Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Surface Mining Letters, Memos 1990-1999 part 1 SEP99-0036 - PLN General - 4/12/1991
FRDM:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 2065e62756 APR 12. 1991 3:27PM P.03 PROCEEDINGS Br_rORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES In re : ) 70--012066-1 ANDERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIOY;S OF LAW Appellant ) AND INITIAL DECISION } After due notice to all interested parties , a hearing was held in this matter on January 7 , 8 , 9 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 29 , and February 4, 1991 , in Lacey, Washington . Administrative Law Judge Christine Clishe of the Office of Administrative Hearings conducted the hearing . The parties were represented as follows : APPELLANT: ANDERMAN ENTERPRISES , INC. By Gary H . Sexton, Attorney at Law 1126 Highland Avenue Bremerton, Washington 98310 AGENCY: WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES By Kay Brown Assistant Attorney General Highways-Licenses Building MS PB-71 Olympia , Washington 98504-8071 MEMORANDUM I . BACKGROUND A. Physical characteristics of the site. This matter cl*rcorns a forty Adre `site several miles north of Selfair in Mason County, Washington . The property is on a hillside west of the county road known as Old bel.fair Highway . Access to the site is along an easement road running west from the county road and along the southern edge of the property . This hillside slopes down to the east, and the present surface mining area is mid-slope. Two drainage swales , one to the north and west of the mined area , and one to the north and east of the mined area, cut through this property. The soil on the hillside is largely clay, which is reltLtively impermeable . B. Prior ownership and use of mine site property. 1 �ROM:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 2065e62756 APR 12, 1991 3:28PM P.04 Probably during the 1970s , an owner of the present mine site property logged that property , clear cutting a great majority of the area . In January, 2980 , Robert Scatena bought the property . On July 1 , 1980 , the Department of Natural Resources ( hereafter Department ) issued Surface — Mining permit No. 70-012066 to Robert Scatena , Robert Neale, ana Palma Neale . Under the permit , Service Fuel did some surface mining at the top of the hill . The site was steep , but flat on top. After Service Fuel declared bankruptcy , Mr . Scatena in late 1985 sold the property to Anderman Enterprises, Inc. (hereafter Anderman or operator ) . Jeffrey Hartman is the majority- owner of Anderman . Walter Gait operates that company. On December 1 , 1986 , the surface mining permit was transferred to Anderman . C . 0 nership of adjacent properties . Between the county road and the mine site hillside, north of Anderman ' s easement road , is 2 . 98 acres of property now owned by Allen Hoover . Prior to his purchase of this property in August, 1988 , Richard Nelson owned the property. From 1990 to 1988 , Mr . Hoover lived in the immediate vicinity of his present residence, first north of it and later directly across ( east of ) the county road from it . Anderman ' s easement road is on Mr. Hoover ' s property. South of the mine site (and adjoining Anderman ' s easement road ) is 7 . 9 acres of property which is now owned by Richard Medeiros . Mr. Medeiros ' s wife' s uncle owned this property from 1955 until Mr. Medeiros purchased it in about 1986 . East of the county road (across from the Medeiros property) 4 is the Littlefield residence . South of that residence is the Union River. D. Anderman 's agreements with property owners . Anderman has had no written agreements -€,r h owners o adjacent properties ( ex.cept its easement on the Nelson/Hoover property) regarding work it has done on those properties and any discharge of water onto those properties . Nelson/Hoover Property: When Anderman took over the site in 1986 , the east side of its property adjoining the Nelson (now Hoover ) property was a brushy swamp. Nelson 's property in that area was a swampy hole about 9 or 10 feet deep. The hole was lined with black mud and stagnant water and contained garbage. Because Anderman was going to build two water retention ponds next to this hole, Messrs . Nelson and Goit agreed that Anderman would fill in the hole to keep water from running downhill on Nelson ' s property. In 1987 , Anderman tilled in this hole and planted trees and grass as 2 �ROM:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON T0: 2065eG2756 APR 12, 1991 3:29PM P.05 a setback between the two properties . Mr . Nelsen was pleased with the arrangement . After Mr . Hoover bought the property , he required Anderman to construct a berm between the Anderman ponds and the Nelson/Hoover pond . water from other than the mine site ( probably the general drainageM- swale) now drains into this area on Mr. Hoover ' s property and drains from that pond sometimes onto Anderman ' $ property , down the easement road and eventually onto the Medeiros property . Mr . Hoover also constructed a berm along the north side of the easement road . Mr. Hoover has another pond in the area where his property meets the county road . He has complained that siltation from the mine site has damaged that pond. Medeiros roperty: There is some indication that a verbal agreement existed between Service Fuel. and Mr . Medeiros ' s wife ' s uncle , by which discharge of mine water onto the lower property was acceptable . After Mr. Medeiros acquired this property in 1985-1986, he advised Mr . Scatena that he did not like mine water or mud on his property. Mr . Scatena had Mr. Goit clean up the dirt which had sloughed onto the northwest side of Mr. Medeiros' s property . After Anderman acquired the mine in 1986 , Mr. Goit and Mr . Medeiros were friendly. in 1985, a lake about the size of a football field covered the area between Medeiros ' s house and the county road . Mr. Goit offered to build up Mr . Medeiros ' s driveway, fill in the pond in the front of his house , and clean up the area adjacent to the house . (Mr . Goit did these things in 1986 , at considerable expense . ) lir . Medeiros was going to let Anderman dig a ditch between his driveway and Anderman ' s easement road and run a culvert underneath the Medeiros driveway, with_ a V ditch extending along the front of Medeiros 's proper-tyr next to the county road . Mr . Medeiros has refused to allow most of that drainage work to be done on his property. He has complained many times to the Department and others about what he considers damage to his property from mine water runoff and silt deposits . -mu--ch of the muidincss in his pond area is from runoff from his own driveway, which now has potholes . E. The "community water problem. " Briefly, for many years a water control problem has existed in the area. The county road winds through the valley on the east side of the hilly arsine site . The residences of Messrs . Hoover and Medeiros are in that valley . The northeast corner of the Medeiros property, where it meets the intersection of the county road and the Anderman easement , is the low point in the area . That corner of Medeiros 's property has been a wetland for at least several decades, with water from several places settling there. 3 �RDM:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 2065962756 APR 12, 1991 3:29PM P.06 Probably during the 1930s , culverts were installed under the county- road, one near the northeast corner and one near the southeast corner of the Medeiros property . Water drained from that property into a ditch east of the county road and then into the Union River . Sometime between 1977 and 1982 ,— Mr . Littlefield plugged the northerly culvert to prevent water from the west coming onto his property . The southerly culvert was improperly installed or designed , and until the water on Medeiros 's property reaches a level of about four feet , water from east of the county road drains through the culvert onto Medeires ' s property. In response to complaints from property owners, particularly Mr . Medeiros , the Department met with them in September 1987 . As a favor to the neighborhood , the Department suggested a cooperative effort to build a new culvert . It agreed to donate pipe and the plan for correcting the culvert problem. Anderman agreed to donate labor and machinery . Mason County approved the plan . After Anderman labored for two days cutting the road , the County ordered it to cease the project . Mr . Medeiros had complained to the county and threatened a lawsuit because tax money was being spent on a private project. F. Anderman' s efforts to control surface water runoff . In addition to those endeavors set out above, Anderman has continuously tried to control surface water runoff from the mine area. Mr. Goit has dug additional retention ponds , installed a sprinkler system to take water from the large ponds ( Nos . 9 and 5 on Exhibit 22 ) up the hill to a foregte-d area for spraying , installed a V ditch and berm along the south side of the site, and dug a ditch to divert water into a collection pond near the office area. He has closely monitored the pumping system from his ponds . On a couple of occasions , the pumps have failed. Mr . Goit has repairsd them right away. He has revegetated areas of the property , although not to the extent the DepacLinent would prefer. When requested, Anderman has submitted operational plans which are acceptable to the Department (Exhibits 10 and 16 ) . However, systems in these plans have not been fully installed , because the operator cannot obtain easements from the neighbors . G. interactions between Anderman and the Department . Over the course of the last five years , personnel from Anderman and the Department have communicated many times about the mine drainage system and the operator ' s responsibilities . Many of the communications resulted from the Department ' s efforts to deal with complaints from adjacent property owners , particularly (and perhaps solely) Messrs . Medeiros and Hoover. The evidence of record shows 4 �Dt7.ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSDN TO: 20G5962756 APR 12, 1991 3:32PM P.07 that while there was not always a meeting of the minds between the Department and Anderman , there was a -genuine spirit of cooperation and respect between the individuals involved . Anderman has asked for and sometimes accepted advice from the Department . The Department has at tiries — suggested methods for resolving problems . However , the Department is a regulatory agency . Anderman, as the mine operator , has the responsibility of meeting the requirements of the law and rules relating to surface mining . Finally , the Department issued the Notice of Violation and Order to Rectify which underlies this matter . ZI , ISSULS The primary issue here is whether the Department ' s August 23 , 1990 , Notice of Violation and Order to Rectify Deficiency Pursuant to RCw 78 . 44 .140 should be upheld. In that Notice and order , the Department charged that Anderman ' s "reclamation and operating plan does not adequately address control of surface water run-off from the mining operation damaging property adjacent to the mine site . " Further, " [t)o date, no drainage system has been installed which corrects the problem of uncontrolled run-off of water onto property adjoining the mining operation. " We must consider whether there is evidence of record to support the Department' s charges . III . APPLICABLE LAWS AI4D RULES The Surface Mining Act, Chapter 78_ 4_4 RN1 and the rules adopted thereunder , Chapter 332--18 WAC, Surface brined Land Reclamation, control in this matter . In RCW 78 . 44 . 010, the Legislature commented on this Act , as follows: . .the extraction of minerals by surface mining is a basic and essential activity making an important contribution to the economic well-being of the state and nation . At the same time , proper reclamation of surface mined land is necessary to prevent undesirable land and water conditions that would 'be detrimental to the general welfare , health , safety, and property rights of the citizens of the state . surf ace mining takes place in diverse areas where the . . . conditions are significantly different , and reclamation specifications must vary accordingly . It is not practical to extract minerals required by our society 5 . 111 .11 , I f - 1= :31 ..)•.::71-�1 .11UM IA III IAKI Mj-J JIIA'I 1'.-• J1:111, AI IUKALI • t - =RGM=ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON T0: 2065862756 APR 12, 1991 3'30PM P.08 without disturbing the surface of the earth and producing wasto materials . . Obviously , the Legislature envisioned that a balance must be struck between the disturbance caused by surface mining and the-- well--being of others . In RCW 78 . 44 . 020 , the Legislature set forth the purpose of the Act, which is to: [ PJrovide that the usefulness , productivity, and scenic values of all lands and waters involved in surface raining within the state will receive the greatest practical degree of protection and restoration . The term " reclamation " is defined in RCW 78 . 44 . 030 ( 10 ) , as follows : . . . the reasonable protection of all surface resources subject to disruption from surface mining and rehabilitation of the surface resources affected by surface mining including the area under stockpiled materials . Although both the need for and the practicability of reclamation will control the type and degree of reclamation in any specific instance , the basic objective will be to reestablish on a continuing basis the vegetative cover , soil stability, water conditions , and safety conditions appropriate to the intended subsequent use of the area . Two criteria of a "reclamation plan, " as set forth in RCW 78 . 44 . 030 (11.) _(,,wand ( f ) , are: - Proposed practices to protect adjacent surface resources ; . . . [ and a ] method of prevention or elimination of conditions that will create a public nuisance , _ P.ndanger public safety, damage property , o,�7 be hazardous to vegetative, animal , fish , or human life in or adjacent to the area . . . These two criteria , for purposes of this matter , establish the legal requirements for an adequate surface mine drainage system. RCW 78 . 