 1 r, rtt!ì", <" ~ I]cic,.".. !-tce '" u/·- 0' ;y. L. n\6\jf~ ) , '........ Grongress of tlte Uniteb ~tates i;ou.6t of iteprt.6tntutiut.6 DISTRICT OFFICES: SUITE 2244 1717 PACIFIC AVENUE TACOMA, WA 98402-3234 PHONE: (253) 593-6536 SUITE 301 500 PACIFIC AVENUE BREMERTON, WA 98337 PHONE: (360) 479-4011 332 E 5TH STREET PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 PHONE: (360) 452-3370 . NORM DICKS 6TH DISTRICT, WASHINGTON 2467 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-4706 PHONE: (202)225-5916 http://www.house.gov/dicksl COMMITTEES: APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEES: INTERIOR RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER DEFENSE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION HOMELAND SECURITY RECYCLED PAPER June 9, 2004 Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners Dan Tittemess, Glen Huntingford, Pat Rodgers P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A 98368 Dear Commissioners Titterness, Huntingford, and Rodgers: I wish I could be with you today as you reconsider Fred Hill Material's Comprehensive Plan Amendment. I want to thank the Board for rescheduling this meeting, and I want to thank all of the members of the community who took the time tonight to come down and discuss this project with the Commissioners. As I am sure the Board would agree, public input in important community projects always serves to better the outcome of their decisions. The previous request by Fred Hill Materials to create a mineral resource land overlay (MRO) designation on 690 acres of its land did not properly consider the impact that this project would have on the region's environment. To properly consider this environmental impact, the Board cannot consider the MRO designation as an isolated action. It must consider to what overall purpose the MRO designation has been requested. Very public concerns about how the MRO designation would change the character and environment of Jefferson County should be paramount in the Board's decision. Like many who live and work on the Olympic Peninsula, I have always believed and fought for both family-wage jobs and for protecting the environment and the quality of life that people who live here enjoy. Contrary to what some believe, these two goals- a family-wage job, and a strong, healthy environment-are not mutually exclusive. What brings me to write to the Board today is my fear for the future of the Olympic Peninsula if a 1,100-foot pier is constructed on the south side of the Hood Canal Bridge for the purpose of transporting gravel by barge and ship. I fear that such a project would unalterably change the character of Hood Canal, potentially leading to its industrialization. I fear that the barges and ships entering the Canal would be a hazard to <B>....." ; the environment of the region, which is already fragile due to the problem of dissolved oxygen. Finally, I fear the resulting economic impact on the Olympic Peninsula if one of the barges or ships that would be sent into Hood Canal collided with the Hood Canal Bridge, forcing its closure for repairs. And while redesignating 690 acres of land as an MRO does not authorize construction of the pit-to-pier project, it does offer the chance to speak publicly about how such a project would impact the Olympic Peninsula. That is why I write today - to once again state my opposition to building the pit-to-pier project. Sincerely, n ~ N= DICKS Member of Congress May 25,2004 (C; DcD f:t-\m /-tCL L. m&Yf$ JetTerson County Board of Commissioners Re: Compliance Hearing Comments - MLA 02-235/Fred Hill Materials Commissioners: At the May 24th Port Townsend City Council meeting, Randy Kline, a recent DCD planner, told the City Council that the county's planning department worked like a "well- greased machine." For those of us watching this project roll smoothly forward through the amendment adoption phase, it was obvious that the skids had been well greased for Fred Hill. Staff performed as directed by the BOCC, and staff continues to produce the same kind of skimpy environmental analysis that got the county in trouble with the State Hearings Board in the first place. You still haven't learned your lesson --if you don't do the right kind of analysis, you have no foundation for a valid land use decision under State environmental law. So far, you are not even close to doing the kind of transportation alternatives analysis that you were directed to do by the Hearings Board and which has been detailed to you by appellants' legal staff. This is about the destruction of an entire ecosystem that is already tottering. The environmental impacts of MLA 02-235 are intolerable, and that you could support the pit-to-pier project in the way that you have so far is intolerable. You will continue to do what you do, scorning and evading State environmental requirements while private citizens empty their pockets in order to get State law enforced and to protect óur environment from the likes of you. This is a new face on a very old story on man's destruction of his fragile home, and I think it should be criminal that several men have the power to set in motion the destruction of an entire ecosystem. But Hood Canal isn't yours to destroy, as I hope you will soon observe from the