Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 0706 04 CC'. ~D S '1-Q-04 STATE OF WASHINGTON County of Jefferson AN ORDINANCE AMENDING } THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE } PLAN TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE } WITH THE FINAL DECISION AND } ORDER OF THE WESTERN } WASHINGTON GROWTH } MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD } REGARDING MLA #02-235, THE FHM } APPLICATION FOR A MINERAL } RESOURCES LAND OVERLAY } Ordinance # 08-0706-04 WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.OI0 et seq., annually creates and implements a process by which citizens and entities can propose amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan (or "CP"), the CP having been originally adopted via Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998 and as subsequently amended and; WHEREAS, a modified version of the proposed amendment known as MLA #02- 235 [Fred Hill Materials-Mineral Resource Overlay Designation or "MRLO"] was approved to the extent of 690 acres (the "Approved Alternative") by the Board during December 2002; and WHEREAS, the Board's approval of the CP amendment known as MLA #02- 235 through Ordinance #14-1213-02 (also known as "Ordinance 14") was timely appealed to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (or "WWGMHB"), said WWGMHB remanding the MLA back to the County for further environmental review. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 1 of 29 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners that it makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions with respect to MLA #02-235: 1. The County adopted its CP in August 1998 and its development regulations (formally known as the Unified Development Code or "UDC") in December 2000. 2. The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and adopt a CP, also requires that there be in place a process to amend the County's CPo The UDC contains precisely such a process in Section 9. 3. The amendment process for the CP must be available to the citizens of this County [including corporations and other business entities] on a regular basis, generally no more than once per year. 4. This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1, 2002, the deadline for submission of a proposed CP amendment. 5. The UDC, specifically UDC §3.6.3, contains a process that allows applicants to obtain an MRLO if certain criteria are satisfied and if the County legislators make the legislative (policy) decision to grant the MRLO designation. 6. MLA #02-235 was timely submitted by Fred Hill Materials, Inc. ("FHM") and it sought to have the zoning designation known as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay or "MRLO" placed on 6, 240 acres of land located in the Thorndyke section of the unincorporated County that now holds the underlying designation of Commercial Forest Land-80 ("CF -80"),Rural F orest-40 ("RF -40") and Rural Residential 1 :20 or "RR 1:20." 7. The FHM application for a CP amendment was and is solely an application for an MRLO designation, a non-project action. 8. The FHM application is not an application for permission to build the "pit to pier" project, which FHM always had the ability to immediately apply for pursuant to existing regulations in the UDC once the UDC was adopted regardless of the outcome of this request for an MRLO designation. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 2 of 29 9. Designation of the MRLO requested by FHM is not dependent on the marine transport system, the so-called "pit to pier," and application for and approval of the marine transport system is not dependent on designation of this MRLO. 10. If the marine transport system is approved, then the rate of extraction will increase whether or not the extraction is occurring within an MRLO or not. 11. The application from FHM stated that, assuming it obtained the MRLO designation for the 6, 240 acres, some 1,270 acres within that 6, 240 would never be the site of mineral extraction because they constituted environmentally sensitive areas, known as "critical areas" in the GMA lexicon, and the buffers of those environmentally sensitive areas as established in the UDC. Ground verification at the time of a specific project application could serve to further eliminate more acreage from consideration as sites for mineral extraction. 12. Section 3.6.3 of the UDC, which became effective in January 2001 immediately after adoption of the UDC in December 2000, was never the subject of a Petition For Review before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board or "WWGMHB" and thus is valid and remains lawful. 13. FHM, through its legal counsel, wrote a letter to the County's planning staff on October 23,2002 stating that FHM would modify their application to seek an MRLO of765 acres [a reduction of87.7% in the size of the proposed MRLO] and would provide other "carrots" [quarterly inspections to be paid for by FHM] to the County, subject to acceptance of the complete offer package by the County planning department in its staff recommendation to the Board. 14. MLA #02-235 went through the complete public participation process required by the Growth Management Act. 15. By way of example only, the Washington Department ofFish & Wildlife (or "WDFW") commented on this CP amendment in a letter dated October 1, 2002. WDFW understood that the GMA does permit the County to provide suitable lands with an MRLO designation, but urged the County to designate a smaller area FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 3 of 29 as opposed to the proposed 6, 240 acres. WDFW was concerned that as few acres as possible be removed from Commercial Forest designation for the sake of habitat preservation, but added that it understood the protective provisions of the UDC would apply when a project-specific permit or permits was applied for by FHM. However, the Board notes that designation of an MRLO at a particular parcel or parcels does NOT change the underlying zoning designation of that land. 16. Specifically, this amendment was discussed in some detail in a combined County staff report/Draft Supplemental EIS dated August 21, 2002, a staff memorandum to the Planning Commission dated October 25,2002 [in response to the FHM letter of October 23rdusee FOF #12 above--and to information requests made to staff by the Planning Commission], and a Final SEIS dated November 25,2002, portions of which are described in more detail below. 17. The Draft SEIS and the Final SEIS were undertaken and generated pursuant to the State Environmental Protection Act (or "SEP A") and a determination by the County planning staff that the 19 proposed CP amendments warranted a threshold "Determination of Significance" and thus environmental review for any potential significant adverse environmental impacts, although they were all non-project actions as that term of art is defined in SEP A. The FEIS was prepared in conformance with SEP A requirements and the amendments in this Ordinance are within the range of alternatives and scope of analysis contained in the FEIS and associated documents. 18. The FSEIS dated November 25,2002 included staff responses to 71 different categories of questions, comments and concerns expressed orally and in writing by the public regarding the FHM application during the public comment period. It represents a detailed response to the concerns of the citizens, precisely what is intended by SEP A. 19. The EIS prepared with respect to the 1998 adoption of the CP also provided partial environmental review for this non-project action, because the SEP A review for the FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 4 of 29 CP understood that 1) the CP included a process for MRLO designation, 2) would place such a process in its UDC, 3) would then use that process, in the years following the adoption of the CP and the UDC, to provide MRLO designation for certain suitable parcels and 4) mining was a permitted use in forest lands. 