44 . 090 requires that a reclamation plan provide that reclamation activities, particularly those relating to control of erosion , shall , to the extent feasible , be conducted simultaneously with surface mining. Pursuant to the statute, as addressed in Reid v . King County , 35 Wn. App. 720, 669 P.2d 502 (1983 ) , the Department has authority to regulate the operational phase of surface mining as well as reclamation after such mining has been completed. 6 rROM:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 20659S2756 APR 12, 1991 3=31PM P.09 Part of the operational and reclamation phases concerns controlling surface water runoff . WAC 332--18--100 addresses water control, as follows : Water diversion ditches or channels shall be construed in surface mining areas to control surface water runoff , erosion , and siltation and to remove surface water runoff to a safe outlet, and shall be maintained until surface mining and reclamation have been completed . Diversion ditches or channels shall be designed to carry the peak flow having the probable recurrence frequency of once in ten years or as approved by the department. The grade of such ditches and channels shall be constructed to limit erosion and siltation to currently accepted standards . Throughout the Surface Mining Act and regulations in Chapter 332 - 18 WAC , there are references to practicability and feasibility. In addition to balancing competing interests , the statutory and regulatory scheme in this area requires assessment of practical solutions, which may not be the same as the perfect solution . J.V. POINTS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES A. Anderman is not required by law or rule to control waters discharged from the permit area during precipitation events exceeding ten year events . B. Anderman riay route off site all surface waters which have not entered disturbed permit areas , t C. Water from the disturbed areas , if discharged off site , must go to a safe outlet . V. SUMMARY OF THE POSITIONS =OF THE PARTIES Anderman Enterprises, Inc. : Anderman wants to know what it can and can ' t do . Over the years , it has received conflicting information from the Department about where it can discharge which waters from its property . Anderman believes the Medeiros property, which is the low point of the natural drainage pattern in the area, is the sensible place to - discharge- water from the nine site . However , Anderman believes such discharged water should be fairly clean so it doesn't cause damage. The sediment retention pond system operates to that end. Department of Natural_ Resources : The Department contends that its Notice and Order should be upheld. The adjoining 7 FRD�i:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 2065eG2756 APR 12, 1991 3:31Pm P. 10 properties are not a "safe outlet" for discharge of water from the disturbed area of the mine . It believes the operator ' s current system is inadequate to control surface water runoff, that the operator must submit: a plan which is acceptable to the Department and install the System --- presented in that plan . It contends that properties adjacent to the mine have been damaged. Having discussed above the testimony concerning all matters inquired into and having stated findings and conclusions , the undersigned Administrative Law Judge now makes the following summary of those facts . Portions of the preceding detailed findings pertaining to the ultimate findings are incorporated herein by this reference . FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . Anderman Enterprises , Inc . holds Surface Mining Permit No . 70-012066 , which the Department of Natural Resources transferred to it on December 1 , 1986 . Anderman agreed to comply with the plan of operation in existence from the Service Fuel operation ( Exhibits 3 and 4 ) . From 1986 until it ceased operation in December 1989 , Anderman mined gravel from the hillside on the eastern part of the site. 2 . Because the Anderman operations were substantially different from those of Service Fuel, the Department asked for a new reclamation/operating plan. In June, 1988 , Tritec Associates prepared a design for settling ponds and reclamation (Exhibit 9 ) . Later in 1988 , Anderman submitted, and the Department approved as part of its operating plan, a design for an emergency over flow drain system, pre ;vr, & by Tritec Associates (Exhibit 10 ) . This s plan included a system of ditches and new culverts . Anderman has not installed most of this system. Richard Medeiros , owner of adjacent property, would not grant an easement for the ditch . Later, Anderman submitted a Tritec plan which replaces the ditch w0.4--h a tightline .!kxhibit 16 ) . The county would not agree 4o teat feature. 3 . presently , water from the mined area runs downhill , mostly into two sediment retention ponds (ponds 4 and 5 on Exhibit 21 ) . Water from those ponds is pumped uphill to ' a forested area through a pipe . The water is dispersed into the forested area through a sprinkler system. Other water running off the mined area goes into a collection pond near the company office , and ib then pumped back into pond 4 . Some water runs into and down the V ditch along the south side of the easement road, down onto the Medeiros pond area, and eventually into the ditch leading to the Union River. 4 . Since Anderman started mining in 19861�there have been times when water from the mine site has run .onto neighbors ' 8 K� b i •:,I A I I- uI I�A_,II 1:\C;I ON : 4 -12-U I • :3:;30P%1 :ADM IN IIIiAK I NGS JI'IIA-,-+ S I Al I A 11OR\IiY GI:.\. : 11 FROM:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 2065862756 APR 12, 1991 3:32PM P. 11 property ( including January 7 , 1988 ; April 5 , 1988 ; January 26 , 1989 ; December 4 , 1989 ; and late November,_-1990 ) . One -of these instances (January 7 , 1988 ) was due to a pump failure , which was immediately corrected by Anderman . Water overflowing the retention ponds ran into the Medeiros pond . Heavy rain during-- that time also caused flooding of the Medeiros property from the Hoover pond (No. 2 ) and from south of that property . On January 8 , 1988 , the water in the Medeiros pond was clear, with no observed sediment. 5 . The Department investigated after a complaint by Mr . Medeiros on April 5, 1988 .Z William Lingley of the Department found a very minor seepage of silty water from the Anderman site under the berm on tl:e west side of the Medeiros property . Anderman corrected the problem. 6 . On January 26 , 1989 , Mr. Lingley observed silty water in Mr. Hoover' s pond , which lie believed to be from the Anderman site. 7 . On December 4 , 1989 , after very heavy rains , there was flooding through the valley, including from the mine , onto the Medeiros pond area . The Department issued a shut down order to Anderman . The mine has not operated since then . 8 . Following the Thanksgiving time storm in late November, 1990, the valley again flooded, with water which had crossed the mine site mixing with water from the north, south, and east, and running into the Medeiros pond area . One day after this major flood , water in the Medeiros pond was clear . Just a few days after this storm, ,lay Petersen, a civil engineer and consultant, _- inspec--:-d the area and found no significant sed{. ?. t in the !Medeiros pond. In his opinion, if the mine were to continue to operate as it has , no significant amount of sediment would come from the mine site onto the Medeiros property, even over twenty- five years . 9 . David Sims of the Dep�,rtment has observed the Hoover pond number 3 to be muddy most of the time . He believes that muddy water comes from the mine site . In January 1988 , he observed water from the Anderman ponds running into Hoover' s pond number 2 . 10. Mr . Sims has observed colored water in the Medeiros pond when the Anderman ponds were not full and no water was coming from the mine site. Mr. Lingley has observed suspended sediment in the Hoover and Medeiros ponds on several. occasions . 11. Allen Hoover believes his property has been damaged from mine water runoff . His ponds show cloudiness and mud. Fish in pond number 2 died from lack of oxygen, which could have been caused by duck feces in the pond . His driveway and the easement 9 ` r 0 1 •.1 A I L kit 0;11 1I I.,,u I u. . •1- 11-J I • J:31 PNI -ADPI IN IWAk I NGS JIA- E- S I: -1 I: AA fOI NF; (,I \. : ll 12 FROM:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 2065862756 APR 12, 1991 3:33PM P. 12 road are rutted . This inconveniences his family. We find that there has been no credible showing that the damages mr, hoover alleges are directly or wholly from mine water runoff. 12 . Richard Medeiros believes his property has been damaged— by mine water runoff . He believes that , since .1985, there is a larger volume of water in the area of pond number 1 , that the water is frequently brownish, and the area is wet all summer. He had wanted to build a store on the front of his property, but he doesn' t think he can do this because of the water. He testified that he had agreed to let Walter Goit fix the culvert and dig a ditch because Mr. Goit would build a new building for him. We find that testimony to be without credibility . We find there has been no credible showing that the damages Mr . Medeiros alleges are directly or wholly from mine water runoff . 13 . The natural drainage pattern of the area is to the lowest point , which is the northeast caner of the Medeiros property . The present mine system of retention ponds , berms , and a V ditch adequately controls and removes surface water runoff to a safe outlet, which is the adjoining properties . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . The Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter pursuant to Chapters 78 . 44 and 34 .05 of the Revised Code of Washington, as amended , and Chapter 332-08 of the Washington Administrative Code . 2 . The provisions of Chapter 78 . 44 RCW, the surface mining act , and Chapter 332-18 WAC, regarding surface mined land reclamation are applicabla_ to this mattF�r . 3 . A surface mine operator has the burden of developing and presenting for the Department' s approval a reclamation and operating plan for the mine. RCW 78 . 44 .030 , RC11 78 . 44 . 0801, RCW 78 . 4A . 090 . The De art*ient ' s authority to regulate the. _ operational phase of surface mining includes the authority to require a modified plan . RCW 78 . 44 . 100 . An operator ' s consultation with Department personnel does not shift that burden of developing a plan to the Department. 4 . The Legislature 's adoption of the Surface Mining Act, Chapter 78 . 44 RCW, and the rules adopted thereunder, establishes a scheme for water control. The law and rules preempt the common law doctrine of the common enemy. 5 . As presently designed and installed, Anderman 's plan for controlling surface water runoff from the mined areas removes that runoff to a safe outlet, namely the natural drainage pattern in the area , which includes the adjacent properties . The plan 10 �70N:ADMIN HEARINGS JEFFERSON TO: 2065862756 APR 12, 1991 3:33PM P. 13 adequately protects adjacent surface resources . Adjacent properties have not been damaged by any runoff . . G . Within the meaning of the law and rules , Anderman may discharge offsite and onto adjacent properties within the natural. drainage pattern that surface water which comes, from undisturbed or reclaimed areas of the site . 7 . Anderman is nod required by law or rule to control those waters discharged from the permit area during precipitation events exceeding ten year, twenty-four hour events , as shown on NOAA Atlas # 2 , precipitation frequency atlas of the Western United States , Volume 9 WA 1973 . S . Anderman is not by law and should not be required to correct the community water problem of the area . That long- standing problem has been created by nature and several property owners . Anderman expended considerable money several years ago .n what was to be a cooperative effort, only to have the project blocked by Mr . M edeiros , who had complained most vocally about water on his property ( and still does complain most ) . 9 . During the hearing , the operator several times requested that this order specify what it can and cannot do. Other than what has been set forth above, we have no jurisdiction to provide suggestions nor to approve a plan. 10 . All motions made in the course of this proceeding which are consistent with the findings , conclusions and decision herein should be granted , and those inconsistent therewith should be denied . INITIAL DECISION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That the Notice and Order of the Department of Natural. Resources, dated August 23 , 1990 , shall be set aside. DATED at Olympia , Washington , this twelfth day of April , 1990 . CHRISTINE CLISHE Administrative Law Judge Office of .Administrative Hearings 11 f Er` I CGS 52 J :. t IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OFzWASHINGTON•; IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON ANDERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. , ) Plaintiff, ) NO. 90-2-00016-1 VS. ) MEMORANDUM DECISION STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT ) OF NATURAL RESOURCES, W. MICHAEL ) GRIGGS, and JANE DOE GRIGGS, his ) wife, BEN R. CLEVELAND and JANE ) DOE CLEVELAND, his wife, ) Defendants. ) The plaintiff brings suit against defendant, Department of Natural Resources, as a result of the defendant's regulation of plaintiff's gravel mining operation on a parcel of land north of Belfair, County of Mason, State of Washington. The defendant's regulation of the Anderman mining operation is pursuant to the Surface Mining Act, chapter 78.44 RCW. Plaintiff's contend that over a period of approximately three years the defendant made numerous requests and demands that exceeded statutory authority and caused plaintiff damages. The parties submitted written closing arguments, and at the Court's request briefed the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies. RCW 78.44.170 provides: MEMORANDUM DECISION - 1 "Appeals from determinations made under this chapter shall be made under the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act and shall be considered an adjudicative proceeding within the meaning of the "Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34 . 