|
Case Number:BLD2003-00524 |
Case Status:Finaled |
Date Received:7/3/2003 |
|
Description:LOCATION: Fred Hill Materials Inc. (FHM) has submitted a proposal on 165 acres referred as the Wahl Extraction Area. The 165 acres in portions of Section 1, Township 27 North, Range 1 West, lying approximately 1.25 miles west of the existing Shine Hub operated by FHM. The permit area includes a proposed 137-acre mining/excavation area, 19 acres identified as regulated critical areas and/or required mining setback areas, and a 60 foot easement from the extraction area to the Shine Hub that would total 9 acres.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 165 acre area is designated Commercial Forest by the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. This area is also designated as Mineral Resource Lands Overlay (MRL) by Jefferson County's adoption of Ordinance 08-0706-04 on July 6, 2004, and is subject to 15 conditions of approval governing any activities conducted within the MRL.
CASE HISTORY: This proposal was received on July 3, 2003. The case was placed on hold to wait for the issue related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for a MRL (MLA 02-235) to be resolved. On October 14, 2004 the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board determined that the CPA for a MRL was in compliance with SEPA and the Growth Management Act. The application was taken off hold after the Hearing's Board decision.
The application was routed on December 23, 2004 to agencies with jurisdiction and interested parties. A Threshold Determination of a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on March 30, 2005. Based on comments received regarding impacts to the hydrology to Thorndyke Creek, the SEPA Responsible Official withdrew the MDNS in a Memo dated May 12, 2005. When the threshold determination was withdrawn, this in effect put the proposal at the very first step of SEPA, which is having to issue a Threshold Determination. The May 12, 2005 Memo also indicated that the current proposal would result in probable significant adverse impacts to groundwater movement, quality, and quality, which would result in a Determination of Significance. WAC 197-11-350(2) & (6) indicates that an applicant should be informed that a Determination of Significance is likely and be provided an opportunity to change a proposal to address the issues that consider a Determination of Significance.
On June 1, 2005 an on-site meeting was held with DCD, The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, WA State Department of Fish & Wildlife and the applicant to examine issues related to impacts that mining would have on the hydrology of Thorndyke Creek and a unnamed tributary to. Part of the concern expressed was that there was no site specific data that documented the relationship between surface and groundwater to in-stream flows. Also, there was not field documentation on how long it took water to pass through the material found within the Wahl Extraction area. In addition, although the MRL was 500 feet from Thorndyke Creek, mineral extraction was proposed approximately 200 feet within the riparian zone of unnamed tributary to Thorndyke creek.
The applicant has modified their proposal to re-sequence the areas to be mined by starting near center of the MRL at the eastern edge instead of the southeastern corner (See Reclamation Sequence Map dated June 17, 2005). This would move the initial mining areas from 200 to 500 feet from the riparian fringe of the unnamed tributary. In addition, and would change the timing of when the area closest to the unnamed tributary from the first to the last area to be mined, contingent on the results from the monitoring data. Group 2 is not be part of this stormwater permit and would not occur for at least five years and would allow the review groundwater monitoring data that had been developed per condition 15.08-0706-04 The final area to be mined (Group 3) would be the area closest to the unnamed tributary and would not occur until approximately 10 years of monitoring data was collected. The groundwater monitorin |
Date Issued:7/19/2005 |
|
Applicant: FRED HILL MATERIALS INC |
Expiration Date:7/19/2006 12:00:00 AM |
|
Site Address: .................... |
Case Finaled:5/1/2017 |
|
Parcel No:701011001
|
Other Cases |
Parcel Data |
Map It |
More Details |
Parcels |
Images |
|
Description:
|
| | |
Close Case "F"
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
5/1/2017
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Inspection Reminder Sent (2nd)
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
3/31/2017
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Inspection Reminder Sent (1st)
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
3/31/2017
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Approve Permit-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
7/19/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Review Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
7/19/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Ntc of App +14-APO-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
6/30/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Ntc of App +14-Publish-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
6/20/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Ntc of App +14-Publish-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
6/20/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Det. of Completeness-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
6/20/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Det. of Completeness-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
12/20/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Additional Info Request-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
10/14/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Additional Info Request-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
10/23/2003
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
App Substantially Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
10/23/2003