20. However, currently and at all times since adoption of the UDC in 2000, the County has failed to meet the GMA mandate laid out in RCW 36.70A.060(1), which mandates specific language for the notice provisions that must be placed upon, among other documents, plats, building permits and development permits granted to persons or entities undertaking development within 500 feet of a parcel or parcel designated as mineral, forest or agricultural resource lands. 21. Specifically, the disclosure language found in the UDC at Section 3.6.3.3(b)(2) does not match up with the mandatory language found at RCW 36.70A.060(1) because the disclosure language a) is not required to be part of development activities occurring in close proximity to agricultural or forest resource lands (and mining is a foreseeable use in forest resource lands) and b )does not specifically inform the reader that they are undertaking development (for example, residing) at a location close to a place where an application for mining may some day be made, said mining being a "yes" use within an MRLO according to the UDC. 22. Similarly, the notice that is provided to those persons or entities developing in close proximity to agricultural or forest lands does not mention that mining is a "yes" use, meaning that it 'permitted outright' to use planner's parlance. The notice language for agricultural and forest lands is found at UDC §3.3.2(d)(2). 23. In that regard, the County is not fulfilling its mandate under GMA to protect natural resource lands (be they mineral, forest and agricultural lands ) from incompatible uses, e.g., residences. 24. Such a statement is true regardless of the decision reflected in the 1998 CP to allow mining as a permitted use in all commercial forest lands because that 1998 FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 5 of 29 decision does not change the fact that the notice language of the UDC is deficient in both its text and its applicability. 25. Thus the Board finds that it cannot fulfill its GMA obligations under the "No Action Alternative" because only by designating lands with the MRL Overlay does that land receive the nuisance and notice protections that the GMA requires counties to provide to lands rich in natural resources pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060. 26. In light of the evidence presented above, the Board respectfully requests that the WWGMHB reconsider its conclusions in the August 2003 Final Decision and Order ("the FDO") that the County had sufficiently protected and designated mineral resources prior to the submission ofMLA #02-235 and would be fully protective of mineral resource lands if it adopted the "No Action" alternative. 27. Thus, MLA #02-235, from the perspective of the County, arose, in part, in the context of the County's continuing state law mandate to provide the nuisance and notice provisions to lands found to be rich in natural resources, in this specific case, sand and gravel. 28. There was before the County a proposal for a MRLO of 765 acres with certain conditions attached according to the FHM letter dated October 23,2002. 29. The planning department concluded that the acreage to be granted the MRLO designation should be reduced to 690 acres because 75 acres on the western edge of the 765 MRLO were potentially environmentally sensitive because they were within 500 feet of Thorndyke Creek and should be avoided at the non-project action stage of planning, effectively providing a greater buffer for Thorndyke Creek than that prescribed by the Unified Development Code. 30. The planning department, as part of the FSEIS, expressly recommended reiection of the proposal to provide 6.240 acres with the MRLO designation. 31. The State Department of Ecology (or "DOE"), in a letter to the County dated November 20,2002, argued for rejecting the 6,240 acre MRLO, primarily because FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 6 of 29 there was not in place sufficient information to determine if a MRLO designation of some 6, 240 acres would cause significant adverse environmental impacts, such as possible negative impacts on aquifer recharge. 32. The DOE letter of November 20, 2002 concluded that any mineral resource extraction occurring within the 690 acres that now have obtained an MRLO designation would neither puncture an aquifer nor decrease recharge to the aquifers that provide water to wells in the neighboring communities of Shine and Bridgehaven. 33. While County planning staff recommended MRLO designation for only 690 acres, they also placed 15 conditions on the approval, which are listed in the FSEIS, and are made a condition of this approval. The conditions serve to, in part, · limit mining to a depth that is not less than ten (10) feet above seasonal high water table in order to protect the aquifers of the Thorndyke region, particularly those that refresh domestic wells in the Shine and Bridgehaven communities (condition #11), · prohibit processing of raw materials in the land that has now obtained the MRLO designation (condition #10), · reflect a County staff decision that the FHM application for a conveyor and pier facility would receive an automatic Determination of Significance ("DS") under SEP A, requiring a full-blown environmental impact statement, said application having been made in March 2003 and the DS threshold determination subsequently issued by staff (condition #14), · require that if FHM makes any application for mineral extraction on the lands that are now being designated as an MRLO, then the environmental review of that application would include a study of all transportation alternatives, be they marine or overland (condition #14), FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 7 of 29 · require FHM to finance a quarterly inspection report (condition #9), whether submitted by the company with third-party peer review contracted by the County or prepared by a third-party contracted by the County, and · immediately subject the 144-acre Shine Pit hub, consisting of121 acres of an existing MRLO plus 23 acres added to an existing DNR Surface Mining Permit and which was part of the 6,240 acre proposal submitted, to operational standards and minimums pursuant to condition #2. 34. DOE made the representations of its November 20, 2002 letter based, in part, on condition #11 found in the FSEIS, i.e., that mining would never reach a point that was less than 10 feet above the seasonal high water mark. 35. This condition imposed by this Board on the Approved Alternative, that mining will not come any closer than 10 feet to the seasonal high water mark, is one of the two key distinctions that make the Approved Alternative more meritorious, the other one being the 40-acre cap on disturbed areas, there being no cap on the size of disturbed areas should the Proposed Alternative (6,240-1,270 acres) be adopted. 36. The Board notes that the UDC does not include a maximum size for disturbed areas within an MRLO. 37. MLA #02-235 went through review by the County's Planning Commission or "PC"; specifically there was a public hearing with respect to this amendment before the PC on August 21,2002 and informational discussion on November 6, 2002. 38. On November 13, 2002 the PC recommended approval of an MRLO for 690 acres, as suggested by the County's planning department. The PC also recommended to the elected County legislators that they include mitigation measures and fund an enforcement officer or procedure. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 8 of 29 39. The 690 acres that obtain an MRLO designation via the approval of this proposed CP amendment are located in a valley between two ridges and are not visible from the Hood Canal Bridge or the residences located about one mile south and east of the current FHM operations site of 144 acres, colloquially known as the "Shine Pit." 40. MLA #02-235 was the subject of public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners on December 5,2002. 41. The County Commissioners and the planning staff received e-mails and signed petitions urging the County Commissioners to reject this amendment. 42. Opposition to this amendment was expressed at the August 21st hearing before the PC and the December 5th hearing before the Board. 43. Other citizens of this County expressed their support for this FHM MRLO amendment. Signed petitions were submitted to this effect. 44. The Board also notes that the CP, as a legislative policy decision, reflects and memorializes the overall opinions and intent of the entire citizenry of this county and that the CP includes numerous provisions that support this MRLO designation and the maintenance and enhancement of mineral resource extraction activities in general. They are listed at Finding of Fact #52 below. 45. The Board also notes that the development regulations known as the UDC, as a legislative decision, reflect and memorialize the opinions and intent of the entire citizenry of this county and that the UDC includes a specific provision that creates a process whereby parcels, if criteria are satisfied, can be and should be designated as another MRLO. 46. The presence of such a section in the UDC supports the Board's 2002 decision to approve this request of FHM for an MRLO designation. Why? Because adoption of this CP amendment is in furtherance of the GMA mandate to maintain and enhance mineral resource extraction activities in general. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 9 of 29 47. Decisions made pursuant to GMA should never be subject to what amounts to a plebiscite. 48. For example, as distasteful as the decision to provide more lands with a MRLO designation might be to some persons in this county, equally distasteful to others residing in this County is the GMA mandate that rural commercial lands be strictly limited in size and intensity of uses. Yet both are mandated by the GMA, although they are requirements of that state law that are not universally loved. 49. Furthermore, the Board concludes that when drafting the GMA the State Legislature fully understood that resource extraction industries, particularly mining or excavating, would never be a popular "neighbor" and thus the Legislature made it clear that the resource industries are to be protected from incompatible development such as homes and not vice-versa. 50. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board reaffirmed that language in 1995 in such cases as Aachen v. Clark County (Cause No. 95-2-0067, FDO dated September 20, 1995). 51. This amendment was the subject of a vote to approve, modify, or reject by the Board of County Commissioners. 52. That vote to approve was made only after the three elected County Commissioners recognized, heard and seriously weighed the strong opinions held by various members of the Jefferson County community both for and against this proposal. Ultimately, however, the decision rested with the sole legislative discretion of the elected County Commissioners. 53. This amendment was approved by the Board of County Commissioners because, in part, it is in conformance with the requirements of GMA that counties such as this one that are planning pursuant to GMA designate mineral resource lands [RCW 36.70A.170] and assure the conservation of mineral resource lands by, in part, not permitting the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such lands [RCW 36. 70A.060]. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 10 of29 54. Approval ofMLA #02-235 was also in conformance with the County's CPo 55. Numerous goals and policies described in the County's CP are supported and furthered by adoption ofMLA #02-235. They are designated as a Goal each of which has related Policies listed under it. In order the CP goals and policies most prominently furthered by this CP amendment are: · Economic Development Policy (or "EDP) 6.2 [encourage the establishment of new sustainable resource-based activities], · EDP 6.2.1 [natural resource industries shall be located near the forest resource upon which they are dependent], · Land Use Goal ("LNG") 12.0 [locate new resource industries in rural areas near the resources to be extracted], · LNG 13.0 [conserve and manage mineral resource lands for sustainable natural-resource based economic activities that are compatible with surrounding land uses], · LNG 24.0 [foster sustainable resource-based industry in rural areas of the County], · Natural Resource Goal ("NRG") 1.0 [encourage the conservation of resource lands and the long-term sustainable use of natural resource-based economic activities], · NRG 2.0 [encourage resource-based economic activities which are environmentally compatible], · Natural Resource Policies 2.1 through 204, [which discuss generally regulating resource-based economic activities to protect the environment from cumulative adverse impacts by, for example, encouraging the extracting firms to comply with best management practices], FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 11 of29 · NRG 6.0 [conserve and protect mineral resource lands for long- term economic use] and the related Natural Resource Policies NRP 6.1 through NRP 604, and · NRG 7.0 [provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts associated with mining extraction and processing] and NRP 7.2 and NRP 7.3; and · NRG 9.0 [preserve water resource quality and quantity] and Natural Resource Policy 9.1. 56. Regarding the FHM proposal, staff determined that the "Designation Critical" column (as found in Table 4-3 of the CP) was appropriate with respect to both Quality of Deposit and Size of Deposit based, in part, on an August 15, 2002 letter from DNR stating that "[t]he contention (by the applicant) that there are abundant gravel resources in the area is well founded." DNR further stated that the applicable maps "portray abundant Quaternary advanced and recessional Vashon outwash deposited by glaciers over the area." A firm known as GeoResources, LLC wrote a report dated April 27, 2002 that came to the same conclusion. 57 . Various unincorporated associations of citizens, led by the Hood Canal Coalition, timely appealed this GMA-based decision to the WWGMHB. 58. After voluminous briefing, oral argument and questions from the members of the WWGMHB, the WWGMHB issued its FDO in August 2003. 59. The WWGMHB determined in its FDO that the Approved Action, specifically designation of a MRLO, with 15 attached conditions, of 690 acres in the Thorndyke Tree Farm, fully complied with the · Growth Management Act or "GMA" (FDO, p. 31 & 33) · County's CP (FDO, p. 37) and · County's UDC (FDO, p. 37) FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 12 of29 60. Thus, the GMA, the CP and the UDC need not be discussed in much detail in the remainder of these Findings of Fact, except to state that all Findings of Fact listed in Ordinance 14 (see FOF #53 to and including FOF #67 in that earlier Ordinance) relating to Section 9 of the UDC and the "growth management indicators" listed there are incorporated herein as if listed in full. 61. The WWGMHB did find at FDO page 29 that the environmental analysis ofMLA #02-235 was deficient and required the County to do further environmental review of this non-project action pursuant to the SEPA. 62. The WWGMHB at FDO page 29 found that the County's environmental review had not analyzed enough alternatives sufficiently, finding that only one alternative, the Approved Alternative, had been sufficiently studied. 