05 RCW. " - Clearly, the defendant, Department of Natural Resources, is an agency, and actions by this agency in enforcement of the Surface Mining Act would .fit the intent of RCW 34 .05.510 which limits Superior Court judicial review of "agency action. " Agency action includes, but of course is not limited to, the implementation or enforcement of a statute, the adoption or application of an agency rule or order, the imposition of sanctions, or the granting or withholding of benefits. The testimony presented at trial establishes that the plaintiff herein was aware of the Surface Mining Act and the procedures to be followed in appealing any agency action. The plaintiff indicates not only in their briefs but in their testimony, that on occasion they took advantage of the appellate procedure abandoning their appeals when they were able to negotiate what they deemed to be appropriate settlement of issues, and finally pursuing their appeal to its conclusion on the last decision which was ultimately ruled upon by Administrative Law Judge Cliche. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies provides that in general an agency action cannot be challenged on review until all rights of administrative appeal have been exhausted. ' `) MEMORANDUM DECISION - 2 "Administrative remedies must be exhausted before the court will intervene: (1) 'when a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an agency alone' ; (2) when the 'agencies authority establishes clearly „s defined machinery for the submission, evaluation, and resolution of complaints by aggrieved parties' ; and, (3) when the 'relief sought . . . can be obtained by resort to an exclusive or adequate administrative remedy"'. South Hollywood Hills Citizens Association, at page 73, quoting State v. Tacoma-Pierce County Multiple Listing Service, 95 Wn.2d 280, 622 P.2d 1190 (1980) . In the instant case, from the original requirement of July 6, 1987 requiring a modified reclamation plan, as set out in Exhibit No. 7, until the December 17, 1989 stop work order, the plaintiff failed to note and persist in any appeals from requirements made by the Department on the operator through the administrative procedures act. It is hard to think of a case which better exemplifies the reason for the exhaustion remedies .requirement than the instant case since finally, on the appeal from the December 17th stop work order, the position taken by Anderman was essentially sustained by Judge Cliche finding that the handling of on-site water as of December, 1989, was sufficient and that further engineering was not required pursuant to the Surface Mining Act. Further testimony at trial indicates that since the decision of Judge Cliche, the Department of Natural Resources have made no requests regarding water control which were inconsistent with the MEMORANDUM DECISION - 3 decision indicating that exhaustion of administrative remedies was anything but futile. Failure to appeal agency action may result in - and does in this case result in - preclusion of judicial review of said agency action. South Hollywood Hills 'Citizen Association v. King County, 101 Wn.2d 68, 677 P. 2d 114 (1984) , and Fallon v. Leavenworth, 42 Wn.App. 766 (1985) . Not only does failure to exhaust the administrative remedy act as a bar to judicial review,- it would also act as an intervening and superseding cause of any potential damages arising as a result of what may have been found at the administrative hearing to be an improper agency action. Plaintiff, in their first cause of action, seek to have the defendant enjoined from enforcing the December 13 , 1989 shut down order. This request need not be addressed by the Court since the order of December 13, 1989 is void by agreement of the parties and thus not subject to enforcement. Addressing the claim of negligence set out by the plaintiff in their amended complaint, this does not avoid the application of the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Dils v. Labor & Industries, 51 Wn.App. 216, 752 P. 2d 1357 (1988) . The Court would also note that although the evidence does tend to indicate that the Department's actions were at times stumbling, there was no indication of bad faith and the plaintiff's second cause action is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff next contends that the defendant, Department of Natural Resources, interfered with their business expectancy. Both parties cite to Pleas v. Seattle, 112 Wn.2nd 794, 774 P.2d 1158 MEMORANDUM DECISION - 4 (1989) , which established the elements of a tortious interference as follows: 11 (1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy; (2) knowledge of an the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; (3) intentional interference inducing or ' causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; (4) result in damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted. " From these elements, it is clear that interference with a business expectancy is not a tort of negligence, but rather an intentional tort which may be reached if a defendant's actions are the result of defendant's pursuit of an improper objective of harming the plaintiff, or the use of a wrongful means that in fact -- causes injury to the plaintiff's contractual or business relationships. Although it can be said that the operations of Anderman were interfered with and at times halted by the agency actions, the testimony does not sustain a finding of improper objective or wrongful means. Anderman, throughout the case, has argued that by responding to the complaints of Mr. Medieros and Mr. Hoover, that the Department curried favor and acted with improper motive. It can certainly be said that the Department's awareness of any problems, or perceived problems, at the Anderman site were heightened by the complaints of the next door neighbors. However, inquiry into these complaints does not establish improper motive for the purpose of MEMORANDUM DECISION - 5 ,,. the interference with business expectancy claims. This is borne out by the finding of Judge Cliche when she found, " [t]he evidence of record shows that while there was not always a meeting of the minds between the department and Anderman, there was a genuine .t spirit of cooperation and respect between the individuals involved. " The next claim for relief involves the plaintiff's allegation that the actions of the defendant, Department of Natural Resources, effected a governmental taking of the property of the plaintiff. However, this claim cannot be supported since the testimony of the parties clearly establishes that the property is owned by Jeff Hartman and not by Anderman Enterprises, Inc. : The threshold questions discussed in Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wn. 2d 320, 787 P.2d 907 (1990) , have not been met. Mere regulation _v on the use of land, as stated in the above-referenced case, does not constitute a "taking" under federal or state law, and the regulation of the Anderman mining operation neither constituted a taking nor a denial of substantive due process. The Surface Mining Act can certainly be said to be a regulation which safeguards the public interest and health, safety, and the environment. Further, the regulation complained of herein did not destroy one or more of the fundamental attributes of ownership. Quoting Presbytery at page 330: "If a regulation does not infringe upon a fundamental attribute of ownership, and if it protects the public from one of the foregoing listed harms, then MEMORANDUM DECISION - 6 no unconstitutional 'taking' requiring just compensation exists. " The fourth cause of action is therefore dismissed. Plaintiff, in its final cause of action, has cited a violation of 42 U.S .C.S. , Section 1983 , and as a result of this contention claims attorney's fees under Section 1988 of Title 42 U.S.C.S. Recovery of attorney's fees, however, is predicated upon the party making the claim being the prevailing party on the claimed violation, and the plaintiff herein is not the prevailing party. Thus, their claim for attorney's fees is denied. Although not necessary to this decision, I would like to state that the evidence relied upon by the plaintiff in attempting to establish damages in this cause were highly speculative, and if the Court had reached the issue of damages, it would have been very difficult to establish a reasonable level given the conjecture projected as proof in this case. Judgment is rendered for the defendant, Department of Natural Resources. DATED this 7th day of July -1992 . �. JAMES B. SAW7/- I, Judge c/ MEMORANDUM DECISION - 7 ®® WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF _ Natural Resources JENNIi-E2 M.BELCHE:< Commissioner of Public tcnes December 6, 1993 KA!_EEENCOTTINGHAN' Suoerwso, Walt Goit, President Belfair Sand & Gravel , Inc. 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Revised Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Dear Mr. Goit: Enclosed is Revised Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 confirmina the permit transfer from Anderman Enterprises, Inc. to Belfair Sand & Gravel . Inc. authorizing continued surface mining within a portion of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. , Mason County. Please refer to the above permit number when submitting inquiries or reports. Also enclosed are additional conditions of the revised permit (EXHIBIT "A") . Compliance with all conditions of the permit, the law (RCW 78.44) and rules and regulations (WAC 332. 18) is mandatory. RCW 78.44 requires that reclamation of each segment of the permitted area shall be completed within two years of cessation of mining in that segment. We strongly recommend, however, that reclamation of each segment occur concurrent with removal of the minerals. We hereby acknowledge approval of Reclamation Bond No. 9347188 issued by American Bonding Company in the amount of 5105,000. An executed copy of the Reclamation Bond is enclosed. This Reclamation Bond is conditioned uQon compliance with RCW 78.44. A Permit Invoice and Operating/Reclamation Report '(SM-7) ""`1_'ill be mailed to the above address annually and must be completed and returned to this offico with the S650 annual fee, prior to the permit anniversary date. Sincerely, Bonnie B. Bunning Region Manager BBB/bh DEC93.27 Enclosure bc: Geology & Earth Resources #70-012066 Region Eile A10-012066 David Pierce REVSMPER.FRM Revised 8/25/93 cry rtu a r__T cr-u rnfn ocfrIn" A Ao cr • M-N anv AQ I CNI Mfl-1 AW WA 98(Y22-OW Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 EXHIBIT "A" ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT ( 1 ) This Surface Mine Reclamation Permit applies to the following property: A 40 acre portion in. part of Section 17, Township 23 North. Range l West, W. M. , Mason County, Washington. (2) Natural screens are to be maintained within the setback. No stockpiling will be allowed around the base of trees forming screens. (3) In no event shall stagnant water be allowed to collect or remain on the surface excavation area. Suitable drainage systems shall be constructed or installed to avoid such conditions if natural drainage is not " possible. (4) Reclamation activities shall , to the extent feasible, be conducted simultaneously with the surface mining and in any case shall be initiated at the earliest possible time after completion of mining. (5) Permanent field reference markings of permitted area property lines, set back, etc. , are to be installed to enable operator, permittee, and the Department of Natural Resources to monitor the progress of mining and reclamati (6) Compliance with this permit does not ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, other federal , state or local laws. (7) The reclamation plan by Tritec Associates, Inc. for Anderman Sand & Gravel , Sheet 1 , dated 6/11/88 and Sheet 2, dated 6/13/88, is approved for this permit. Backfilling has not been approved for this site; therefore, the horizontal and vertical limits illustrated on the Reclamation Plan are the limits to which the site may be mined. Any modification cr revision requires written approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Any modification or revision requires written approval from the Department of Natural Resources. 8C'"AAA D !l} 1 j(jLd yJ/" � Jz 9 13 Bonnie B. Bunning Date Region Manager South Puget Sound Region Office EXHIBITA.FRM OEC93.29 SEP- 9-93 WED 10;07 SIGESKE HARTMAN FAX NO. 7147218316 P. 02 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF -SURFACE MINE PERMIT In order to transfer surface mine permit No.''12:-O� to you from lflerMA N. r-Nrp complete the following: Subsequent land use This subsequent land use is is not a c ange rom current permit. Note: change in subsequent land use requires submittal of a completed form SM-6 (county/municipality form) . Approval of 11 landowners with possessory interest in permitted property. t �74 _ -Q3 andowne Name ( ype gnatu Date Landowner signatures required only if new land use proposed. Current Permit Holder's Statement: I hereby relinquish Aal interest in surface mine permit No.�� l- Its Nli Name (Type) Signa ur Title' Date New Permit Holder's Statement: I hereby affirm that I will abide by all obligations and conditions of the current approved reclamation and operating plan for surface mining permit No. - p as well as all requirements of RCW 78.44 and Section 332.18 WAC. The current Reclamation and Operating Plan for Anderman Sand and Gravel Company is by James D. Evans of Tritec Associates and drawn June 28, 1988. This plan with the horizontal and vertical references as drawn are the limits to which the site can be mined. Any modification or revision requires written approval from the Department of Natural Resources, -PZLPA I rZ ! pA� 4C-AVeL Name (Type) Signa ure • Title Date tgr= g 3 �_ne�. �i 4w y . 15e'r� w�- Address � Telephone Number A new reclamation plan for this permit is attached for approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Yes No � • l�s7C7t��.��a�I!=�•taz�=a=�====_=====cz_�_�_.�--=.