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Case Entered
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
8/20/2003
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Stormwater Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
7/19/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Env. Sensitive Area Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
7/19/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Consistency Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
7/19/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
RAP Review Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
7/19/2005
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-BACKGROUND & PROJECT INFO
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
1. Location, Comprehensive Plan, Case History, Project Summary,
Related Actions/Permits, and Studies Submitted
SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION:
Parcel numbers 701 011 001 and 721 062 001, in Section 01, Township 27,
Range 01 West, WM, located at Port Ludlow, WA 98365
LOCATION: Fred Hill Materials Inc. (FHM) has applied for a Type I Stormwater Permit for 165 acres referred to as the Wahl Extraction Area. The 165 acres is in portions of Section 1, Township 27 North, Range 1 West, located approximately 1.25 miles west of the existing Shine Hub operated by FHM. The Wahl Extraction Area includes a proposed 137-acre mining/excavation area, with 19 acres identified as regulated critical areas and/or required mining setback areas, and a 60 foot easement from the extraction area to the Shine Hub that has a total of 9 acres.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 165 acre area is designated Commercial Forest by the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. This area is also designated as Mineral Resource Lands Overlay (MRL) by Jefferson County's adoption of Ordinance 08-0706-04 on July 6, 2004, and is subject to 15 conditions of approval governing any activities conducted within this MRL.
CASE HISTORY: This application was received on July 3, 2003. The case was placed on hold to wait for the issues related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for a MRL (MLA 02-235) to be resolved. On October 14, 2004 the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board determined that the CPA for this MRL was in compliance with SEPA and the Growth Management Act. The application was taken off hold after the Hearings Board decision. The application was routed on December 23, 2004 to agencies with jurisdiction and interested parties. A Threshold Determination of a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on March 30, 2005. Based on comments received regarding impacts to the hydrology to Thorndyke Creek, the SEPA Responsible Official withdrew the MDNS in a Memo dated May 12, 2005. This in effect put the application in the position of having to issue a new Threshold Determination. The May 12, 2005 Memo also indicated that the current proposal would result in probable significant adverse impacts to groundwater movement, quality, and quantity, which would result in a Determination of Significance. WAC 197-11-350(2) & (6) indicates that an applicant should be informed that a Determination of Significance is likely and be provided an opportunity to change a proposal to address the issues that would warrant a Determination of Significance.
On June 1, 2005 on-site meeting was held with DCD, The Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, WA State Department of Fish & Wildlife and the applicant to examine issues related to impacts that mining would have on the hydrology of Thorndyke Creek and unnamed tributary. Part of the concern expressed was that there was no site specific data that documented the relationship between surface and groundwater to in-stream flows. Also, there was no field documentation on how long it took water to pass through the material found within the Wahl Extraction area. In addition, although the MRL was 500 feet from Thorndyke Creek, mineral extraction was proposed approximately 200 feet from its riparian zone of an unnamed tributary to Thorndyke Creek.
The applicant has modified their application to re-sequence the areas to be mined by starting near the center of the MRL at the eastern edge instead of the southeastern corner (See Reclamation Sequence Map dated June 17, 2005). This would move the initial mining areas from 200 to over 500 feet from the riparian fringe of the unnamed tributary. In addition, Group 3 (the area closest to the unnamed tributary) has been changed from the first to the last area to be mined, contingent on the results from monitoring data. Group 2 is not part of this stormwater permit and would not occur for at least five years. This would allow the review of groundwat
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-ESA
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
2. ESA
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) are found in Section 3.6.4 of the Unified Development Code (UDC). ESA issues are addressed in the staff recommendation memo dated March 30, 2005 and in the Threshold Determination (MDNS) issued June 22, 2005 for this proposal that was modified by the applicant on June 17, 2005. A copy of the threshold determination can be obtained from the Jefferson County Department of Community Development Office or from the following website http://www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/FHMhome.htm
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-FPA& MINING
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
3. FPA/Mining
A FPA (Forest Practices Application) complying with the requirements of WAC 222 Forest Practice Rules) will be required for the removal of trees. The mineral extraction will occur within 12-15 acres segments. The removal of trees will also be done in phases with logging usually occurring slightly in advance of when an area would be mined. FHM has indicated in the reclamation plan that segments will be reclaimed within three years. Therefore, the area being mined would not be out of timber production for more than 3 years.