63. But the WWGMHB also stated that it saw three reasonable alternatives that required closer and more detailed study pursuant to the applicable state regulation, as described at pages 23 through 27 of the FDO. 64. Specifically, those three alternatives, as described the WWGMHB, are the Proposed Alternative (6,240 acres minus 1,270 acres of critical areas), the Approved Alternative (690 acres with 15 conditions imposed) or the No-Action Alternative (extraction of natural resources occurs county-wide in a manner consistent with the UDC). 65. The WWGMHB was also clear in its FDO that the "pit-to-pier" was NOT an alternative to the Approved Alternative. In fact, the WWGMHB stated in its FDO at page 9 that it "[did] not agree [with the Petitioner] that the project ["pit to pier"] itself could or should be analyzed at this stage." 66. Of course, the marine transport system (pit to pier) will be the subject of a full- blown SEPA-driven environmental analysis because the County staff issued a threshold "Determination of Significance" shortly after the application for the marine transport system came to the County in March 2003. As the time this FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 13 of29 Ordinance was adopted, discussions about the scope of that EIS were about to begin. 67. Clearly recognizing the marine transport system to be a "project" action in SEP A jargon (as opposed to the "non-project" action of providing land with an MRLO designation), the WWGMHB instead used the FDO to inform the County of the following deficiencies in the environmental analysis that had accompanied the adoption of Ordinance 14 in December 2002: . Other alternatives, specifically No Action and the Proposed Action were either insufficiently studied or not studied at all, Finding "N;" · Alternate forms of transport for FHM's product were not adequately studied Finding "0'" , , . Probable significant adverse environmental impacts on wildlife were not sufficiently studied, Finding "P;" (these three findings are located at pages 40 and 41 of the FDO) and · What the WWGMHB called "intensity of mining use," which the County understands to mean the study of the differing probable significant adverse environmental impacts, if any, that arise if mining occurs in 40-acre segments rather than in either unlimited or 10-acre segments, FDO p. 9,23 and 27. 68. Because of these four deficiencies the WWGMHB concluded that the decision- makers for Jefferson County, Le., this Board acting in its legislative capacity, had not been provided with a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences of the Approved Alternative, and thus the SEPA analysis done before the 2002 legislative decision to adopt Ordinance 14 had been and was inadequate. 69. County staff has taken steps in order to cure and remedy its non-compliant actions relating to the MLA 02-235; FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 14 of29 70. A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments SEIS that included MLA #02-235 (Mineral Resource Lands Overlay District proposed by Fred Hill Materials) has been issued in accordance with SEPA (Chapter 43.21 RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC). The DSEIS addressed issues raised in the FDO. 71. The Notice of Availability of the DSEIS was published in The Leader on March 3, 2004. In addition, the DSEIS was sent to agencies (see distribution list in DSEIS) on March 3,2004. Individuals expressing interest in FHM proposals were also e-mailed the Notice of Availability. The Notice of Availability indicated that the entire DSEIS was available on the Jefferson County web site site. Paper copies were available for inspection and purchase at the County's planning department. The comment period ended on April 2, 2004. 72. Only six (6) comments were received on the DSEIS. 73. A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) to the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Amendments SEIS that included MLA #02-235 has been issued in accordance with SEPA (Chapter 43.21 RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC). 74. 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. This DSEIS and FSEIS are for a non-project action. 75. Any FHM proposals for future mineral extraction and the previously-submitted application for marine transport would and will require project specific environmental review and full compliance with the UDC. 76. This DSEIS and FSEIS address the issues raised by the FDO. 77. The DSEIS and FSEIS provide additional information on the three alternatives. 78. The Proposed Action Alternative analyzed in the FSEIS is the 6,240 acres MRL (excluding critical areas) applied for by the applicant. 79. As a result of excluding critical areas, the Proposed Action Alternative is, in reality, some 4,970 acres, and no mining would occur within those acres until such time as FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 15 of29 there was 'ground truthing' of a specific site proposed for mining, i.e., 'in the field' examination of a site proposed for mining for possible critical areas. 80. The Approved Action Alternative analyzed in the FSEIS is the modified 690 acre MRL approved by the Board, including the 15 conditions of approval from Ordinance 14-1213-02. 81. The No Action Alternative analyzed in the FSEIS examines not designating a MRL and relying on the current UDC requirements for extraction and processing outside of aMRL. 82. The No Action Alternative, this Board finds, leaves the County with a mining district that equates with all of the land zoned Commercial Forest in this County, in other words with a mining district of some 330,000 acres, where mining (extraction) is an automatic "yes" or permitted use with a 10-acre limit on "disturbed area," a term of art under this State's Surface Mining Act. 83. In response to Finding "N" of the FDO, the conclusion by the WWGMHB that other reasonable alternatives were not sufficiently studied, the Board refers the reader, by way of example only, to the table found at pages 1-9 through 1-12 of the FSEIS. 84. The titles given to the columns and rows listed at Pages 1-9 through 1-12 of the FSEIS are closely related to the 13 factors utilized for assessing lands for MRL designation in Table 4-3 of the County's CPo These 13 factors were analyzed in the DSEIS and FSEIS for the three alternatives, although the 13 factors were re- categorized in the FSEIS according to WAC 197-11-444. 85. Regarding a full analysis of the three reasonable alternatives, the reader is also referred to Section 2.5.5 and Section 3 of the DSEIS, Section 3 consuming 45 pages in total of the DSEIS. 86. By way of example only, Section 3.104 of the DSEIS addresses potential impacts associated with the three alternatives to wildlife habitat disruption including mitigation measures. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 16 of29 87. With respect to that same deficiency found by the WWGMHB, the reader is also referred to Section 2-4 of the FSEIS, found at pages 2-10 and 2-11. 88. Section 204 of the FSEIS provides additional clarification of the No Action Alternative including the cost and effect of this alternative on public services. 89. The greatest uncertainty about the likelihood that probable significant adverse environmental impacts will arise is NOT a function of how many acres (if any) are granted MRLO designation. 