sidelines. For the transportation compliance record, I am attaching an article from the October 2002 issue of Professional Mariner, a Special Report on lethal bridge crashes and the problem of old, poorly designed bridges to withstand collisions with longer, vessels, and more numerous vessels. Our bridge is about to be repaired, but do you have any idea if the design problems addressed in this article have been considered and will be remedied? ~,.JL~ Nancy Dorgan 213 7 Washington St. #7 Port Townsend _REPORT Despite calls for action, older bridges remain "ulnerable When the towboat Robtrt Y. , Love struck the Interstate 40 bridge in Webbers Falls, Okla., last May, the span collapsed, killing 14 people. Afterward, Oklahoma officials said there was nothing wrong with the bridge, which was built in 1967. "This was not a bridge failure; this was a bridge knockdown," said Bruce Taylor, chief engineer for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, accord- , ing to the Associated Press. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board and engineers have been warning for at least 10 years that many of the nation's older bridges over water- ways are extremely vulnerable to collapse 4 Bridge-vessel colli- sions have taken a heavy toll nJCently. In September 2001- eight people died when Brownwater V and its barges hit the Queen Isabella Causeway in Texas (left}. In May 2002. fowboat Robert Y. Love and two """'S stwclc an '} Infwstate 40 bridge ::, over the Arlcansas ì River In Oklahoma i (below}, killing 14 ì people. when hit by ships. When bridges are struck by ships, mariners are often blamed for the col- lapse, even though there is much that can be done to shield bridges &om collisions and to make them less likely to collapse. While hundreds of bridges may be vulnerable to blows from vessels, the pre- cise number is unknown. During the I 990s, the NTSB repeatedly asked the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to come up with a national list of bridges vulnerable to collapse if struck ~ o '" ñ' ~ .., a. n ! ~ z ii' 3 ?i o " j c o n ~ G> Iii a. by a ship. The FHWA has refused, stat- ing in interagency letters that state trans- portation officials already had the resources to address this problem. With- out ,a national policy, only a handful of states have gone ahead and done bridge surveys to assess the risk of ship collision. There are 482,000 bridges over water- PROFESSIONAL MARINER 167 INDUSTRY SIGNAlS______..__ ways 10 the country, according to the FHWA. The absence of hard data is troubling to some experts in the field. "My main concern is that this group of older bridges is out there, and until we do that assessment, we don't know if it's a serious problem or a problem that we can deal with over time," said Michael A. Knott, a vice president at Moffatt & Nichol Engineers' Norfolk, Va., office. Knott is an internationally known authority on the science of risk analysis for bridge collapse who has been work- ing in the field for over 20 years. He believes not enough has been done on the national or state levels to solve this , problem. "My own theory is that not enough people have been killed yet," he said. "As long as the loss of life is a small number, we just keep rolling by. It's going to take some major, national tragedy before we get serious about it." There have been plenty of tragedies. Since 1964, 125 people have died in the United States in 17 major bridge collaps- es involving vessels. Two major collapses have occurred in the last year alone. On May 26, 14 motorists were killed when a towboat pushing two empty barges hit an out-of-channel pier on the 1-40 bridge over the Arkansas River in Oklahoma. The towboat's pilot may have had a hean attack just before the incident. And on Sept. 15, 2001, eight people were killed when a towboat pushing four barges went, about 300 feet off course . --------- and struck the Queen Isabella Causeway in Texas. The country's worst bridge collapse occurred on Sept. 22, .1993, when the towboat Mauvilla, operating in dense fog, pushed several barges into the Big Bayou Canot railroad bridge in Alabama. Eight minutes later an Amtrak train crossed the displaced bridge and derailed, killing 47 people. In September 1994, the NTSB found that the pilot of the towboat lacked radar navigation competency. And it was in that repott that the NTSB first recom- mended that a national SUITey be con- ducted to determine which bridges in the country were vulnerable to ship collision. Acts of God Before 1980, ship collisions with bridges were seen as an act of God, an event that could not be foreseen. After the May 1980 collapse of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, Fla., engi- neers and public officials began looking at ways to calculate the risk of ships hit- ting bridges and coming up with con- 6 ---------------- struction standards so that new bridg( would have a better chance ofwithstanc ing those collisions. In the Sunshine Skyway collapse, th bulk carrier Summit Ventu", registered i Liberia, got caught in high winds an heavy rain as it approached the bri~ and rammed, the western span of th bridge; when the roadway tumbled offil supports, 35 people feU to their deaths. According to Knott, the problem h. been looked at the wrong way: Bri~ owners always blame mariners for hittin the bridge, but it's the bridge that's th ""*- obsta.ele to navigation. Engineers must- build the bri~ with the assumptio., that it will be struck. He even has a sa} ~ ing for this, called Knott's Rule: "~v build it, they wilihit it." Ship-bridge collisions have also ir creased worldwide because ships hav become longer and wider over the year: and vessel traffic has increased. Old( bridges are just not designed for thes larger ships. When it comes to protecting bridge it's not enough to shield piers next to th navigation channel; the entire bridg must be designed for a ship collision. 