Once trees have been removed, sand and gravel extracted, overburden and topsoil replaced, and trees planted within three years, then subsequent logging activity may be processed through a Class III FPA.
If an activity would result in trees being removed and the area not reforested within 3 years, then this activity would be considered a Conversion because the area is not reforested in the required timeframe for a FPA. The County is required to review and process permits for a conversion to ensure that the County requirements (such as ESA) are addressed. The removal of trees that is part of a conversion is implemented through a Class IV General FPA processed through WA State DNR.
Mineral extraction is a use that is consistent with forestry use as outlined in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The Unified Development Code is the implementing development regulation for the Comprehensive Plan, states that mining is a permitted use in Commercial Forest Designations with a MRL. The subsequent use of the area to be mined is timber production with other uses allowed in the underlying Commercial Forest Designation.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-STORMWATER
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
4. STORMWATER
The existing mineral extraction and processing activity (including the crushers, sorters, wash plants, and asphalt plant) are covered under a Department of Ecology Sand and Gravel General Permit (WAG 50-1237). This permit addresses three different types of stormwater: Type 1 stormwater never comes in contact with the mining or processing areas; Type 2 stormwater that comes in contact with mined and stockpile areas; and Type 3 storm water that comes from impervious surfaces around the operation facilities. Type 1 and 2 stormwater are infiltrated on-site, with no surface discharge. The Type 3 stormwater includes oil/water separators, sedimentation ponds that also provide for emergency containment, bio-swales, and the eventual recycle of water for the processing activities.
An engineered stormwater plan has been submitted with this application. Another component of the DOE Sand and Gravel General Permit are Best Management Practices (BMP). The base level of operational BMPs include good house keeping procedures, preventative maintenance, spill prevention, emergency clean ups, inspections, and employee training. The BMPs selected for this site are found in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which was revised in October 1999. The required BMPs meet Section 6.17 of the UDC.
The DOE sand and gravel permit would be updated as a result of this proposal. However, the nature of this application to mine less than 40 additional acres (and conveying the mineral resource to the existing processing activities) will create minimal stormwater impacts. Condition 10 of Ordinance 08-0706-04 that established the MRL designation limits the activity in the MRL to mineral extraction and transport. This is partially based on no run-off leaving the site and takes into account that the more intensive processing activities are already being regulated and that mineral extraction has minimal impact on stormwater. Finally, the progressive reclamation of the mined areas will minimize the amount of bare areas, which are susceptible to wind and rain erosion.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-COA ORD O8-0706-04
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
5. Conditions from Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MLA 02-235) for a 690
MRL
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment (MLA 02-235) for a 690 acre MRL designation was adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners through Ordinance 08-0706-04, subject to 15 conditions of approval. This proposal is located within this MRL and these conditions are incorporated into this decision.
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.
STAFF COMMENT: Mining is not proposed in Fish and Wildlife areas (including streams), wetlands or their buffers. A Hydrogeologic Report was prepared by GeoResources dated May 19, 2003 and was submitted with the application. Clarifications to this report were also submitted during the processing of this application. The modified proposal that includes starting the mineral extraction on a 37.9 acre area, which is located over 500 feet from the unnamed tributary to Thorndyke Creek. In addition, the MDNS issued for this proposal requires that the applicant collects monitoring data to document the relationship between groundwater and surface water to in-stream flows. This data will determine whether mining is impacting streams in the vicinity of the proposal prior to the authorization of additional mining. A Habitat Management and Mammal Movement Plan have been submitted as part of this application.
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.