90. Instead the uncertainty arises because the rate of extraction of the mineral resources found underground at the Thorndyke Tree Farm will be completely a function of how much 'product' FHM is able to sell, this uncertainty made prominent in the FSEIS at page 1-5, Section 1.5.2. 91. Regarding Finding "0" promulgated by the WWGMHB, the conclusion that alternate forms of transport were not sufficiently studied, both the DSEIS and the FSEIS tackle this issue in some detail, but before those details are discussed here certain misunderstandings must be explained and properly put before the reader of this Ordinance. 92. Those confusions arise concerning the transportation (after extraction) of mineral resources from underneath the Thorndyke Tree Farm. 93. Probably the most significant confusion or misunderstanding is that many persons do not know FHM has in place a mobile conveyor system that currently conveys raw product from the 'mine face' to be processed at the Shine Hub. 94. This conveyor system replaces truck traffic that would otherwise presumably have negative environmental impacts. 95. This internal conveyor system (internal in the sense that it precedes rather than follows processing) should not be confused with the marine transport system that will, if approved, move product (some of which requires processing) to the pier for FHM to sell to distant customers. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 17 of29 96. The distinction between internal and post-processing conveyors leads naturally to the second major confusion that has been present since before adoption of Ordinance 14, specifically the misperception that increased mining activity will somehow cause the marine transport system to be necessary. 97. Instead, it is the approval and installation of the marine transport system that will cause an increased rate of mineral extraction and not vice-versa. 98. With the approval of the marine transport system, FHM will be able to sell its 'product' competitively to more distant markets in, for example, the Puget Sound, Oregon and California. Without the marine transport system, FHM can never compete on price in those more distant for markets because conveying the product by truck would make it too costly to the end user. The reader is referred to the last bullet in Section 1.5.1 of the FSEIS, located at page 1-4 of that document. 99. Truck transport and possible future marine transport are independent of one another because they would serve different markets. 100. If marine transport is approved and if the more distant customers are available, then the rate of extraction from the Thorndyke region will increase regardless of whether the MRLO designation is approved or not. 101. A third confusion held by many people is the mistaken belief held by some that the marine transport system will entirely replace truck traffic as a means of getting FHM's 'product' to market. 102. The applicant has never made such an assertion and the FSEIS discusses FHM's projection that the quantity of its 'product' moved by truck will increase by 50% over the next decades whether or not the marine transport system is approved. 103. While a 50% increase may appear, at first glance to be a significant increase that might, in theory, have probable significant adverse environmental impacts the opposite is, in fact, true because it is only an addition of some 90 to 98 daily trips among a flow of 13,000 already occurring on a daily basis on eastbound SR 104. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 18 of29 104. Additional trips originating from FHM's Shine Hub will amount to an increase of .7% over existing traffic conditions according to the FSEIS. 105. Thus, the effect of that additional traffic coming from FHM's Shine Hub is to add a mere seven (7) vehicles for every thousand (1,000) vehicles that are already traveling eastbound on SR 104 towards the Hood Canal Bridge according to a Washington State DOT study completed in 2001. That same study indicates that background growth in the traffic on SR 104, i.e., traffic growth that FHM does not control and did not create, will independently worsen the level of service on SR 104 over the next decades. 106. The FSEIS concludes that these negligible impacts on the levels of service that are or will be present on SR 104 occur regardless of which of the three reasonable alternatives studied in the DSEIS and FSEIS is adopted by this Board. 107. The FDO stated that the post-FDO "EIS should include the transportation impacts of the various alternatives." 1 08. The DSEIS and FSEIS contain many details about the probable transportation impacts of the three reasonable alternatives and the reader is referred to pages 3-40 to 3-45 of the DSEIS (Section 3.2.3) and pages 2-2 to 2-6 of the FSEIS (Section 2.2). 109. Regarding probable significant adverse environmental impacts on wildlife, which the WWGMHB concluded in its Finding "P" had been insufficiently studied by the County, the DSEIS analyzes this issue in some detail at Section 3.1.4.2, found at pages 3-23 through 3-27 of that document and summarized at p. 1-11 of the FSEIS. 110. Among the most important conclusions included in the DSEIS is found at p. 3-25 where the author concludes that "[t]he Approved Action MRL is located outside of known territories of priority species as listed in the WDFW PHS database." 111. The statement found in the prior Finding of Fact immediately makes the Approved Alternative more meritorious than the other Alternatives in the collective 'mind' of this Board. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 19 of29 112. A second important conclusion reached on that same page is that the UDC regulations that require identification of species habitat and buffering of "all shoreline, wetland and habitat areas prior to MRL designation" and, in fact, prior to any development that will occur within the unincorporated County. 113. With respect to what the WWGMHB called the "intensity of mining use," i.e., the different impacts that occur if the maximum permissible mining segment is either no limit (Proposed Alternative), 40 acres (Approved Alternative) or 10 acres (UDC and No Action Alternative), the different impacts are discussed in some detail in the DSEIS at pages 2-18 to 2-20 and within the FSEIS at pages 2-6 through 2-10 (FSEIS Section 2.3). 114. An important conclusion drawn in the DSEIS at p. 2-19 is that a limit of 10-acre disturbed areas might lead to the extracting firm being unable to recover mineral resources buried deep in the ground because set backs and safety requirements (the slope running from the ground to the extraction point can only be so steep before a too-steep slope invites life-threatening slides and erosion) imposed on such a small mining segment would not allow recovery of that deeply-buried resource. 115. Unable to recover the deeply-buried resource, the extracting firm might be required to extract from a larger geographical area in order to recover the same volume of 'product. ' 116. Put another way, the extracting firm would be required to clear vegetation from more acres to obtain the same amount of resource. 117. In sum, the DSEIS and FSEIS indicate that larger "disturbed area" sizes are more efficient based on the nature of the resource found in the Thorndyke area. 118. The size of any particular "disturbed area" will always depend on the site-specific circumstances and application of the 'best management practices' promulgated by DNR. 119. The various impacts that occur with 10-acres as compared to the impacts that occur with 40-acre limits are analyzed in terms of seven categories (corresponding closely FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 20 of 29 to the 13 categories found in CP Table 4-3) at pages 2-8 through 2-10 of the FSEIS. Although the FSEIS uses the phrase "40-acre segments," it would be equally accurate to use there the term "40-acre disturbed areas." 