-c��sa��---�c��=�ciia�Ct=�YG L`a'2 tb===� . For Department Use Only Date Accepted by Department 8 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF - Natural Resources v JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands March ZZ, 1994 NO11CL OF VIQLAlIQN KALEEN COTTINGHAM Supervisor CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P320-525-687 Walt Goit, President Belfair Sand and Gravel , Inc. 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Dear Mr. Goit: This letter is to notify you that you are operating a permitted surface mine operation in violation of the following Surface Mining Laws (RCW 78.44) : 1. RCW 78.44.091. Reclamation Plan. Surface mining operations have disturbed the 25-foot no-cut buffer along the east side of the mine in violation of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approved Reclamation Plan, dated June 11, 1988, and the Provisional Permit, dated February 2, 1989. Consequently, the evergreen trees and ground cover that serve as soil binding have been damaged or destroyed. 2. RCW 78.44.131 and 78.44.141(7) . Erosion and Slope Stability. Portions of the slope adjacent to the 25-foot no-cut buffer on the east side of the mine are unstable and earth movement has occurred, possibly infringing upon the 25-foot buffer. 3. RCW 78.44.141(4) (.h) . Use of non-noxious, noncombustible material for grading and backfilling. The tire terrace on the east side of the mine is no longer effective in stabilizing the slopes. The tires are becoming buried. The following steps are necessary to rectify these violations: 1. Restore and re-vegetate the buffer in accordance with the approved Reclamation Plan and Provisional Permit. Where possible, remove dirt and gravel from around existing saplings and upright saplings. In accordance with the revised Surface Mine Reclamation Permit, issued on December 6, 1993, install permanent field markers to denote property line and setback (buffer) on east side of permitted area. la. Alternatively, in accordance with the approved Reclamation Plan, a berm similar to the berm along the south boundary of the mine area may be created and must effectively be re-vegetated. SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 28329 SE 448 ST 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068 o�ZQ4 is Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer recycled pape<<� Walt Goit Page 2 March 22, .1994 2. Excavate unstable soil disturbance in the 25-foot no-cut buffer on the east side of the mine. Re-establish disturbed vegetation in that portion of the buffer impacted by the unstable soil . Stabilize adjacent mined slopes with appropriate reclamation measures such as drainage control , effective vegetation and/or other slope stability procedures. 3. Remove the tires and do not re-use for slope stabilization purposes on the mine site. Belfair Sand and Gravel , Inc. shall complete the aforementioned corrective work when first sustained dry weather permits, but not later than August 1 , 1994. I am concerned about the threat of rock and other debris that is slowly working its way downslope toward the south property line setback. It is difficult to determine if this material has in fact, entered the setback. Consequently, as noted in the December 6, 1993, revised Surface Mining Reclamation Permit, you are to install permanent field markers to denote property line and setback (buffer) along the south property line no later than June 1, 1994. Following this installation, a subsequent inspection can be made to determine if a violation has occurred and corrective action is required. You may appeal this Notice of Violation. Your appeal must be filed, in writing, within 15 days of the date of the receipt of this letter. The application must be filed at the following address: ATTN: Regulatory Programs Manager Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources 1111 Washington St. SE PO Box 47001 Olympia, WA 98504 Walt Goit Page 3 March 22, 1994 If you have questions, please contact me at our South Puget Sound Region Office at (206) 825-1631. Sincerely, Bonnie B. Bunning Region Manager Warren D. Warfield Assistant Region Manager Resource Protection and Services WDF/sc .SMAR94.30a c: Dave Pierce File 70-012066 Geology and Earth Resources �aaG ;, SENDER: • Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional servic"a I also wish to receive the- p • Complete items 3,and 4a&b. p • Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can following services (for an extra m - O return this card to you. fee): • Attach this form to the front of the mailpiec does not permit. e,or on the back if space 1. ❑ Addressee's Address o � y„ o • Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mail r' « piece bebw the article number. 2 ❑ Restricted Delivery o • lie Return Receipt will show to whom the amide was delivered and the date m Off- Consult U` postmaster for fee.� 3. Article Addr�ssed o�to: 4a. rticle Number � E 4b. Service Type o 2 ❑ Registered ❑ Insured �' /�' Certified ❑ COD c c c /,}4 �fs� ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for � �c Merchandise . 7. Date of Deliytry o o, gnature (Addressee) S. Addressee's Address(Onl if requested Y and fee is paid) c gna ure g t)m 3811, Decembe 1991 uS.G.P.O.:1as2-o7&v DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT AES CONSULTANTS 3472 NW Lowell (Oldtowne) hAl Dm MC3 P.O. Box 930 SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON 98383 DATE (206) 692-6400 FAX (206) 692-8927 TO e SUBJECT Z(q(_117 RE- z& tg J" J74 /0/) 91 3lo COONS & LOIR-q > /0�............ 6_7 zFal-71-16)1_2 0 -jr 1l Z IVQ I'lole_$7 Z 71- 2-1 �/ter d5 . ...........................------ rt" NO RE 'M El T'pC Ly " NECESSARY, , Ell ;4 40%Pre-Consumer Content 10%Post-Consumer Content ®® WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF �- Natural Resources Nomw JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner or Public Lands ndrCn 22, KAL-EEN COTTINGHAM Supervisor CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P320-525-687 Walt Goit, President Belfair Sand and Gravel , Inc. 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Dear Mr. Goit: This letter is to notify you that you are operating a permitted surface mine operation in violation of the following Surface Mining Laws (RCW 78.44) : - 1. RCW 78.44.091 . Reclamation Plan. Surface mining operations have disturbed the 25-foot no-cut buffer along the east side of the mine in violation of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approved Reclamation Plan, dated June 11, 1988, and the Provisional Permit, dated February 2, 1989. Consequently, the evergreen trees and ground cover that serve as soil binding have been damaged or destroyed. 2. RCW 78.44.131 and 78.44.141(7) . Erosion and Slope Stability. Portions of the slope adjacent to the 25-foot no-cut buffer. on the east side of the mine are unstable and earth movement has occurred, possibly infringing upon the 25-foot buffer. 3. RCW 78.44.141(4) (.h) . Use of non-noxious, noncombustible material for grading and backfilling. The tire terrace on the east side of the mine is no longer effective in stabilizing the slopes. The tires are becoming buried. The following steps are necessary to rectify these violations: 1 . Restore and re-vegetate the buffer in accordance with the approved Reclamation Plan and Provisional Permit. Where possible, remove dirt and gravel from around existing saplings and upright saplings. In - - accordance with the revised Surface Mine Reclamation Permit, issued on December 6, 1993, install permanent field markers to denote property line and setback (buffer) on east side of permitted area. Ia. Alternatively, in accordance with the approved Reclamation Plan, , a berm similar to the berm along the south boundary of the mine area may be created and must effectively be re-vegetated. o�.m III rrr.,... .r.on-.r... .......... ..,.,.- ,.., �..... .... ........,n.,... N Walt Goit Page 2 March 22, 1994 2. Excavate unstable soil disturbance in the 25-foot no-cut buffer on the east side of the mine. Re-establish disturbed vegetation in that portion of the buffer impacted by the unstable soil . Stabilize adjacent mined slopes with appropriate reclamation measures such as drainage control , effective vegetation and/or other slope stability procedures. 3. Remove the tires and do not re-use for slope stabilization purposes on the mine site. Belfair Sand and Gravel , Inc. shall complete the aforementioned corrective work when first sustained dry weather permits, but not later than .August 1, 1994. I am concerned about the threat of rock and other debris that is slowly working its way downslope toward the south property line setback. It is difficult to determine if this material has in fact, entered the setback. Consequently, as noted in the December 6, 1993, revised Surface Mining Reclamation Permit, you are to install permanent field markers to denote property line and setback (buffer) along the south property line no later, than June 1, 1994. Following this installation, a subsequent inspection-..can be , made to determine if a violation has occurred and corrective action is required. You may appeal this Notice of Violation. Your appeal must be filed, in writing, within 15 days of the date of the receipt of this letter. The application must be filed at the followin q address -"` ATTN: ,Regulatory Programs Manager Department of Natural Resources Division of Geology and Earth Resources 1111 Washington St. SE PO Box 47001 Olympia, WA 98504 - - Walt Goit Page 3 March 22, 1994 If you have questions, please contact me at our South Puget Sound Region Office at (206) 825-1631 . Sincerely, Bonnie B. Bunning Region Manager Warren D. Warfield Assistant Region Manager Resource Protection and Services 41DF/sc SMAR94.30a c: Dave Pierce File 70-012066 Geology and Earth Resources SENDER: : Complete items h and/or 2 for additional aervioea. I also wish to receive the 4 Complete items 3,and 4a&b. following services (for an extra o a • Print Your name and address on the reverse of this fomt so that we can v o return this card to you. fee): 2-1 > Attach this form to the from of the mailpiece,or on the beck if space i. ❑Addressee's Address does not permit. - o Write"Return Receipt Requested"on the mailpiece below the article number O. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery •lr1ie Return Receipt will show to wfgm the article was delivered and the date m- c delivered. Consult postmaster for fee. m 33..,Article Add r ssedito: 4a. rticle Number _ a log� E �� ¢ 4b. Service type m 0 ❑ Registered ❑ Insured co u U1r1 / G kCertified ❑ COD ifs ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise .. � 7. Date of ry 0 o= 5. Signature (Addressee) g 8. Addressee's Address IOnI/.frequested X and fee is paid) t 6. igna re 0 - 0 = PS o m 3811,Oecembe 1991 us.cIP.0-:1992307_ p DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT ® � WASHINGTON MATE DEPARTMENT OF � Natural Resources 0. �J r JENNIFER M. CHER Commissioner of P lic Lands KALEEN COTTINGHAM ` Supervisor March 22, 1994 Al Hoover NE 2491 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Belfair Sand and Gravel Operation Dear Mr. Hoover: I appreciate your patience for my response to your recent request for information on the following issues regarding Belfair Sand and Gravel (BSG) . You inquired whether BSG is in violation of the setback requirement along the east property line. The answer is yes, and BSG has been directed to perform corrective work no later than August 1 , 1994. You also asked about the definition of a setback (buffer) and the setback requirements along the east property line. A setback or buffer, used in the sense of a mining operation is utilized to lessen the impact between conflicting uses or to separate or keep apart. Per the DNR approved BSG reclamation plan dated June 28, 1988, and amended via the Provisional Permit issued February 2, 1989, a 25-foot setback along the east property line was to be reestablished (restored) along the lower end of the setback by grading and revegetation with a soil binder and evergreen trees. Where this was not possible, a berm similar to the one at the southern boundary, was to be constructed. The berm was to be seeded with grass and planted with evergreen seedlings. Last, you noted and showed me that you had the mutual property line with BSG surveyed in 1988. This survey may or may not accurately represent the true property line (licensed surveys have been known to be inaccurate) . One requirement of BSG is to establish field markers along the east property line to assist the DNR in determining the location of the setback. This is to occur by August 1, 1994 . Should the BSG survey differ from your survey, the two of you may need to utilize a third party survey to attempt to resolve the differences. SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 28329 SE 448 ST 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW,'A'A 98022-0068 © ='�1° Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer ec cseopape, �� MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES Sheiton.Wcshington 98584 ti (206)427-9670• 8e4tair:275-4d67 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONAL HEALTH WATER CUAUTY P.O.BOX 16E6 303 N. FOURTH P.O. BOX 1666 MASON COUNTY DEP,AR7Tx=T OF HEALTH SERVICES } Shelton, Washington 98584 claimant Notice and Orden V5. } } May 10, 1994 9elfair Sand and Gravel ) ' Walt Goit, cperator, President ) jeffrey Hartman, property owner ) LNE 2493 Old Belfair Highway ) Belfair, Washington 98528 ) ot'ce 90TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mason County Department of Health Services (MCDHS) has determined solid waste handling practices on the described property to be in violation of County and State solid waste handling regulatory codes. The activities violate Mason County Solid Waste Handling and Facilities Ordinance--Article IX, Section 3 .03, and WAC 173-304 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, section -300 Waste Recycling Facility Standards, as adopted by Article IBC. The Health Department has denied the Belfair Sand and Gravel application for permitting woodwaste recycling activities, and as a result, is ordering the removal of all woodwaste stockpiles to a facility permitted for woodwaste landfilling or recycling. For a five year probationary period, no Mason County solid waste handling permits will be issued to Belfair Sand and Gravel or an operation affiliated with Walt zoit. indin= I. In response to complaints filed with the MCDHS on January 26, 1994, a Health Department investigation was conducted. The comnlaina.nts informed Mike Tokos of the MCDHS that a truckload of woodwaste had come into the Belfair Sand and Gravel Pit and deposited the wastes on the second level near the recycling operation. When Mike Tokos questioned Walt Goit, site operator, later that day, Mr. Goit said that there may have been some sticks sticking out of the dirt, but that the load of materials was dirt, not woodwaste. The January 26 investigation was conducted by phone; the Health Department did not conduct a site inspection at that time. The Page i of 5 complainants later provided photographs to support their testimony, and, due to the on-going violations and the ramifications of another violation, the MCDHS asked the Mason county Sheriff' s Department to conduct a criminal investigation. The Sheriff' s department and the Health Department cooperated in taking testimony from the complainants and Belfair Sand and Gravel personnel . 