10 majority of ship-bridge collisions invest; gated by the NTSB involved an out-o channel pier, according to Joe Ostermar the NTSB's director of highway safety. And it doesn't take much force t, bring a bridge down. "Barges are so m~ sive that even a slow-velocity (collision can create quite a bit of damage," sai, Henry 1: Bollmann, senior bridg designer for the Florida DOT. Following studies of the problerr new engineering codes began to be insti tuted. Florida began designing bridges t, withstand ship collisions starting i¡ 1983, according to ~ollmann. Louisian adopted bridge-ship collision codes il 1985. And in 1991, the American Asso ciation of State Highway and Transporra tion Officials, an independent organiza tion that sets many construction code¡ adopted the first nationwide set of rule to design bridges to better withstand shiJ collisions. TQe 1991 specifications wee voluntary, but in 1994, AASHTO mad vessel collision a mandatory part of it overall bridge design specification. In order to make bridges safer fron ships, new bridges are designed wit! fewer piers in the water. Those piers ar ~ ~ ~ l Q; ¡;¡ g 03 '" 3 ~ PROFESSIONAL MARINER '6' ¡}\Jr}~,}:.:~"'rF~~'{ ~:; C:'tJ\JI-\l S ._.,,_,,_._.·._.___...n_~..______.___._ _. ._+...._"._.________.___.______._..._.__ ---------...--- protected by fenders, or artificial islands designed to ground a ship before it hits the pier. And every pier, even the ones outside the channel, is designed to with- stand a minimum impact &om a ship. "It's easy for bridge owners to blame the mariner, but the mariners are doing a good job," Knott said. "Frankly, we would have a much greater problem on our hands but for the làct that we have such a skilled professional mariner com- munity out there." A national group representing mar- iners reœndy began meeting with the U.S. Coast Guard to discuss bridge safe- ty. A group &om the American Water- ways Operators is going over data on bridge collisions with the Coast Guard to see what improvements could be made, according to Anne Burns, a spokesperson for the AWü. Which bridges are at risk? Despite tremendous advances in bridge design and risk analysis, the major For Information write No. 47 on the reader service card. 8 problem still remains: The country h~ no idea how many older bridges might collapse if hit by a ship. It's not fOr lack of effort on the part of the NTSB. After almost every major ship-bridge collision in the 1990s, the agency recommended that the FHWA conduct this type of survey. In 1995, a task fOrce with representa- tives &om the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, the FHWA, the Coast Guard, the Federal Railway Administra- tion and the Army Corps of Engineers adopted 10 risk factors to determine which bridges would be vulnerable to ship collision, according to NTSB docu- ments. In 1992 and 1994, the Coast Guard conducted a national bridge survey and fOlOld that 500 bridges needed better pier protection, navigation lights to reduce the risk of collisions, and emergency backup power fOr drawbridges, according to Nicholas Mpras, dúef of the Coast Guard's Office of Bridge Administration. Those improvements were made. This was a one-time survey; Mpras said, noting that with a nationwide staff of 55, his office does not have the man- power to do bridge inspections on a regu- lar basis. And his staff can't check. whether the bridge is vulnerable to collapse after a ship collision, beca~ that's an issue of structural integrity. "We have no statuto- ry authority to do that," he said. But the FHWA did not believe that the national survey requested by the NTSB was necessary. "However, the 'FHWA believes the States currently have available for use the needed guidance fOr the performance of the recommended risk assessment," wrote William A Wese- man, the FHWAS director of the Office of Engineering, in a letter dated Nov. 15, 1995. When asked if the recent bridge col- lapses in Oklahoma and Texas point to a need for a national assessment program, an FHWA spokesman said, "The most vulnerable bridges will need to be identi- fied by the states, using the infonnation contained in previous guidance ... We can assure you that when vulnerable bridges are identified by the states and federal agencies that proper action is taken to mitigate the problems that are fOund." Nearly eight years after the NTSB's first recommendation, the majority of PROFESSIONAL MARINER #67 , . -- _~_..__.___ _...._..~__ _____ ·___.__m___._.