STAFF COMMENT: A DNR Reclamation is required for this proposal and the applicant has submitted the preliminary information with this application. An Extraction Report was prepared by GeoResources dated May 19, 2003 and was submitted with the application. Issues related to noise impacts are primarily addressed in Sections 5 and 6 of this permit.
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.
STAFF COMMENT: Stormwater management including Best Management Practices is addressed in Section 4 (Stormwater) of this permit.
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.
STAFF COMMENT: The requirements for processing this permit including the implementation of SEPA through the issuance of a Threshold Determination have been completed for this application.
2. As a matter of policy, the legal, nonconforming use (i.e., established prior to adoption of the UDC) at the Shine Pit hub of 144 acres (including an existing MRL overlay of 121 acres) shall be subject to operational standards a. and b. upon adoption of a Wahl Lake/Meridian MRL overlay and opera
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-UDC SECTION 4.24
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
6. Mineral Extraction and Processing Performance Standards (Section 4.24 of
UDC)
In addition to meeting all other applicable requirements of this Code, including this Section 4.24, all new mineral extraction and mineral processing activities located outside of an approved mineral resource land (MRL) overlay district designation (as specified in Section 3.6.3) shall be subject to the following standards:
1(a). New mineral extraction and mineral processing activities in rural residential districts shall require a conditional use permit subject to a Type III permit approval process.
STAFF COMMENT: This proposal is located within the Commercial Forest Designation with a MRL, where mineral extraction is a permitted use.
2(a). The total disturbed area of mineral extraction, mining and quarrying sites (excluding access roads) and any associated mineral processing activities shall not exceed ten (10) acres. Any proposed mineral extraction which would create disturbed areas in excess of ten (10) gross acres shall require an MRL designation in accordance with Section 3.6.3 of this UDC.
STAFF COMMENT: The existing Shine Hub processing area is located in a 121 acre designated MRL, and is not subject to this requirement. The 23 acre pit expansion (approved in the year 2000) is located south and east of the Shine Hub along with the 10 acre pit expansion (MLA 04-549) that was approved November 19, 2004. Both of these pit expansions are located outside of a MRL. Most of the gravel has been extracted from these areas. Once the remaining gravel is extracted, these areas would be in the process of being reclaimed (i.e. planted in trees) concurrent with mineral extraction occurring in the Wahl Extraction Area.
The 165 acre Wahl Extraction Area, which includes a 60 foot easement between it and the Shine Hub, is located in the 690 acre MRL approved by Jefferson County through Ordinance 08-0706-04
The following standards apply to all surface mining and reclamation activities:
1(b). All surface extraction shall be performed in full compliance with the Washington State Surface Mining Act (RCW 78.44). Other extraction must conform with all applicable Washington state laws.
STAFF COMMENT: This standard requires all mineral extraction to comply with the RCW 78.44. This mineral extraction area will have approximately 37.9 acres of disturbed area comprised of mineral extraction area only. All of the processing and stockpiling would be occurring within the existing 121 acre Shine Hub processing area (that is a MRL).
2(b). Applications for development permits for extraction shall be accompanied by a report prepared by a professional geologist, which shall minimally include the following information:
a. Types of materials present on the site;
b. Quantity and quality of each material;
c. Lateral extent of deposit(s);
d. Depth of deposit(s);
e. Depth of overburden; and,
f. Method of extraction.
STAFF COMMENT: This information is provided in an Extraction Report prepared by GeoResources dated May 19, 2003 that was submitted with the application. In addition, this information was also provided for the comprehensive plan amendment for a 690 acre MRL (MLA 02-235).
3(b). 1) All extraction, surface mining, and reclamation operations must, to the extent possible, employ best management practices (see Section 6 of the UDC) for drainage and erosion and sedimentation control, 2)buffer zones, 3)and other precautionary measures as appropriate to protect adjoining lands, surface and groundwater quality and quantity, natural drainage systems, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitat, and scenic resources from adverse impacts resulting from the extraction operations and to meet the standards of this Code and other applicable county, state, and federal codes and regulations.
