|
Description:
|
| | |
Set Status to F
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
8/24/2007
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Approve Permit-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/19/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Print Dummy UDC Permit-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/18/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Review Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Ntc of App +14-Publish-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
9/20/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Ntc of App +14-APO-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
9/20/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Det. of Completeness-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
9/20/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Application Received-UF
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
9/15/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
App Substantially Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
9/20/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Case Entered
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
9/15/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Plan Check
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Septic Review Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Potable Water Approval
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Stormwater Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Env. Sensitive Area Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
Consistency Review-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Description:
|
| | |
RAP Review Complete-U
|
|
Date Completed:
|
| | |
11/11/2004
|
|
Disposition:
|
| | |
DONE
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-RECLAMATION SLOPES
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
Reclaimed areas associated with this proposal shall have slopes ranging from 2:1 to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). Final contours shall be in compliance with the DNR Reclamation Plan. (Authority-application and Section 4.24 (5b) of UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-STORMATER
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
This proposal shall conform with the Stormwater Drainage Report (Log item 4) prepared by Team 4 Engineering dated July 22, 2004.
Runoff from the mineral extraction and processing areas shall be retained on-site and shall conform to the WA State Department of Ecology Sand and Gravel Permit (WAG 50-1237). (Authority-application & Sections 4.24(3b) & 6.7 of UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-STABILATION OF SLOPES
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
Permanent slopes and the berm located along the eastern edge of Segment I shall be hydroseeded or planted with fast growing cover annual crop (such as winter rye) that will not impact establishment of trees on this area. In addition, slash and root wads shall be placed on the final slopes as soon as practical after final grading. These measures should ensure that erosion from wind or rain does not occur. (Authority-application & Sections 4.24(3b) & 6.7 of UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-10 ACRE LIMIT
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
To ensure that the proposal does not exceed 10 acres of disturbed area, the applicant is required to submit a report on July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005 and bi-annually thereafter that includes documentation of the amount of disturbed and reclaimed areas within Segments I, J, & K to Jefferson County. This documentation shall be in the form of a survey or GIS points. Once an area is reclaimed to DNR's specification no additional reports will be required for the reclaimed area. (Authority- Section 4.24(2a) of UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-RECLAMATION PLAN
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
Prior to the implementation of the proposal, a Reclamation Plan is required from WA State DNR meeting the requirements of the Surface Mining Act (RCW 78.44). (Authority-Section 4.24(1b)of UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-NOISE
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
After the removal of the berm, if there is a noise disturbance (defined by WAC 173-60) from mineral extraction and the final grading of the eastern edge of this proposal (segment I), the applicant shall work along the eastern edge of the site (segment I) from Monday to Friday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (Authority-Sections 4.24(3b) & 4.24(6b) of UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-OFF SITE IMPACTS
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
If the proposed mineral extraction results in significant adverse impacts (noise, vibration, dust, traffic, etc) to off site properties or the public that can not be mitigated, then a conditional use permit would be required. (Authority-Section 4.24 (7b) of the UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-LIGHTING
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
All outdoor and security lights shall be focused downward to avoid glare onto surrounding areas. (Authority- Sections 4.24(3b), & 4.24(7b), and 6.14 (lighting) of UDC).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
C-AIR
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
The proposal shall have a water truck on-site to control dust from the mineral extraction areas. The operator shall ensure that mineral extraction will be done in a manner that will ensure that dust from the mineral extraction does not leave the land owner's properties and impact adjacent land owners. (Authority- Sections 4.24 (3b), (6b), & (7b)).
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-SEPA
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
Because this proposal entails over 500 cubic yards of material, this proposal is subject to the the State Environmental Policy Act. An environmental checklist (Log item 3) was submitted with this proposal. The threshold determination for this proposal incorporates the Final Modified MDNS issued for Ace Paving Conditional Use Application (ZON 98-41) within the 144 acre mineral extraction and processing area, which was issued by Jefferson County DCD on June 1, 1999. The Final Modified MDNS for ZON 98-41 is Log item 11 of this review.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-SEPA ANALYSIS
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
Summary of Potential Impacts from the proposal:
EARTH: The county's GIS mapping (Log item 17) indicates that a portion of the proposed mineral extraction area (segment I) is located in a Landslide Hazard I Area (slight). This is based on the percent slope of this area and the type of soil. The landslide hazard is addressed by the nature of the use (mineral extraction and forestry). The reclamation of the site will ensure that the final slopes are appropriate for this type of material and are stable. No Geotechnical report was required for this proposal.