___________. states have not conducted a bridge-ship coUision survey. In fact, states that go ahead and perform the work aren't even required to inform the FHWA "Unfortunately, it usually takes a bridge collapse before a (state) DOT gets serious about it," Knott said. "States that have never experienced this often act as if it can never happen here.» Louisiana is one of the few states that has done a comprehensive survey. State highway officials looked at the state's 200 major bridges over waterways and con- cluded that 56 needed to be more closely examined, according to Tony Ducote, a bridge engineer administrator for the Louisiana Department ofTransporration and Development. Two private companies were hired to do an ¡n-depth analysis of each bridge. The total survey cost about $2 million, according to Ducote. Many of the bridges just needed small improvements, such as new lighting or new buoys in the waterways. The state decided that one bridge needed a $4 million retrofit to protect it from ships. As a result of the survey, some bridges were also moved higher up on the state's replacement list. The difficulty is that it can cost 50 percent or more of the original bridge's cost just to renovate it for ship-bridge col- lisions, Ducote said. "That gives you an idea of the problems that the DOTs are faced with on this issue," he said. But the survey was worth it. "We stilI feel that it gave us a tremendous advantage to iden- tifY these bridges," he said. "Doing absolutely nothing is probably not the best course of action." Florida also does frequent surveys, although it's not state policy, according to Bollmann. The state transportation department, working with the University of Florida, invented a computer program that helps engineers analyze bridges if the structures are rut by vessels. With that program and a copy of the bridge plans, Bollmann said he could do a risk analysis on a bridge in 10 days. And the state of Florida is now replacing the St. George's Island bridge primarily because it was considered too big a risk for ship colli- sion, he said. Bridges in poor condition Part of the problem is that so many of the nation's bridges are in bad shape. About 28 percent of them were consid- October/November 2002 --, ."-.--. -'-'.~_...-_..- -.. ...-......__..__.._._~._,-_... - !í\JDUSTRY SIGNALS ereel either structurally deficient or func- tionally obsolete as of December 200 1 , according to the FHWA Although $3.5 billion a year is spent on bridges, there are still thousands of them that need replace- ment. The NTSB is acutely aware of the problem. States "have a monumental task ahead of them to keep bridges ftom falling down of their own accord, much less from being hit by a waterborne fòrce, " said Michelle McMurry, a project manag- er in the NTSB's Office of Highway Safe. ty. "We just want bridge risk assessmem to be part of the picture." A further complication is that no one agency is responsible fur bridges. Most an: owned by state or county governments, which maintain the structures. The Coast Guard oversees all bridges, issues permits for new ones and regulates all, navigation signals on and around them. The Army Corps of Engineers maintains many of the nation's wateIWays. From East to West, Pilot Boats designed by Camarc Design and constructed by Derecktor Shipyards and Kvichak Marine are the choice for fleet upgrades across the U.S. Why? The Camarc - Derecktor - Kvichak team offers unrivaled experience in the design and construction of high quality, dependable aluminum vessels for Pifotage Operations. · Standard hlilllengths with jets or props · Comfortable ride, minimizing fatigue · Advanced fendering - snag free, lighter weight, greater shock absorption · Accommodations - crew of two to eight or more · Lower maintenance, lighter weight and higher strength to weight ratio than fiberglass or steel · Safe and efficient working platform . Outfitting options -- customize vessel to fit your association's needs Contact Derecktor, Kvichak or Camarc today regarding your next Pilot Boat! 9' .' INDUSTRY SiGNALS ______________.________u________________...:__________~__--'-______- . "Bridge safety could be better if all the parries involved could talk to each other without all these jurisQictional boundaries," Knott said. Although a national survey would be difficult, it would not be unprece- dented. Right now, the FHWA requires every state to check bridges over waterways for problems with scour, the erosion around bridge piers caused by the current. The program began after the 1987 collapse of the 1:- 90 bridge over Schoharie Creek in New York state, which killed 10 peo- ple. Engineers realize that every bridge at risk of collapse cannot be replaced. That would be much too expensive. "An assessment will at least allow you to prioritize the worst offenders - you can't deal with all of them," Knott said. Another challenge may also be the difficulty our society has in making decisions about risk. When Knott does risk assessments of bridges, he can pre- dict how many people would be killed if that bridge collapsed, and he attempts to assign a monetary value to those deaths. Clients ask him to keep that information out of his reporrs. "We as a society are not ready to talk about risk in terms of lives being lost," Knott said. "Politic~s don't want to talk about it, and engineers don't want to talk about it, so we just keep it out." David Tyler éC : 1X:D .