2 . Testimony from both parties agreed that a truck of woodwaste had come into the site and left with the load of woodwaste. The complainants say that during one of the return visits, the truck dumped a load of woodwaste. Dated photographs show a truck with woodwaste entering and leaving the site, then, the same truck and woodwaste entering the site, travel ad e to Th second level, turning around, and dumping the gravel nit personnel testified that the load that the truck dumped was 95;; dirt. The complainants testified that the woodwaste had been pushed over into the main woodwaste storage pile on the January 26 reported dumping date. Mr. Goit stated that the materials have remained where they were dumped. 3 . Since March of 1992 a full-time solid waste enforcement officer has been on staff with the MCDHS . From March 1992 to the present, the MCDHS has received numerous complaints regarding solid waste handling practices and gravel mining permit violations at the Belfair Sand and Gravel pit (SSG) . Most complaints were investigated, and revealed either no evidence of violations; evidence, but not positive evidence of violations; documented violations with verbal or written warnings; or documented violations with written penalty assessments. The following is a chronology of documented correspondences, orders , and violations at BSG: June 3, 1992 . Notice of perm-it application delinquency. (Goit responds that he submitted the application. ) ,June 13, 1992. Notice to BSG that application not found at MCDHS . Nov 19, 1992- Down-gradient well testing order by MCDHS. Dec 16, 1992 . Notice that no responses have been received from any MCDHS correspond mailed to BSG, and that November 19 order deadlines were delinquent. Jan 15, 1993 . Letter that enforcement proceedings would begin if: no response to MCDHS orders within 10 days. Jan 26, 1993 . MCDHS contacted by RZA Agra hydrological company, enforcement actions placed on hold_ Naar 5, 1993 . Notice of illegal handling and disposal of non- woodwaste solid wastes on-site. Page 2 of 5 Mar 15, 1993 . Civil penalty issued fcr solid waste violation, also stated that other violations were suspected. June 9, 1993 . Civil penalty issued for June 4 demolition deposition; referenced a June 3 documentation of demolition deposition and a warning not to bring demolition onto the site. June 111 1393. Owner, Jeffrey Hartman, submits authorization for BSG to overate woodwaste recycling facility on his property. June 11, 1993 . Petition received from 70 citizen expressing objections to the granting of any permit to SSG due to possibility of contamination to the Union River. June 12, 1993. Name change on permit application, from Ander_nan to Belfair Sand and Gravel . July 9, 1993 . Civil penalty issued for the processing of demolition materials on-site. Also documented violations of woodwaste denos'_tion and tires being unloaded on-Site. July 9, 1993 . Final Notice and Orders for Solid Waste Handling Issues mailed to SSG stating guidelines for all solid waste handling and warning that another violation would result in the denial of permits, stop-work on any solid waste activities in the pit, and possibly the ordered removal of all, woodwaste from the site. Jan 26, 1994. Testimony received stating that woodwaste was deposited at Selfair Sand and Gravel on this date. Photograph later submitted to support testimony. Feb 7, 1994. Permitting activities placed on hold pending solid waste handling criminal investigation between MCDHS and the Mason County Sheriff's office. Detemination Based on consideration of these findings, it is the determination _ of the Mason County Director of Health Services that on January 26, 1994, woodwaste was deposited at the Bel fair- Sand and Gravel pit in violation of State and County solid waste handling regulatory codes. Additionally, as a result of this violation, and the established history of non-compliance with Health Department orders Page 3 of 5 and directives, the Health Director has determined that no Mason County solid waste handling permits shall be issued to Belfair Sand and Gravel or an operation affiliated with Walt Gait, for a probationary period of five years from the date of this notice. After three years, a review of Belfair Sand and Gravel and/or Walt Gait' s business practices may be conducted to determine the acceptability of reducing the five year probation to three years. Order YOU A..RE HEREBY ORDERED to cease solid waste handling activities in the following manner: 1. Effective immediately, cease all handling of solid wastes which require Health Department permits or approvals. 2 . By September 15, 1994, have all en,-site woodwaste stockpiles, above and below the ground, removed to a facility permitted to landfill or recycle woodwaste. 3 . By June 15, 1994, submit to the MCDHS for approval a plan for compliance with woodwaste removal orders, including the method to be use for documenting volumes removed. ` 4 . By July 15, 1994, arrange a progress inspection to confirm progress with woodwaste removal orders . 5 . By August 15, 1994, arrange a progress inspection to ccnfi--= progress with woodwaste removal orders . PenWties If these actions are tot taken as prescribed in this notice and order, civil and criminal enforcement remedies as authorized by Article IX will be pursued at the direction of the Mason County Director of Health Services and the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney. Article IX, Section Eight: Criminal Penalties, states: "Any person who commits a violation of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject -to a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) and not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1000) . Each provision of this ordinance violated shall be considered a distinct Page 4 of 5 and separate offense. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt an offender from any other suit, prosecution, or penalty provided by law. It shall be the duty of the Mason County Sheriff' s Department to enforce criminal violations of the ordinance. " Article IX, Section 10.03. Civil Penalties, states : "in addition to or as an alternative to any other judicial or administrative remedy provided herein, or by law, any person who violates this ordinance or by each act of commission or omission procures, aids or abets such violation, may be given a civil penalty in an amount of one hundred dollars ($100) for each day of continuous violation to be directly assessed by the Health Director until such violation is . corrected. The per diem penalty shall double for the second separate violation and triple for the third and subsequent separate violation of the same ordinance within any five (5) year period. " Abatement If anv ordered work is not commenced or completed within the time specified, the Health Director may order the person in violation to abate the violations, or may proceed to abate the violation and cause the work to be done and charge the costs thereof as a joint and separate personal obligation of any person in violation. Appeal Any person aggrieved by the order of the Health Director may request in writing within 10 (ten) days of the service of the notice and order an appeal hearing before the Mason County Board of Health. The request shall cite the notice and order appealed and shall contain a brief statement of the reasons for seeking the appeal hearing. A pending appeal will not exclude you from the :ad quirem utlined in this notice and order. r Mike Tokos Director of Health Services Environmental Health cc: Jeffrey Hartman, 567 San Nicolas, Newport Beach, CA Washington Dept. , S.W. Regional, Solid Waste Services Mason County Sheriff Mason County Prosecutor Page 5 of 5 SEXTON � BARTHOLOMEW CO�P'� FOR YQIiR 112E HIGHLAND AVENUE $REMERTON,WA 98310 ATTORNEYS AT LAW INFORMATION (20E)377-4515 (2DE)479-580E A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATIONS FAX(2W)479-0427 •ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN CAUFORNIA AND TEXAS GARY H.SEXTON CONSTANCE O'BRIEN BARTHOLOMEW` BRETT M.WIEBURG May 16, 1994 Mason County Department of Health Services P.O. Box 1666 Shelton, WA 98584 ATTN: Brad Banner Mason County Health Director Mike Tokas Environmental Health Mason County Board of Health Belfair Sand and Gravel, Jeff Hartman and Walt Goit hereby give notice of appeal from that Mason County Department of Health Services' letter entitled "Woodwaste Recycling Permit Denial" dated May 10, 1994. The Appellants appeal on the basis that the order is not supported by fact or law. Appellants request a hearing before the Mason County Board of Health. It is requested that all further correspondence to appellants be addressed to the undersigned, attorney in fact for appellants. Respectfully, GARY H. X ON Attorney in fact for appellants GHS/cw k � � a.. a,�. ,a, .. .. k�.aur °a... ?h,:: *. t�� tj✓ Y MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670• Belfalr:275-4467 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONAL HEALTH WATER QUALITY P.O. BOX 1666 303 N. FOURTH P.O. BOX 1666 October 28, 1994 Jeffrey Hartman 567 San Nicolas, Suite 308 Newport Beach, California 92660 RE: Response to Information Request Dear Jeffrey Hartman: The Mason County Department of Health Services (MCDHS) is supplying the following information in response to your FAX request. Specifically, you have requested "the law and regulations concerning contaminated water, the information you are relying upon to deny the Collection of Water in our newly installed tank rather than pit in the ground lined by plastic, the purpose of which is the further protection adjoining properties. " In case there is any confusion, the MCDHS is not denying the collection of water in the proposed underground storage tank (UST) . It is our understanding that the Mason County Building Department and the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) both require permits prior to the installation and use of USTs. These permits can take from 4-6 weeks to process through the County Building Department. Additionally, depending on the tank size, a SEPA Environmental Checklist may be required. Initial information indicated the tank dimensions were approximately 10 x 10 x 30 feet; this tank size of greater than 10, 000 gallons would trigger a Mason County Planning Department SEPA review. Subsequent information has the tank size at 10 feet high and 25 feet long; this would equal approximately 9 , 399 gallons, exempting the project from the Planning Department's SEPA review requirement for the tank itself. The Health Department's interest in the project stems from the woodwaste leachate accumulations which have previously collected in the area where tank placement is proposed. The MCDHS's legal Page 1 of 3 NP `u, 2 ..� I�, k' r�• i� n5� .j VJt �..�,d<, I V'� involvement in a project such as this can come from a Health Department review, of a Planning Department SEPA, for possible public or environmental health threats; from our review of all Building Department projects on properties with existing septic systems; or from our authority to regulate woodwaste recycling operations where ground water or surface water, air, and/or land contamination has occurred or will likely occur under current conditions of storage or in case of fire, or flood (reference WAC 173-304-300 as adopted by Mason County Board of Health Solid Waste Handling and Facilities Regulation) . During previous regulatory activities conducted by the MCDHS for woodwaste recycling at Belfair Sand and Gravel, the Health Department had worked toward reducing existing and probable woodwaste leachate impacts to surface waters, ground waters, and soils. At this time, and with the denial of the permit and ordered removal of the woodwaste, it is not known to what extent on-site woodwaste leachate problems have been controlled. Given previous information, it is reasonable to predict that water accumulating in the proposed tank placement area may still be contaminated with woodwaste leachate. Given this information, the Health Department, in its review of the Building Department permit and its authority over woodwaste projects and their possible impacts, would request that prior to the release of any liquids from the tank, a determination be made by the Health Department whether woodwaste leachate has been controlled from accumulating in the tank area. This determination could be accomplished visually, or soil and/or water testing may be required. Should the water accumulating in the tank be degraded by woodwaste leachate, a method of treatment would be determined with consideration to the degree of contamination. On-site treatment may be appropriate, or off-site disposal could be necessary. The Health Department has certain regulatory authority over solid wastes and waste contamination as established in WAC 173-304; however, the WDOE is the primary authority over surface water quality and waste water discharge standards (see last four references below) . Any determination regarding the extent of contamination and the State standards used to establish the same, along with approval of treatment methods would come through the WDOE. Please reference the following documents for regulatory authority and requirements regarding solid waste handling and water quality issues: RCW 70. 