The proposal mineral extraction is less than 10 acres. Mineral extraction is regulated by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources through a Reclamation Permit. A recalmation narrative has been provided as part of this proposal (Log item 5). The proposal includes final reclamation slopes between 2:1 and 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). In addition, this proposal is required to stabilize permanent slopes by hydroseeding or planting with fast growing cover annual crop (such as winter rye) that will not impact establishment of trees on this area. In addition, slash and root wads should be placed on the final slopes as soon as practical after final grading. These measures should ensure that erosion from wind or rain does not occur. The proposal is not likely to result in a probable significant adverse impact to earth.
AIR: Dust and air emissions from the processing activities (asphalt plant, crushing, screening, storage/stockpile areas, and truck loading areas) would be controlled by an air permit required from the Olympic Region Clean Air Authority (ORCAA). FHM currently has a permit from the ORCAA for their Shine Hub operation.
The ORCAA has three general requirements:
1.) Procedural (i.e. obtaining permits for crusher, sorters, asphalt plant, etc.); 2.) Prohibitions (i.e. not having dust leave the land owners properties and impacting adjacent land owners); 3.) Performance standards (i.e. watering down haul roads).
Generally, dust from the mineral extraction (like scooping up sand or gravel
and putting into a truck) without processing is Jefferson County's responsibility to control.
The primary area of concern related to dust is from the mineral extraction in Segment I, which is located closest to adjacent landowners to the north and east. Once mining has been completed in Segment I this area will be planted in trees, which will eventually catch dust. The mineral extraction would then occur in Segments J & K. These Segments are located 1,600 feet west of Segment I, which is further away from the adjacent landowners. The additional distance would reduce dust impacts.
If dust from the mineral extraction becomes a problem, the ORCAA has the ability to issue fines for any nuisance through their general requirements. The proposal has been required to have a water truck on-site to control dust from the mineral extraction areas. The proposal is not likely to result in a probable significant adverse impact to air.
WATER:
Surface: The area of the proposed mineral extraction does not contain any surface water bodies. Berms and mining concaved areas will ensure that no water leaves the mineral extraction areas.
Groundwater: Water usage for the facility would not change with adding 10 acres of additional mineral extraction to the existing operations at the Shine Hub.
The GIS mapping of the property indicates that this area is designated a Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area. However, the GIS mapping only provides general information and site specific studies are more accurate at determining the existence of critical aquifer recharge areas.
A DRASTIC Evaluation dated August 19, 1998 was conducted by Robinson and Noble, Inc. for a 100 acre study area centered around the proposed asphalt plant. This study area includes the proposed 10 acre expansion being reviewed through this permit. The DRASTIC Evaluation resulted
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-SEPA NOTICE, PROCESS, & COMMENT
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
SEPA
Reviewed under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) by Jefferson County acting as lead agency. Notice of Type I Land Use Application (MLA04-00549) and Preliminary Threshold Determination for a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) utilizing the optional process (WAC 197-11-355) was published in the September 22, 2004 edition of the Jefferson County Port Townsend Leader.(Log item 8)
On September 21,2004 notice sent to agencies, the applicant/representative, and surrounding landowners.(Log item 8)
The site was posted on September 22, 2004.(Log item 8)
There was a general comment letter received from the Department of Ecology dated October 1, 2004. One letter of support was submitted for the proposal.(Log item 9)
One letter raises concerns about the impact the proposal might have on the Shine Estuary. The letter also wanted to ensure that specific requirements for mining are addressed (including stormwater). (Log item 9)
STAFF COMMENT: The final slope along the eastern side of the pit would include a berm to ensure that no water leaves the site. This is also part of the Department of Ecology's Sand and Gravel Permit. Therefore, the proposal would not impact the Shine Estuary. General issues related to potential impacts from the proposal are addressed in the SEPA Analysis and the Mining Performance Standards Sections of this permit.