120. The FSEIS also concludes, at Section 1.5.5.2 at page 1-8, that no "unavoidable adverse impacts" arise if either the Proposed Alternative or the Approved Alternative are ultimately adopted by this Board. 121. The absence of any "unavoidable adverse impacts" arising if either the Proposed Alternative or the Approved Alternative is adopted strongly suggests that the 15 conditions to mitigate made part of this Ordinance are adequate mitigations. 122. The conditions serve the public purpose of, by way of example only, protecting underground aquifers from penetration by mining (condition #11) and informing the reading public as to which sections of the UDC will apply to future mining extraction as it occurs within the MRLO. 123. This Board is fully aware of these conclusions from the SEPA Responsible Official and used them as part of its decision-making process. 124. The Board finds that designation of an MRLO of 690 acres meets and satisfies the designation criteria listed at UDC §3.6.3.1. 125. Specifically, with respect to UDC §3.6.3.1(a), the Board relies upon the conclusions stated within the April 27, 2002 report of GeoResources, LLC (a report FHM submitted as part of its application for MLA #02-235) to find that the land provided with the MRLO designation is rich in natural resources, i.e., sand and gravel. 126. Specifically, with respect to UDC §3.6.3.1(b), the Board concludes that the area designated is larger than 10 acres and that most, if not all, of the parcels inside the newly-designated MRLO are larger than 10 acres in size. 127. Specifically, with respect to UDC §3 .6.3.1 ( c), the Board concludes that the land within the newly-designated MRLO is surrounded by land zoned "Commercial Forest," the UDC term for forest-lands oflong-term commercial significance. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 21 of 29 128. Specifically, with respect to UDC §3.6.3.1(d), the Board concludes that the land within the newly-designated MRLO does NOT have a residential density of one dwelling per five acres or less, instead the greatest density provided any of the newly-designated MRLO is one dwelling unit per 40 acres. 129. The Board makes its conclusions regarding (b),(c) and (d) above based uppn the map made part of the Draft SEIS as Figure 3-5 found at page 3-34 of the DSEIS. 130. Specifically, with respect to UDC §3 .6.3.1 ( e), the Board concludes, after examination of the Land Use Map that is part of the County's CP, that the land within the newly- designated MRLO is not within any Shoreline designation or any "Rural Village Center" and is NOT within one-half mile (2,640 feet) of any established or potential "Urban Growth Area" or "Rural Village Center" boundary. Figure 3-5 at p. 3-34 of the Draft SEIS also supports this conclusion. 131. Specifically, with respect to UDC §3.6.3.1(f), the Board concludes, after examination of the EIS documents prepared after the August 2003 FDO, that there are no regulated wetlands or fish or wildlife habitat within the newly-designated MRLO. By way of example only, the Board makes this conclusion after its review of certain pages of the Final SEIS, specifically pages 1-10 and 1-11. 132. A public hearing before this Board occurred on June 9, 2004 as part of the process by which this Board, acting in its legislative capacity, re-examines and reconsiders (based on new environmental information) their earlier decision to adopt Ordinance 14, which served to establish (with 15 conditions) an MRLO designation upon 690 acres in the Thorndyke Tree Farm. 133. This Board finds that, upon review of the DSEIS and the FSEIS, those documents provide a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences of the three reasonable alternatives studied therein. 134. The Board finds itself to be sufficiently informed to weigh the probable environmental consequences of the three alternatives and to adopt this Ordinance, FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 22 of 29 which serves to adopt the Approved or 690-acre Alternative, as that term is defined in the 2004 DSEIS and FSEIS. 135. The Board further relies upon the Findings of Fact adopted and made part of Ordinance #14-1213-02, approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 136. The Board discussed and deliberated on the legislative decision regarding a possible MRLO designation at a public meeting on June 30, 2004. At that time the Board (by a unanimous 3-0 vote) voted to approve the "Approved Alternative," i.e., an MRLO of 690 acres. 137. The Board imposes certain conditions, including expressly listing certain portions of the UDC that will apply to mining activities undertaken within the MRLO as conditions, pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code. 138. The Board bases its findings and conclusions upon A) the entire record of testimony and exhibits, including all written and oral testimony provided to it and B) the DCD staff reports to it dated May 25,2004 and June 9, 2004. 139. 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 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 an MRLO. 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 that occurred during the preparation of the DSEIS and FSEIS for MLA 02-235. The project specific EIS will FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 23 of 29 then follow the EIS process which will include scoping the issues, issuing a DEIS for comment, and addressing the comments in the FSEIS. 140. After the SEPA process is completed, the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Conditional Use Permit for a conveyor and pier facility would be reviewed at a public hearing before the hearing examiner. 141. The conveyor and pier within the shoreline jurisdiction would be reviewed through a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit before the Hearing Examiner. 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 Permit and Enforcement Provisions). For actions on Shoreline of Statewide Significance (i.e. Hood Canal), there are additional local and state protections. 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 Permits. Numerous other State and Federal approvals would also be required. 142. The Zoning Conditional Use Permit will be reviewed at the same public hearing as the Shoreline Conditional Use Permit before the Hearing Examiner. The 12 approval criteria for a Zoning Conditional Use Permit are found in the Section 8.8.5 of the UDC. If the proposal does not meet all 12 criteria the proposal will be denied. 