95 Solid Waste Management--Reduction and Recycling WAC 173-304 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid for Solid Waste Handling (Adopted and enforced by MCDHS) Mason County Board of Health Solid Waste Handling and Facilities Regulation (Enforced by MCDHS) Page 2 of 3 a ), .. VF. ' <l .�. .., aLl, a,. ... ... ..<S ., ..:a'->t u RCW 90.48 Water Pollution Control WAC 173-201A Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington WAC 173-216 State Waste Discharge Permit Program WAC 173-220 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program Again, the issues involved with the tank placement and use are regulated by the Mason County Building Department and the WDOE through permits, by the MCDHS for woodwaste leachate concerns, and by the WDOE for water quality and surface water control issues. The MCDHS would like to conduct a site inspection, in collaboration with the WDOE, during the week of October 31 to determine whether woodwaste leachate is currently a concern, in general, and with regard to the tank installation and use; along with a consideration of surface water quality and runoff control issues by the WDOE. Please contact Mike Tokos of the MCDHS, 427-9670 extension 279, with any questions or correspondence regarding this issue. Sincerely, Mike Tokos Environmental Health Page 3 of 3 6 v. } r '7 I S. x r- a o� °� ,., .. .. +'t> ><....,,.. .., ..... MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 • Belfair:275-4467 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONAL HEALTH WATER QUALITY P.O. BOX 1666 303 N. FOURTH P.O. BOX 1666 November 14 , 1994 Belfair Sand and Gravel (BSG) Walt Goit/Jeffrey Hartman NE 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Proposed Surface Water Collection Tank/Woodwaste Leachate Dear BSG, Walt Goit, and Jeffrey Hartman: The Mason County Department of Health Services (MCDHS) has completed its review of the Mason County Building Department application for a proposed underground surface water collection tank at BSG. The Health Department's involvement has been due to the location of the tank near the on-site woodwaste accumulations which are producing woodwaste leachate in surface water runoff from the woodwaste pile. The MCDHS has determined that current woodwaste leachate concentrations will not be at levels which are predicted to cause water quality concerns within the on-site surface water control system. Currently, there remains a significant amount of woodwaste on-site; however, observations during wet periods in late October and early November suggest that leachate from the pile should not be at concentrations which would cause significant degradation to the water in the on-site surface water retention system. The current water quality impacts found within the woodwaste leachate, such as lowered Ph, should be effectively diluted following introduction within the surface water recirculation ponds. Additionally, the use of the tank should help control on-site surface water drainage by collecting and then pumping water into the lower collection pond, controlling the potential for off-site travel to neighboring properties and/or the union River. BSG will need to obtain any required approvals/permits from other jurisdictional agencies regulating underground tank utilization, such as the following Washington State Department of Page 1 of 2 { �� ,. p� r,.gun.0 ?s. Ecology divisions: Underground Storage Tanks, Water Quality-- Surface Mining, and Water Quality--Waste/Pollutant Discharge. Should the MCDHS or another agency document that the tank is receiving significant amounts of woodwaste leachate or other contaminants, the tank use could be classified as collection and discharge of pollutants. Currently, BSG is appealing Health Department orders requiring the removal of woodwaste from the site due to on-going solid waste regulatory violations. BSG will need to continue to address woodwaste leachate concerns by continuing measures to abate leachate production, such as restricting woodwaste acceptance and removing current accumulations. The Health Department would like to recommend that SSG contract independent testing of the woodwaste, leachate from the woodwaste, and water from the collection tank to identify the characteristics of the woodwaste and its leachate. This information would be valuable for both the Belfair Sand and Gravel proponents and opponents in answering questions regarding the possibility of contaminants within the woodwaste and the potential for off-site impacts to neighboring properties, wells, and the Union River. Please contact Mike Tokos of the MCDHS, 427-9670 extension 279, with any questions or correspondence regarding this determination. Mike Tokos Environmental Health cc: Mason County Building Department Mason County Planning Department Washington Department of Ecology, Scott Morrison Page 2 of 2 November 28, 1994 �FNLPA L SERVICES Richard Medeiros NE2481 Old Belfair Hwy Belfair, Wa. 98528 Mason County Building Department P.O.Box 186 Shelton, Wa. 98584 Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel Dear Tami: I am writing this letter to once again complain about the living conditions at the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site. I have been observing a man or an employee of the mine site having a fire in the wood burning stove at the mobile home located at the mid-level of the mine site, behind the screen and wash plant for the last month or SO. As I have complaint in the past that no permits were issued to the structures at the site. This trailer has been on the mine site since 1986, and I feel could be a danger to the person that occupies this trailer as living quarters. I feel an inspection of the mobile home type trailer be inspected for a permit, approved wood burning stove installation, and clearances, and because it is an old trailer the wiring may not be adequate and be a fire danger. And most of all toilet facilities. To my knowledge toilet facilities are not available at the mid-level of the mine site. This violation, if it exists, would be a repeat offence, and should be dealt with severe penalties, in order to insure the safety and health of the people that work and live at the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site operation. chard Medeiros cc: Mason County Dept. of Health Services Randy Loun 7i1YN `•' �. Ti ., � ,.. ,..}�. ps si s�:, ti � S � '� .. •'y�a 4x, ��S f�_ � .. ~ z z. r a.,�� ' s. Y h .,yt.;,�.. �,;yk-. , ..�+1;:��F'�••�R^..:�ed�+,�•.^-i����l��,'S�C•`k~'•"' '�#,t�.•»�•^`l.,,E•fi'Cr.: -, ••t .-i .-l•—_,ie.,,_ ;.rr .. Hegel Engineering CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING • CONSULTING �- (206)8760500 835 KEGEL LANE S.E. • PORT ORCHARD,WA 98366 November 13, 1995 Randy Laun 509 4th St. -Suite 6 Bremerton, WA 98337 NOV 14 1995 re: Alderman/Service Fuel Gravel Pitt Al Hoover LOUN & Old Belfair Highway-Mason County Z'YN�R Dear Mr. Laun As per your request, I am furnishing you my observations,as to the above noted project. I was employed by Service Fuel Co., Inc.,from March 1982 to March 1985,as the Asphalt Department Superintendent/Engineer. As you are aware,Service Fuel Co.operated a gravel mining crushing plant and an asphalt plant,on'the subject property,from 1982 to 1986. During this time period, all mining and grading operations were confined to the area of the property which lies West,and Northwest of the then existing access road. All areas to the East of the road and adjacent to Mr.'Hooveil property were left as a natural arms'Uis area VM what %ve called a"Beaver Swamp"and consisted ofaimonal ponding area with 166 0f dead trees and brush. The entry/access.road wMS ,0' uilt-up",,Tong the South edge ofthiisid6t and a culvert pipe was set slightly higher than thtjiormal water level of the pond. This Allowed for extra storage of storm water runoff. !l e�ftthen flowed Cast to the Highway Atimage system. In late 1985, 1 was contracted to survey Mr.Byerly's West property line(East line of old Service Fuel Pit). During this survey. I ob_e ed that nothing had changed along this boundary line, from the time that I left Service Fuel i.e.the area was undisturbed and in natural vegetation. In 1988, I was contracted to survey Mr.Hoovees West property line(East line of old • Service Fuel Pit). During this survey I observed many changes along this line. The former pond and natural area had been cleared and excavated. Erosion vas occurring, which caused earth to cross over the boundary- line in scversl spots. Also, storai water runoff was collecting in a low area East of the line, in amounts much greater than normal. This was evidenced by water rings on the existing fir trees. In 1995, 1 was again contracted to re-verify the 1988 survey line for Mr. Hoover. During this survey, I observed additional encroachments of earth berm construction and erosion sediment across the boundary tine. The low area, previously observed in 1988,contained many dead trees and evidence of higher water rings on the vegetation. A map of our 1995-re-survey shows the encroachment areas. This map was previously furnished to you. This has been a brief overview of my past experience with the subject site. -If you have any questions or need further information,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ' . a, mot. - ,__ ,+� ..�,� .1j� ��, r► * '4�-tL". r'it, Ja• yaf.C7t..7ttiu ..ti, i'�'--r°�+ v ,-, . _��• • 4+!Y .. . ! ..� y •1 �r1ti_?[ ,�w t r'4� �#i.c ,�+-._ti.*� •I'� �4�i.1y K��t w J j f .. �.sd�;�1f ��a'4-�•_ly•�..e z 4, �� C..'.� � .:ly a�.Z .��, :a. wf Y~tv�.:..�.r. ,,,,. ` . _ .- _ ....... _ _ -,.AM�c��'�he�p��.V''6Ni•�7�.�M�,��^./'•Aa�'�i !�:.�5'734 a7;t^K`%��..:m1'r�5•�-t�-'�Ls�� �-.e' -f,=i-!•t..t�_•_ .. so �.�. ''� _ . . .. f^• xY+..it iw` At� .et�ai� ♦. -'� .:1;�,.'..�,,.: .. .,. !.-'tl +. - •{�` ��: Kegel Enginee13rig CIVIL ENGINEERING• LAND SURVEYING • CONSULTING x- (206)8764)500 835 KEGEL LANE S.E. • PORT ORCHARD,WA 98366 November 13, 1995 Randy Laun 5094thSt. -Suite 6 RECrr�r�� Bremerton, WA 98337 NOV 14 1995 re: Alderman/Service Fuel Gravel Pitt AI Hoover Old Belfair Highway-Mason County LOUN & TYNE Dear Mr. Laun As per your request, I am furnishing you my observations,as to the above noted project. I was employed by Service Fuel Co., Inc.,from March 1982 to March 1985,as the Asphalt Department Superintendent/Engineer. As you are aware, Service Fuel Co. operated a gravel mining crushing plant and an asphalt plant,on the subject property,from 1982 to 1986. During this time period, all mining and grading operations were confined to the area of the property which lies West,and Northwest of the then existing access road. All areas to the East of the road and adjacent to Mr. Hoovers.property were left as a natural area.-This area was what we called a "Beaver Swamp"and consisted of seasonal ponding area with lots of dead trees and brush. The entry/access road was;"Puilt-up"along the South edge of this am and a culvert pipe was set slightly higher than"the normal water level of the pond. This allowed for extra storage of storm water "runoff: The tvn'b�f'then flowed East to the Highway drainage system. R 1n late 1985, I was contracted to surveyMr.Byerly's West property line(East line of old Service Fuel Pit). During this survey, I observed that.nothing had changed along this boundary line, from the time that I left Service Fuel Co.,a.t.the area was undisturbed and in tiatural vegetation. In 1988, 1 was contracted to survey Mr.Hoover's West property line (East line of old • Service Fuel Pit). During this survey I observed many changes along this line. The former pond and natural area had been cleared and excavated. Erosion was occurring, which caused earth to cross over the bounday line in severzi suns. -Also, storm water runof`xvas collccting in a low area East of the line, in amounts much greater than normal. This was evidenced by water rings on the existing fir trees. In 1995, 1 was again contracted to re-verify the 1988 survey line for Mr. Hoover. During this survey, I observed additional encroachments of earth berm construction and erosion sediment across the boundary line. The low area.previously observed in 1988, contained many dead trees and evidence of higher water rings on the vegetation. A map of our 1995-re-survey shows the encroachment areas. This map was previously furnished to you. This has been a brief overview of my past experience with the subject site. -If you have any questions or need further information,please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, , x„< .gas LW:tra •r;,iti •. •.i - a ,�.. - vA+°,5.7ti+E W "t. Y �'�'-F .'+y r a��4{{P.t�.{� �,a� �"i'r�ti. yv�*., . . . - - ,����..K�1 .; .1 ���"- }f�-�•a•' r'S 1i i. � ���!"7`S��k:y��T '(�y���p."�rt . ••' .. y0.r'•v<+..���,��,}.i�y- .-w:+• ^ .f^-,-•fv-.t �F�f.Etx'C'�"'\;�.J�cit 4L.�Gr•�if^^:. r _. hf «..i.er•►�J+i'-'. — ,y,�.">A: 'F t';1"-N'A�' • T.^"-�`�� .r = ./. .,�`9'r^�+ts'�`•t'c>�a`�.r �cer�' •.�.K•� ar*!..Px��-'t'•7+�'e a #. t`,�rS�.�,�x.z-4t+c NW PROP.COR. x EXHI B I T A X { ENCROACHMENTS & FEA T UPES { ALONG WEST PROPERTY LINE l HOOVER PROPER T Y SEC. 16, T. 23 N. , P. 1 W. , W. M. MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON SEE R. 0. S. VOL . 