STAFF COMMENT: This standard provides Jefferson County Department of Community Development a broad range of authority to regulate mi
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-SEPA
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
7. SEPA
Reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) by Jefferson County acting as lead agency. Notice of Type I Land Use Application (MLA03-00377) and Preliminary Threshold Determination for a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) utilizing the optional process (WAC 197-11-355) was published in the June 22, 2005 edition of the Jefferson County Port Townsend Leader.
On June 22, 2005, a notice was sent to agencies, the applicant/representative, and surrounding landowners.
The site was posted on July 1, 2005.
The Final Threshold Determination is incorporated into this decision.
There is no Administrative Appeal process under the UDC for Type I permit as specified by Section 8.10(12) of the UDC. Appeal of a Type I permit requires a Judicial Appeal as specified by Section 8.5(2) of the UDC.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-COMMENTS
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
8. COMMENTS RECEIVED:
The modified application and MDNS received public notice (see Section 7 above) and the comment deadline ended July 6, 2005. This included sending the modified application to the Washington Department of Ecology and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
WAC 197-11-545 Effect of No Comment. (1) Consulted agencies. If consulted agencies do not respond with written comments within the time period specified for commenting on environmental documents, the lead agency may assume that the consulted agency has no information relating to the potential impact of the proposal as it relates to the consulted agency's jurisdiction or special expertise. (2) Other agencies and the public. Lack of comment by other agencies or members of the public on environmental documents, within the time period specified by these rules, shall be construed as lack of objection to the environmental analysis, if the requirements of WAC 197-11-510 (Public Notice) are met.
There were eight comments received regarding this proposal. These comments are included as part of this decision.
1. Frank Kelly e-mailed comments dated July 6, 2005
STAFF COMMENT on Shine Hub operation: Issues regarding the operation at the Shine Hub are addressed in this decision.
2. Nancy Dorgan, Olympic Environmental Council e-mailed comments dated July 6, 2005
STAFF COMMENT on Conveyor Platform: The concrete "sidewalk" is not a structural component of the conveyor, but allow the fine soil that falls from the conveyor to be easily collected. The sidewalk is located within a 60 ft easement for a forest access road within the 21,000 acre tree farm. There is nothing that specifies what type of surfacing is utilized for the road.
Stormwater issues are generally addressed if a project has less than 10 percent impervious surface of the total parcel size; over 65 percent of the native vegetation is left undisturbed; that stormwater can be dissipated through at least 100 feet of natural vegetation; and that stormwater is not being discharged to environmentally sensitive areas or their required buffers.
STAFF COMMENT on Stormwater Manual: This application is vested to the regulations that were in effect by Jefferson County on July 3, 2003. Stormwater issues for the entire operation are addressed in the General Sand and Gravel required by the WA State Department of Ecology, which requires the entire operation to comply with the current DOE Western Washington Stormwater Manual. Comments on SEPA are addressed below.
3. Ted Labbe, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe e-mailed a comment on July 6, 2005
4. John Fabian, Hood Canal Coalition e-mailed a comment on July 6, 2005
5. Gendler & Mann e-mailed a comment on July 6, 2005
6. Pacific Groundwater Group (PGG) e-mailed a comment on July 6, 2005
7. Jeff Davis, WA State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife e-mailed a comment on July 12, 2005
8. Gendler & Mann e-mailed a comment on July 13, 2005
STAFF COMMENT: These comments were primarily related to SEPA and impacts to in-stream flow to Thorndyke Creek and the unnamed tributary. A general response to issues raised are addressed below.
STAFF COMMENT on SEPA and impacts to Thorndyke Creek: A Non-Project EIS was completed as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the 690 acre MRL (MLA 02-235), which address the impacts that various mining regulations would have on the natural and built environment. During this process a 500 foot buffer to Thorndyke Creek was incorporated into the boundary of the MRL. In addition, mining was to be limited to a maximum depth of 10 feet above the seasonal high water table.
The Threshold Determination for this proposal examines mining related impacts for the entire 165 acre Wahl Extraction Area as well operation measures associated with the Shine Hub Processing area. In addition, conditions of approval for this proposal require ground and surface monitoring requirements for the entire du
|
|