143. The BOCC has the initial impression that a pier facility (Pit-to-Pier) proposal contemplated by the applicant may not meet all of the twelve (12) approval criteria, including the following: 8.8.5(1) whether a pier facility in Hood Canal is harmonious in design, character and appearance with the development in the vicinity; 8.8.5(3) that a pier facility in Hood Canal is detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity; 8.8.5(4) whether a pier facility will introduce noise, dust, vibrations, and other conditions (like light & visual impacts) to uses or property in the vicinity; 8.8.5(5) whether a pier facility approximately 90 feet above the Mean Lower Low Water Mark (MLLM) will unreasonably interfere with allowable development ori FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 24 of 29 uses of neighboring properties; 8.8.5(6) whether ship openings to the Hood Canal Bridge associated with a pier facility would impact traffic in the vicinity of the proposal; 8.8.5(7) whether a pier facility would comply with all State and Federal requirements, including potential impacts to threatened and endangered species; 8.8.5(9) whether a pier facility would cause significant adverse impacts to the human and natural environment that cannot be mitigated through conditions of approval; 8.8.5(10) whether a pier facility with the limited job creation, limited revenue benefit to the County, potential impacts Hood Canal and to the Hood Canal Bridge (i.e. shiplbarge collision with bridge) has merit and value for the community as a whole; 8.8.5(11) whether a pier facility is consistent with the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan; 8.8.5(12) whether the public interest suffers no significant detrimental effect from a pier facility. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, as follows: Section One: With respect to MLA #02-0235 (Fred Hill Materials) the following real property within Jefferson County is provided with a Mineral Resource Overlay Designation, specifically the land described below: SEE "EXHIBIT A" Section Two: The MRLO designation granted to Fred Hill Materials, Inc. shall be and is subject to the following fifteen (15) conditions: 1. Prior to approval and operation of a surface mine in the Wahl Lake or Meridian area of the Thorndyke Tree Farm, the proponent shall submit and satisfy all requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC) including, but not limited to: a. Protection of environmentally sensitive areas per Section 3: · Mining is prohibited in Fish and Wildlife Habitat areas or their buffers. · Mining is prohibited in Wetlands or their associated buffers. · Submission of an Aquifer Recharge Area Report, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, and Grading Plan, the combination of which shall demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause degradation of groundwater or surface waters. · Submission of a Habitat Management Plan. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 25 of 29 b. Performance standards of Section 4: · Full compliance with the Washington State Surface Mining Act (RCW 78.44) shall be required prior to any mining activity that exceeds 3 acres of disturbed area. · Extraction report prepared by a professional geologist with elements required pursuant to UDC 4.24.2.a-f. · All extraction and reclamation activities that create a noise disturbance must take place between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. c. Development standards of section 6: · Stormwater management standards and practices. · Best Management Practices for drainage and erosion control and sedimentation control. · Mineral extraction Best Management Practices in Aquifer Recharge Areas. d. Jefferson County procedures and policies at UDC Section 8 for implementation of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). e. Any failure to abide by Jefferson County regulations shall be investigated and enforced as provided by the requirements and procedures of Section 10. 2. As a matter of policy, the legal, nonconforming use (Le., established prior to adoption of the UDC) at the Shine Pit hub of 144 acres (including an existing MRL overlay of 121 acres) shall be subject to operational standards a. and b. upon adoption of a Wahl Lake/Meridian MRL overlay and operational standards c. and d. when (and if) approval is granted through a permit review process for mineral extraction activities in the Wahl Lake/Meridian MRL overlay: a. The maximum permissible sound level at any and all receiving properties outside of the Thorndyke Tree Farm shall be 57 dB(A) between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 47 dB(A) on weekends, holidays, and between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays. Compliance protocol shall be established during review of future mineral extraction permit application. Any planned, temporary exceeding of these standards must be authorized beforehand by the Administrator and documented in the compliance case file. b. Outdoor lighting shall meet the specifications of the US National Park Service Interim Design Guidelines for Outdoor Lighting. Building lighting shall be located high on the structures and include forward throw optics to direct lighting away from the sides of the buildings and onto the ground. Lighting required for mineral extraction, processing, and transportation activities shall be independently mounted (not directly attached to equipment) to allow for a more downward throw of light to further limit the potential for direct light to reach offsite areas. c. Transportation options shall be fully studied in project action environmental review, including optimum hours for truck access to SR 104. d. A visual impact mitigation plan shall be a mandatory element of project action environmental review, including but not limited to the establishment of berms, vegetative plantings, and other measures to mitigate offsite visual impacts. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 26 of 29 3. Gravel mining operations shall, prior to approval and operation, obtain from the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program a national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and State Waste Discharge General Permit (NPDES) for process water, stormwater and mine dewatering water discharges. All activities within the MRL overlays shall be subject to the standards of the latest edition of the Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. 4. Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause degradation of the groundwater quality below the standards described in Chapter 173-200 WAC (Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington): a. The proponent shall prepare a Best Management Practices Report pursuant to the criteria explained below, describing how the operators will integrate other necessary and appropriate mitigating measures in the design, installation, and management of the proposed facility or use. b. The report shall be prepared by, or done under the direction of or designed by, a qualified person with demonstrated expertise in the industry or field as demonstrated by a statement of qualifications and at least three references from parties familiar with common business practices in the subject field or known expertise in the field. c. The report will identify appropriate BMPs and how they will be employed to prevent degradation of groundwater. Examples of BMPs are available at the DCD Permit Center. All necessary technical data, drawings, calculations, and other information to describe application of the BMPs must be supplied. d. The report shall identify how the applicant will satisfy the requirements of the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303 WAC, in the event that hazardous material is released into the ground or groundwater. e. The Department of Community Development and/or a qualified consultant contracted by the County at the applicant's expense shall review the report. The County may consult with the Jefferson County Department of Health and Human Services, State of Washington Departments of Health or Ecology, independent reviewer, or any other parties, as determined at the County's discretion. 5. Establish a written agreement with the County providing that all employees at the mining site will be notified that the operation lies above an Aquifer Recharge Area and all employees shall receive documented annual training concerning all measures set forth by the BMPs established in the reports required above. 6. Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall at all times comply with Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority/Olympic Region Clean Air Agency permit requirements. Prior to operation, the proponent shall submit documentation from Olympic Air Pollution Control/Olympic Region Clean Air Agency to the Community Development Department verifying that the FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 27 of 29 operation is in compliance with Olympic Air Pollution Control permit req uirements. 7. Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall engage a third-party, selection of which is approved in advance by the County, to monitor compliance with regulations and conditions pertaining to their NPDES/State Waste Discharge Permit. Reports shall be prepared and distributed as required in the NPDES/State permit, with copies to the County each month unless the permit requires quarterly reporting in which case copies will be provided to the County quarterly. 8. Mining operations located within a designated Aquifer Recharge Area shall submit an annual report to the County evaluating implementation of the Department of Natural Resources-approved Surface Mine Reclamation Plan. A qualified, independent consultant approved by the County shall prepare the report. The report shall identify how restoration of the site compares to the approved Reclamation Plan and whether any corrective action is contemplated by the applicant or required by the Department of Natural Resources. 9. The proponent shall submit quarterly inspections prepared by a third party selected by Jefferson County which examines the activities within the MRL overlay to assure compliance with the conditions of approval and mitigation measures of applicable codes, statutes and ordinances. FHM, Pope Resources, and any future permit holders and/or landowners shall allow unlimited access to Jefferson County or other governmental agencies for the purpose of inspection and determination of compliance with applicable conditions of approval and applicable statutes, codes, and ordinances. 10. Uses within the Wahl Lake area and Meridian area MRL overlay will be limited to extraction and transportation via a conveyor system to the Shine Pit hub. No heavy equipment maintenance or crushing operations shall be allowed in this MRL overlay. 11. Mining will be limited to a maximum depth of ten (10) feet above the seasonal high water table, which shall be established and monitored pursuant to standard techniques and verified through independent review as arranged by the County at the applicant's expense. 12. Maximum "disturbed area" [as that term 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. 13. During mining operations, dust shall be controlled by the proponent, through means of watering or other methods that are acceptable to the SEPA Responsible Official. FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 28 of 29 14. The application for a conveyor and pier facility for barge loading in the Hood Canal has previously received a threshold Determination of Significance (OS) 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). 15. A periodic review process shall be established in conjunction with any future mineral extraction or related permits granted for activities in or associated with the current and newly adopted MRL overlays in the Thorndyke Tree Farm. At five (5) year intervals from permit issuance, DCD will conduct a periodic review process, equivalent to a Type II permit process under Section 8 of the UDC, including applicable public notice provisions and appeal rights, to determine whether the site is operating consistent the most current standards and to establish other conditions as necessary to mitigate identifiable environmental impacts. Written notice that periodic review is commencing shall be provided to the public and to agencies with jurisdiction. The notice shall explain the purpose and intent of the periodic review process and other relevant details. Section Three: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map is hereby amended to reflect the addition of these two newly-adopted Mineral Resource Overlay districts. Section Four: Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance or the application ofthe provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this //'.'" tjj.\ day of º U ç tiff- .2004. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO \~r V r 'j '(( ; "r"':J.;;~'-· j / ,. ~,J.. -,,' -"¡, 1 .. 4- . ,vç .~ ! . ; , ':: " ~ g'l .: l . _:~ , ... "':,\.f_,, --,,' :.\!! ATTEST: ...;, '\' . /',' ~ ';\ ,/l IIT/' ~':, ' , :.,. .' " .; .~,~ j,: t: . ..' ./ Ç)vo.tv.. 'rr1 a~' ~ . f"I'rn/\V> " r:fI . ( JY~JS~~~::~/ Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk ofthe Board SEAL: FHM MRLO Ordinance No. 08-0706-04 Page 29 of 29 EXHIBIT A REVISED MRLO LEGAL 525 Acres - More or Less Meridian Extraction Area The southerly 1,125 feet (plus or minus) of the SE ~, EXCEPT west 500 feet ofsaid southerly 1125 feet, Section 1, Township 27 N, Range 1 W, W.M., The east Yz of Section 12, Township 27 N, Range 1 W, W.M. EXCEPT the west 500 feet of the east Y2 of said Section 12, The North 150 feet (plus or minus) of the NE ~, Section 13, Township 27 N, Range 1 W, W.M. The North 150 feet (plus or minus) of the NW ~, Section 18, Township 27 N, Range IE; W.M., The SW ~ of Section 7, Township 27 N, Range 1 E, W.M., The SW ~ NW Section 7 Township 27N, Range 1 E W.M. 156 Acres - More or Less Wahl Lake Extraction Area LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A 3" DIAMETER ALUMINUM MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 1; THENCE SOUTH 1 36'37" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 1 A DISTANCE OF 906.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88 04'20" WEST 1533.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 1 55'40" WEST 3279.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88 04'20" WEST 363.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37 39'30" WEST 1305.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 79 39'32" WEST 1535.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 55'40" EAST 2048.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 04'20" EAST 2714.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 9 Acres - More or Less Conveyor and Maintenance Road Easement A 60 FOOT WIDE STRIP LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, W.M. AND WITHIN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M., IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON, THE CENTERLINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 6; THENCE NORTH 87 46'49" WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE THEREOF 1219.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS CENTERLINE; THENCE SOUTH 214'31" WEST 157.83 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 69 02'13" WEST 1498.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64 05'45" WEST 2966.83 FEET TO THE COMMON LINE BETWEEN SAID SECTIONS 1 AND 6; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 64 05'45" WEST 1742.15 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF A LEASE AREA AS DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED ON A RECORD-OF-SURVEY RECORDED IN VOLUME 23 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 29, AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 443672, AND THE POINT OF TERMINATION OF THIS CENTERLINE. THE SIDELINES OF THIS EASEMENT SHALL BE LENGTHENED OR SHORTENED, AS THE CASE MAY REQUIRE, SO THAT THEY TERMINATE AT THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 6 AND THAT THEY TERMINATE AT THE EAST LINE AND ABOVE SAID LEASE AREA.