14, PG. 10 X (� _N_ x { x ' ' SCALE i"=30 ' x , 0 30 60 1, X 1 1 - X r IORIGINAL REBAR/CAP MARKING PROP.LINE 'NOT FOUND" APPEARS TO BE BURIE9 BY GRAVEL FILL x r 1 "BELFAIR "HOOVER" SANO & GRAVEL" 1 t r { 0 { I j I I 1CXq t OA06 f ' C � Ef 1 ' EXPIRES 2/12/ LEGEND j - NEST PROPERTY LINE 'HOOVER' -X EXISTING FENCE LINES �✓EXISTING LINE OF 4' HOODEN LATNE BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL HE.4JNG S BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON 3 , BELLFAIR SAND & GRAVEL,and JEFFREY HARTIKAN, 1 j 5 Appellants. ) PCHB No. 94-274 i ) 6 ! `' 1 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7 I MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT ) AND ORDER 8 OF HEALTH SERVICES, ) 1 ) 9 ! Respondent. ) I � 0ii� z I The Pollution Control Hearings Board("Board')heard this matter on May 19, 1995, in he Board's Hearing Roorr, in Lacey, 'Washington. The Board was comprised of Robert V. Jensen- presiding; Richard C. Kelley and James A. Tupper,Jr. I Appeilants. Belf'air Sand& Gravel and Jeffrey Harm=were represented by attorney, i i Gary H. Sexton. Respondent. Mason County Department of Health Services, was rapreseuted by Chief Deputy Prosecutor. Michael E. Clift. The coon reporter was Bevy Kobarski affiliated S with Gene Barker& Associates_ Inc. ofOlytnpia The Board heard sworn testin;ony and closing arguments,and reviewed exhibits. Based I thereon. the Board enters these; R I I i i FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCHB 94.274 1 FINDINGS OF FACT I 3 Anderman Enterprises_Inc..owned primarflY Y Jeffrey ffreY Ham,in 1985 purchased a 4{} acre site surface mining site. north of Belfair in Mason County to produce sand and gravel for 5 1 sale. The prior owner declared bankruptcy before sel 'Lng the property.perty. originally,the company 6 was named Anderman Sand&Gravel. In 1993 or 1994. the name was ch anged to Belfair Sand 1 a &Gravel("BS&&" . i 31 II The gravel operation lies on a large hillside on the side of a valley. The hillside slopes to 3 ' the east. The surface minis area lies mid-slope. The soil on the hillside is g �' largely clay,which is relatively impermeable. III ' Access to the property ! p petty is from as easement road which runs west from the county mad and along the southern edge of the property. The easement road crosses the ro p ptrty of Allen Hoover.which lies between the county road and the mine site. Mr. Hoover's parcel emompasses 2.98 acres. South of the mine site,adjacent to the easement road,lies 7.9 acres of land belonging 3 to`Richard Madciros. it lv ' The Union River lies approximately 3340 feet from the site, in the valley. It ultimately receives runoff from the site. V BS &G has continuously tried to control surface runoff from the mine area_ Mr.Gait. I the operator.has dug additional retention ponds and installed a sprinkler system to take water from the large ponds up the hill to a forested area for spraying. This system has generally i t { FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER contained the runoff from the site. ,approximately one to nvo times Per year runot'f spills from A the site. This occurs when there is more than a I0-wear storm event. 3 1 VI 4 i The operation involves stripping the sand from the gravel. BS&G decided to 5 `f experiment with mixing the excess sand that resulted from the operation with wood waste, to sk create topsoil. Beginning in 1991.they received wood waste from a log yard near Tacoma. The 7 log yard had a pile of 30.000 cubic yards of wood waste. BS&G received between 9,€300 and g , 11.000 cubic Yards of this material between then and July 1993, when the Mason County 9 � Q Department of Health Senzces ("Counn,Health")re;ues;ed that BS& G stop receiving the ' I wood waste. About 2.000 to 10W cubic yards was received in 1991. the majority of the wood 1 waste was received in 1992. The wood waste has been deposited in a pile located about halfway up the hillside of the mining area_ It is essential for BS&G to keep a stockpile available for �- processing, but the wood waste is not essential to the sand and gravel operation_ t � VIl 3 Beginning in April 1992. County Health made contact with BS & G. for the purpose of i ; I bringing the operation into compliance with the laws and regulations governing solid waste handung. On Aprils 13, 1992,County Health wrote to Mr. Goit requesting a first draft of an 1 application for a solid waste handling permit. ' i f VIII i alike Tokos assumed the role of Environmental Health Specialist with County Health, in i April 1992. He made his first site visit during that month. On May 1 he wrote Ar. Goit. stating that County Health would allow 13S&G to continue receiving wood ivastc. so long as the f company was pursuinv_ timely completion of the wood .waste handlinu perm-, application. The ,4... FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCHB 94-274 11 1' 1 letter noted that the deadiine.for filing the applicadon-was-May 15. By the early summer or fall. n County Health had received the application from BS&G. 3 i l!C 4 The State Environmental Policy Act("SEPA")Checklist, which was submitted on July 1 5 did not contain sufficient information for County Health to render a threshold decision under that 6 am iherefnre Caen . Health.-onslovember. L9,wrote Mr_Goit requesting more information about the potential for leachatc and surface water run-off forth the site to impact surface or 8 ' ground waters in_; a *=► Caunry Health,udtiisedM& G that the company would be 9 responsible for having the proper tests carried out during the wet,winter months of 1992-93 10 ! (:November-February). Coun Health-allowed-EM&G to continue receiving wood waste during 11 this testing period_provided that BS&G would submit the tang plan by December 11. 12 i k 14 County Health had not received any response to its November 19 letter.by December 16. 15 Urlthatdate_.C©ants' Health-emend the-drnrilinr for the response until December ZH_ On 16 January 15. 1993. County Health wrote 8S& G that the latter had 10 days to submit a plan for i li ( testing of all wells below and within 1,000 feet of the vxmA waste pile. The testing was to be 18 1 done by an independent contractor. The letter advised that failure to meet the deadline would 20 result in the issuance of an immediate stop work order.and the.imposition of civil or criminal i =1 penalties. . 24 5 ' FINAL MTDINGS OF FACT. •, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCHB 94-274 4 n On January 26_ County Health received confirmation that RZA Agra. Inc.("RZA") would 3 test the wells. lair. Goit refused to run surface water tests_ [ nable to obtain sutiace water 4 � 5 testing, County Health resorted to testing of the Union River and its sediments. County Health g } agreed to postpone issuing a stoppage order of the wood waste !candling,pending results of the + tests. 3 ! XII RZ2k's tests. which were done on March 12. reviled no significant leachate l ' contamination of the three wells below the site. The sediment tests likewise were inconsequential. in terms of leachate detection. XHI On June 3. 1993.County Health issued a mitigated determination of nonsignificance. ! under SEPA. in regard to BS &G's wood waste rec}cling operation. A public hearing was held i and concerns expressed by the public about the operation. XIV Mr. Tokos, on June 7 and 9,respectively wrote conditions that County Health wanted BS f & G to meet before issuing a solid iv=e handling permit. The June 9 version specifies that it"is a partial list of woodw ante recy cline permit conditions discussed between Walt Goit and Mike Tokos dunng a June 1993 meeting. FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF i.AW AND ORDER PCHB 94-274 5 f . 1 XV n :also on June 9.Count, Health issued a Notice of Violation to BS& G. On June 3.fir. 3 Tokos had observed.while on site.the deposition of several loads of demolition materials on the 4 i site. Mr. Tokos reminded Mr.Goit that demolition materials could not be mixed with woad 3 waste for recycling,or be brought on the site. ' X" I 3 � 4 On July 9, 1993.County Health ordered BS&.G to stop accepting wood waste on the site until there was documentation that the total quantity of wood waste was substantially reduced. With the exception of receiving some small tree limbs on Jantrny 26. 1994, as a part of a"clean- { up"Load from a contractor,BS &G has not received any wood waste since the July 9 order. XN'H Mr. Goit. on January 18. 1994. wrote County Health stating that the total quantity of wood waste on the site was 7.000 cubic yards:that BS&G accepted approximately 1,500 cubic yards of wood waste in 1993; and that the company exported in the same year. 3,250 cubic yards of recycled wood waste. BS & G estimated that it would recycle 100%of thew waste i received each year from 1994-1996. The letter further stated that the wood waste pile is surrounded by a ditch, and that BS&G has placed a 10.000 gallon underground tank at the fbottom of the pile. from which it periodically pumps leachate into the pond system. i �.- FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCRB 94-274 6 f 1 I '4"L7II 2 .3 + Cou m Health-sW1 c'es On its observations-o observations-or po:tdiag hlacit water below the I wood waste pile: of surface water going through the pile and travelingoff site; and the fact that 4 . 5 there arc still large quaritities of Zvi_waste pig er the site:that there is the likelihood ttm 6 [each=v'411 cmitammate-tire gromi(I andt surface waters of-the area. f v ix i . 8 County Health_on lriav 10. i994. deniedBS&G*s application for a solid waste handling pern3it for its wmod wasmrecychzrg operation. The denial was fo.two reasons: first.the high a potential for leschate to migrate into the ground,and surface Hof the area: and second. the 1 history of non-corm Base witl}_Count,Health.direc"mmtdard $S G timely appealed s cisien tfr the-hlawn County Board of Health_ I � I xx i ' Mark E. Trucksess_MD—mason Coin Hes#th Officer,heard the appeal,and on i November 21, 1994, affirmed Ctnm v-Ilealth's denial of the permit. d XXI BS & G timely appealed that decisoa to thc-Ord on December 1 S_ 1994 i I t"?tiI Any conclusion of law deemed to he a finding of fact is adogte~ias such. Based on these findings. the Board makes the tallowinc; FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AjN 7EkoRDER PCIM 94-27.1 7 1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW M 1 3 The Board has junsdiction over the persons and subject matter of this appeal. RCW 4 43.21B.1100)(d); RCW 7095: VAC 173-303-300(3)(a); WAC 173-303-600(l)(a). 5 ; 6 II 7 The Solid Waste Act (."MA")encourages recycling as a method of waste reduction. $ RCW 7095.0l0(3)-(4),(6). In so doing,the Legislature was not unmindful of the potential 9 environmental and economic consequences of such a program. Thus.at RCW 70.95.010(6),the 0 I SWA declares: i It is the responsibility of state. county. and city governments to provide for a waste 1 management infrastrucn=to fully implement waste reduction and source separation strategies to process and dispose of remaining wastes in a wanner that is cavirourn IWIv en Ii eoyemrnents 24 mogi_tor the eMsffectiveness and environmental .'r=n combusting i separated waste. processing mined waste,an�,d recycling nro ms, i i ; (Emphasis added.). III I , The Department of Ecology("Ecology") is authorized.,under the SWA. to adopt minimal ► functional standards for solid waste#candling. RCW 70.95_060. Ecology is also authorized to i } promulgate regulations. as "necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives"of the act. RCW 70.95.260(6). F FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCHB 94-274 g L i IV C7ounties. in cooperation %tiith the various cities located therein,are required to prepare 3 { 1. coordinated. comprehensive solid waste Managemeutplans. RCW 7995.080. Ecology reviews 4i S and approves these plans. RCW 70.95.094(2). 6i V < < Local governments are required to adopt re_guiawnS or ordinances implementing S i the ccnrnprehensiv€solid:vmste management-p}ari-covm-ing storage, collection, 3 u m,treatment utiitizaaom prmessing and final disposal including but not liz m—d-to the issttauce of permits and the establishment of minimum levels and types of service for any aspect of solid waste handling . . . Sire� or-ordinances may be 1 more stringent than the minimum somdanis-adepted by the department. RCW 70.95.160. VI 4 WAC 173-304 pro:nul ated by Ecology,comri_r ses,the minimum function standards 5 ' for solid waste handling. WAC 173-304-300(3)contains the provisions governing wasm 6 ; f recycling requirements. Under WAC 173-304-3Wg4"[*applicable solid waste recycling facilities sluall- B aFPI-X for and obtaana�solid waste Permit Under-WAC 173-.s04-600, permits." 9 VII I 0 { %VAC 173-304-300(3)(c)establishes specific standards-for thispermit requirement. it L ; provides: ic) All facilities storing solid waste in outdoor piles or surface impoundments for the Purpose of waste recycling shall be considered to be storing or disposing of solid waste if- MAL FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A,YD ORDER PCHB 94-274 a L-7r t.i) At least fifty percent of the material has not been shown to have been recycled in the past three years and any material has been on site more than five years and any material has been on-site more than five years. or ; i I (h)Ground water or surface water. mr. and/or land contamination has occurred or will I ! likely occur under current conditions of storage or in case of fire, or flood. i i ! Upon such a determination by the jurisdictional health that(c)(i) or(ii)of this subsection are met.the jurisdictional health department may require a Permit application and issuance of a permit under WAC 173 04-600 of these rules. 3 VM In appeals to the Board from the granting or denial of a permit, the appellant bears the initial burden of proof. WAC 361-08-183(3). IX The scope of review before the Board is de novo_ WAC 361-08-183(2). 'i X We conclude that BS &G has failed to sustain its burden of proving that it does not fall within the criteria for the requirement of a solid waste permit under WAC 173-304-300(3)(c)(i) and(ii). X1 i ' Wood waste is defined in t'VAC 173-?04-100(91)as I solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by-product or waste from the manufacturing of wood products,handling and storage of raw materials and trees and stumps. This includes but is not limited to sawdust , chips, shavings,bark,pulp, hog fuel. and log sort waste. but does not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as creosote.pentachlorophenol,or copper-chrome-aresenate. FINAL FINDrNT(',S OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCHB 94-274 10 I XQl n s The pile of wastes utilized by BS& G on the site constir.:.es wood waste as defined in the 3 � j regulation. 5 j �C1II g BS& G received between 9.000 and 11.000 cubic yards of wood waste materials between 1991 and the present_The Board is not aware of any order from County Health which has k 9 prohibited the remov-ai of wood waste from the site. Indeed.County Health has continually 1 - - a +: E urged I}S St G to remuve-or.