~ Ç't\n^! ' ' H CC , lc /.2&")/ oti L. rl\llY f,~ ./ Puget Sound Action Team Comments at the rescheduled June 9, 2004 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Public Hearing before the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners - A 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MLA 02-235 - Fred Hill Materials, Inc. ) My name is John Cambalik, I am the Local Liaison for the Puget Sound Action Team partnership covering Clallam, Jefferson, and Kitsap counties. My office is located at PO Box 3622, Sequim, Washington. I would like to thank Board of Commissioners for this opportunity to speak to you today regarding this issue. The Puget Sound Action Team is a partnership of federal and state natural resource agencies, tribes, businesses, and non-profit organizations working together to protect and restore the biological health and diversity of the Puget Sound basin, including the Hood Canal and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, through implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. With the heightened awareness and concern surrounding the general degradation of the Hood Canal ecosystem, particularly as evidenced by the: · ESA listing as Threatened of the Hood Canal and Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca Summer Chum, the continuing severe · Low dissolved oxygen problem and associated fishing closures, and the recent · Threatened listing of commercial shellfish areas under the state's ~~ Warning System . f/1-k¥Að..--tjUb V C- ...We recommend that the county take No Action ~ this amendment at this time, to allow for improvements in our understanding of how the Hood Canal ecosystem functions. A number of studies, that might help to better inform this issue, are currently underway using state, federal, tribal and local resources and community volunteers to gather and analyze data to answer the questions - what are the causes of low dissolved oxygen and how can we correct this problem that threatens the future of aquatic life in the Canal? In light of the fact that the Hood Canal is a fjord, it is inherently complex and sensitive to change resulting not only from small-scale development but also from large-scale industrial projects like this one that will, Dotentiallv impose risks to the ecosystem beyond the borders of Jefferson County. We feel that a decision to shift from a working forested landscape to a significantly expanded industrial mining operation in an area that is highly sensitive to human impacts should be avoided, particularly when mitigation is often not successful in restoring ecological functions. Since this is a critical time in the future of Hood Canal as an ecosystem, a precautionary approach is most warranted. The Puget Sound Action Team partnership is available to support you in your effort to make an informed decision regarding this Comprehensive Plan amendment and any future project-specific decisions. / J. ft-R.. rA C~ t.Jh nrï I..( 7 A.s íZ.t.f to 14.(-< fA11 í4 ~ oJl ~ 7~ - Cc: TIcD) , Ç'\i 1-' ì {~b5kl~ H ( C Jto: The County Commissioners L . \\ ì6-.'jf') . As a long time taxpayer and resident in this county (and as a voter) my advice is to reject The Fred Hill application for this mineral overlay. Here are my reasons 1. Fred Hill Mining already has the right to extract gravel ten acres at a time. (turning . ßv s.:,.;~ down this MRL application does not stop them from mining and hauling gravel)v'ct( .s ~'/'t.-J! tAl a. They have shown us by example what they will do with a larger area.(make left turn after crossing The HC bridge onto Shine Road and come to the top of that ridge and look out) b. Our community does not need a big hole in the ground with all the potential dang~rs that accompany this ten square mile hole, e.g. endangering Bridgehaven's Aquifer, The Hood Canal Bridge, The Hood Canal ,the excess traffic, our beautiful environment and all the other things noted here tonight. M:iJ,'''''7 1. 11. ;,Jk c. Fred HiII}has turned its' back on Jefferson county,L f ( I knew the elder Fred Hil~_ h_ õt -). Mr. Hill loved his community and I believe would disapprove of even asking for this MRL. Don't let them kid you Mr. Commissioners, this is not a little family business but a big money driven process to make more money. We do not need our county and its' environment industrialized... ~ -.... --- .....-. ---. --- -,.. "(i.A( ;III? d. I also want you to put a stop to this thing because I believe this MRL is "1 .. - ~ ' our community apart and this crowd here tonight shows you that very thing. This thing is becoming political and if you approve the MRL watch out for your jobs. (This is not my threat but is what's heard on the streets.) We are not against gravel mining-we need Building materials....we need employment...we n~ peoPìe'= -;;;::- N'~ c.. Ã f-'..LAC..L,';.J f!} oJ '- Ú~,..., 0/.../"7 2.Get the horse before the cart: - a. Ask them how they intend to remove the gravel from their property b Would you allow them to build a railroad station in the middle of that land without first knowing where they are going to lay the tracks? (the pit to pier is part of this) 23. Do your job-you are honorable men and I expect that you will try to please us alL................... do f7.1 A- w' I ( ~. 11 I D F I to(t- rLð f f ~ -r ¿;" .! I~ 14. f t (