There were approximately 26 e-mail comments (Log item 9) received expressing concerns regarding the proposal and wanting a public hearing to be held for this proposal. These comments were primarily in a form letter. Parties of record defined by the UDC does not include mechanically produced form letters. No substantive issues were raised that warranted withdrawal of the preliminary threshold determination. SEPA (WAC 197-11-535) states it is the sole discretion of the lead agency to determine whether a public hearing should be held for a project that does not require one. In addition, SEPA only requires a public hearing be held if over 50 comments are received for a project that entails the issuance of a draft EIS (WAC 197-11-535(2)(b). This project includes a DNS and there is no procedure in the UDC for the Administrator to hold a public hearing for a Type 1 proposal. Therefore, it is not feasible for this project to be subject to a public hearing.
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-Confirmed ESAs
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
The application was reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff on September 20, 2004 for the potential presence of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) under the provisions of the Unified Development Code (UDC). After an initial Geographic Information Systems mapping review and an investigative site inspection, the following ESAs were confirmed to be present on the subject property: 1) Fish & Wildlife (Heritage Great Blue Heron & Osprey), 2) Landslide Hazard I (slight), 3) Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area, and 4) stormwater.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-Site Plan Changes
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
The site plans (Log item 2) submitted with the stormwater permit (BLD 04-583) on September 14, 2004 has been reviewed for consistency under the UDC, and has been approved by Jefferson County Department of Community Development. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the stamped, approved site plan dated November 16, 2004 shall be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-Approval for _____ Only
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
This approval is for mineral extraction (segments I,J,& k) less than 10 acres in size only. Any future permits on this site are subject to review for consistency with applicable codes and ordinances and does not preclude review and conditions which may be placed on future permits.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-LOG ITEMS
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
The following log items are part of the record for this review.
1. Application 9/14/2004
2. Site Plans 9/14/2004
3 Environmental Checklist 9/14/2004
4. Stormater Drainage Report 9/14/2004
5. Reclamation Narrative 9/14/2004
6. Notice of Completeness 9/20/2004
7. Reviewer Letter 9/20/2004
8. Certificate of mailing, publication, and posting 9/21/2004
9. 29 Comment Letters
10.DOE Sand and Gravel General Permit
11.Final MDNS for Ace Paving (ZON 98-41) 6/1/1999
12.Robinson & Noble CARA Report 2/25/1999
13.Robinson & Noble CARA Report 6/3/1999
14.Noise Report on FHM Shine Hub 10/1/2002
15.Supplemental Noise Report on Wahl 2/1/2003
16.Hearing Examiner decision (ZON 98-41) 6/29/1999
17. GIS Mapping 9/14/04
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-FPA MORATORIUM
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
The FPA Moratorium on the property applies to non-forestry uses on the property. Mineral extraction on forest lands is not considered a conversion to non-forestry use per WAC 222 (Forest Practices Rules). This is evident in that the removal of trees in preparation of mining is permitted under a Class III Forest Practice Permit. Mineral extraction is a use that is consistent with forestry use as outlined in the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The Unified Development Code that is the implementing development regulations for the Comprehensive Plan, states that mining is a permitted use in areas designated Rural/Commercial Forest. The subsequent use of the areas to be mined is timber production.
|
|
|
Title:
|
| | |
F-MINING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
|
|
Wording
|
| | |
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, 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 area is 144 acres in size and is comprised of mineral extraction and processing areas. This area is designated a MRL, and is not subject to this requirement.
The proposed 10 acre mineral extraction proposal is located outside of an area designated a MRL. Mining operation located outside of MRL are limited to 10 acres of disturbed area at any one time. This is a requirement of Jefferson County's UDC, and "disturbed area" is defined by RCW 78.44.031(5) of the Surface Mining Act. The proposed includes an approximate 1 acre area (Segment I ) located along the eastern edge of the site, and a 9 acre area located south and west of the current Shine Hub area (Segments J & K). This proposal has been conditioned to have less than 10 acres of disturbed area at any one time. Under no circumstances shall the operator exceed this 10 acre requirement, unless a new application is submitted and approved by Jefferson County.
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 proposed mineral extraction area would have approximately 10 acres of disturbed area. The disturbed area would be comprised of mineral extraction area only since all of the processing and stockpiling would be occurring within the existing 144 acre Shine Hub 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 include at least 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 the DRASTIC evaluation and the Critical Aquifer Recharge Report that was conducted by Robinson and Noble, Inc. 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 regulatio
|
|