-educe:fie e. istirp wood waste pie. There is currently' a stockpile 1 � f of approximately 7,000 cubic yards on site_ "1 his is greater tb=jO-O/a-Qfthe maximum quantity. If BS&Crr=ycledandremoved 3?SB rubic vwft of tnsterial izr t-993: it must have had 10,250 cubic yards ofmaterial on sire.in JUN IMi. when it stopped receiving wood wastes_ Therefore. very little wood waste material was recycled prior to I993. Consequently,we conclude that BS i &C has failert to show- that m re-tll&-,z4' %- €tl e-woad wmc-materiat was recveicd within three ve=. Therefore-, the w(ya&waste rec.I;ng operation meets the requirements for a permit contained in WAC 173-304-300(3) c i . i X1v i The Board is not PersuadeA-that there is no fil;elihoad of future surface or¢round water contamination from the wood waste pile. County Health has observed the condiag of black ligtud heneaththr-woadvrast;--ade:and swf!ace Ovate. e0irt1R-t.`v9Dtmh the pile and off the site. the-rests by RZA m4mme-that un vv1<rcfr 12. M1. there-,vas no significant leachate in the FINAL FPVDINGS OF FACT, I CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCIM 94 2-74- l l F + water of adjoining wells. we note that the tests were not taken during the wet season from No%,ember-Februan•. prescribed by County Health. Further tiw'e observe that the predomunaie soft i ` type in the area is clay. More testing is necessary to establish the extent to which the wells in S I question are imbedded in clays which wotdd isolate these wells from leacbate cony=iwtion of i the ground water. Because the surface waters spill off the site in ten-year storm events,it is c i necessary that surface water testing be carried out_ in order to assure that both the ground and 31 surface waters are adequately protected from contamination from leachaw, the additional testing should be done at regular intervals.throuuzhout the wet season. } i XV Lf Because the Board concludes that a permit is necessary under WAC 173-304-300(3)(c), it does not reach the question of whether the County Health ordinance can require a permit for all solid waste handling facilities.when the operation would not necessitate a permit under the t criteria of WAC I73-304-300(3)(c). XVl i Having concluded that the permit was properly required, we turn to the question of whether County Health properly denied the permit. ` XVII i The permit was properly denied on the ground of lack of information. BS&G has yet to I provide sufficient information to County ll<ealth to enable it to grant a permit for the wood waste I a it FINAL FLNDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCHB 94-274 12 recvciing operation. As we pointed out in Conclusion `QV. further testing of ground and surface waters are necessary,to ensure adequate protection of those important resources. I �ZII li i f County Health improperly used past violations as a basis for denying the permit. j}am V; board of Adjustment, 80 Wn_?d 209.Z I. 492 P-2d 1 374 1 1972). We believe, however.!hat i through the per-rmt process. teaso3nable conditions can be tailored to a project in light of past 3 I viola6on-s. This is-because a:perm-A is a firm of e=rg4cement. It wwAd be folly for decision- t II makers to put Minders on.when they grant pe,mits. such that in so doing they encourage f ether i violations and enVironmenta.l degradation. 1 BS & G's a►rgurrient that County Health issued a permit on 3une 7 or 9, 1993. is belied by i a the 1anzua2e of the documents themselves_ Not only does the lat:r docurnent state that it is a i partial,list 4 permit cmm itmxwdisctassed between CGuntyHeahh and BS &G.but neither I document contains the signanire of-the appropriate 0ounty H-ealfth official. County Health did f not grant a solid waste permit to BS&G prior to the permit denial on May 10. 1994. It } Any finding of fact which is deemed a conciumon of law is herc-by adapted as such. i From these conclusions of law--. the Board enters the followinst: I I FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCH$94 274 13 t ORDER i i This matter is remanded to County Health to require whatever additional 31 inibrmauon from the permit applicant that County Health deems appropriate. 4 ?) County Health may impose conditions on the issuance of a t as m ate 5 1 P� aPP Pn g ! and necessary to comply with the minimum functional standards, its own solid waste ordinance 7 { and the County's solid waste management plan. I 8 ;} County Health further may impose reasonable conditions its light of past solid 9 waste violations by BS& G. 4 DONE this.3�l�y of May, 1995, I 2 POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARD ROBW V. JE_NUN, i ZIES C- . M 3TUPPER, JR., Member P94-274F y � ki 1 i i FINAL 'DINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCHB 94-274 14 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES Shelton,Woshington 98584 (360)427-9670• Beltair:275-4467 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONAL HEALTH WATER QUALITY P.O. BOX 1666 303 N. FOURTH P.O.BOX 1666 June 20, 1995 Belfair Sand and Gravel Walt Goit, Operator Jeftrey Hartman, Property Owner N.E. 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Woodwaste Recycling Permit Application Dear Belfair Sand and Gravel: As a result of the Pollution Control Board Hearing on May 19, 1995, Belfair Sand and Gravel may apply for a 1995 Woodwaste Recycling Permit. Belfair Sand and Gravel may not except any woodwaste until the permit is approved. Enclosed is an application for a Woodwaste facility. Also enclosed is a comprehensive list of Woodwaste facility requirements. Additional requirements may be set in regards to the conclusion of the Pollution Control Board Hearing. Please fill out the application and return it to; Mason County Department of Health Services Attn; Dan Watts P.O Box 1666 Shelton, Wa 98584 Please contact Dan Watts of the MCDHS, 427-9670 extension 279, with any questions or correspondence regarding this issue. Sincerely Dan Watts Environmental Health MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES Shelton.was"lington 98su (360)427-9670 a Beloit.275-4467 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONAL HEALTH WATER OUALI Y P.O.BOX 1666 303 N_FOURTH P.O.BOX 1666 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ) Shelton, Washington 985s4 } claimant s Qtice and Order Vs. } July 7, 1995 Belfair Sand and Gravel Walt Gait, operator, President Jeffrey Hartman, property owner } WE 2493 Old Belfair Highway } Belfair, Washington 9852E } Ll� ]NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mason County Department of health Services (MCDHS) has determined solid waste .handling practices on the described property to be in violation of County and State solid waste handling regulatory codes. The activities violate Mason County Solid Waste Handling and Facilities Ordinance-Article IX, Section 3.03, and WAC 173-304 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling, section --195 Permit Required. Findi as Z.. In response to complaints filed with the MCDHS, a Health Department investigation was conducted on July 7, 1995. The complainants informed Dan Watts of the MCDHS that as of June 28, 1995, truckloads of demolition waste have been coming into the Belfair Sand and Gravel and are being deposited in the lower level of the property. 2. A phone conversation on July 6, 1995 with Lieutenant Jeff Vaughn the officer in charge of the Jackson Park clean up, confirmed that demolition araste is being delivered and accepted at Belfair ;Sand and Gravel. _3. INCDHS Solid Waste requiation6,-6ection 3.03. Weguir+ees a Solid Waste Handling Permit. 4. No permit application has been received to this date by MCDHS. 5. A Notice and Order dated June 9, 1993, specifically prohibited the deposit of demolition waste at the site. 3 All f42 Page 1 of 3 r Determination Based on consideration of these findings, it is the determination of the Mason County Health- services that as of June 28, 1995, demolition waste are being deposited at the Belf air Sand and Gravel site without a permit and are in violation of County solid waste handling regulatory codes. re Y0U ARE HEREBY ORDERED to cease solid waste handling activities in the following manner: i. Effective immediately, stop accepting all solid waste and demolition waste which require Health Department permits or approvals. 2. By July 14, 1993, have all on_-site Demolition waste, above and below the ground, removed to a facility permitted to landfill demolition waste. 3. By July 19, 1995, submit to the MCDHS a receipt or copy of a receipt from a permitted facility for disposal. !tnal-Lies If these actions are not taken as prescribed in this 'notiee'and ~ order, civil and criminal enforcement remedies as authorized by Article IX will be pursued at the direction of the Mason County Director of Health Services and the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney. Article IX, Section Eight: Criminal Penalties, states: "Any person who commits a violation of this ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of riot less than fifty dollars ($50) and snot to exceed one thousand dollars 1$1000) Bach Wwrovision iof.this ordinance violated shall be.Aconsidered-a distinct r ' end+separate offense. 3dathing 1here3n zontained shall Jbe iconstzued J T ,ajexempt.an offender from any other suit,,prosecution, for malty -provided by law. It shall be the duty of the Mason County Sheriffts Department to enforce criminal violations of the ordinance:" 3i6021 Parrp 7 of I Article IX, Section 10.03. Civil Penalties, states: "In addition to or as an alternative to any other judicial or administrative remedy provided herein, or by law, any person who violates this ordinance or by each act of commission or omission procures, aids or abets such violation, imay be given a civil penalty in an amount of one hundred dollars ($100) for each day of continuous violation to be directly assessed by the Health Director until such violation is corrected. The per diem penalty shall double for the second separate violation and triple for the third and subsequent separate violation of the same ordinance within any five (5) year period." Abatement If any ordered work is not commenced or completed within the time specified, the Health Director may order the person in violation to abate the violations, or may proceed to abate the violation and cause the work to be done and charge the costs thereof as a joint and separate personal obligation of any person in violation. APPM1 Any person aggrieved by the order of the Health Director quay request in writing within 10 (ten) days of the service of the notice and order an appeal hearing before the Mason County Board of Health. The request shall cite the notice and order appealed and shall contain a brief statement of the reasons for seeking the appeal hearing. A pending appeal will not exclude you from the requirements outlined in this notice and order. ` Dan Watts Environmental Health specialist cc: Lt. Jeff Vaughn, United States Z7avy cc: Warren Warfield, Department of Natural Pesources - 32. 6022 fIOV 04 '96 19:21 RICHPFD NEDEIPOS 360 = 918E P. 1 44 wASHINGTON STATE DEPAFTMENTOF Natural Resources )ENtOFER M,BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands KALEEN COTTiNGHAM Supervisor November 1, 1996 Richard 'Iyledeiros NE 2481 Old Be?fair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No, 70-012066 Dear Mr. Medeiros: 1 am responding to your December 28, 1996, letter to Warren Warfield. I have inspected the referenced property and can provide The following information: * Recent activity in the southern area of the mine operation you referred to in your letter is related to controlling the surface discharges from the property. More specifically, the work is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Ecology, Scott Morrison. The work is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources(DNR). " Regarding the emergency water outlet, I reviewed the file and it appears that DNR rcauircd an easement from your overflow dischautc iu the late 1980s. Deifaii 3cuul aria Gravel never acquired the easement and, therefore,DNR never approved the plan. Since that time, the 1993 legislature amended the statutes and transferred the water related issues to the jurisdiction of the Department of Ecology. For your information,Mr. Warfield recently retired and the department is in the process of finding a replacement. SOUTH PUGET SOUND HEWON 28329$E 448TH ST I PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022.0060 1 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 STY.•060)825 081 1 TEL;(360)8254631 E al O portua IAifirmetive Action Em t •v qu p hY p of IIFCYCIFD PAfEACd PIOV 04 '% 19:22 RICHARD MEDEIROS .360 275 9186 P.2 Richard Medeiros Page 2 November 1, 1996 Thank you for your interest in the program. If you have questions, I can be reached through the South Puget Sound Region Office at (360)825-1631. Sincerely, Bonnie B. Bunning Region Manager David S.Pierce Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh OCTMIo x P. She_ Re: S?r►d and Gravel the report from hega 1 IY Of the s:1 ide area rr � _ A-S V("" . +e 'iG w it 'ti�Ys ;'t n�» r(l the ide was !-eltica b,,, to -D iti Th 7.P o i:rre ber u AA � ��,, �; - �, rr __. r:roblem, although T have been . Xr :-Le2: ac:. «,c of February 9C.h, 1996 wherein you no t s:a ieves .runoff proble ns were caused ty � cat w x `' r,� k r, , - of my property is rid icujous. Th w s property of F'r� -r < . . .,. r r'tt$ 't ^,:„d .Lat work d d W35 to 11-11t in a a ' IS, r,E 2a42 olr'. Belfair Higaiway F�:-1f air, ba . gF;�ic5 _ � F Bi 11 , Going can with these people? Are they trying r^, protect t�: i s busi arc ss Kegel Engineering cl,&.FNG)NEERiNG• LkND SURVEYIING • CONSULTING February 12, 1996 • . s. F p s 1� 1 t• � i i ;-•aut a Sitc �. Sti o vour property-On the Cold Belfair Hwy on q •. � i%?r i�-'k 4,7�L a! HIA' "C}?, a c(3i' in,, Veolo€isf, and as a tr fee 2ilr►tc "^e aprtroxirnate north line of your property occurred on a t ;[ [1J1C3G=W rs,-1, 1 sc uown hill intoa small creed; which Pies r ; e4 r y. '1{ r3t''...`"' i4a-,ed� th-i t' cl a t. t - year -ide r�cUrteu a��h'.oxirr,ate�y ore Y �t jt is ws.opinion that the slide was caused by excess t4l x in 3f} `£s7" n.lrz'a 4:p�a!1 of the slidt� area !n other ti.c�rd�, this is an r.rosion anc to- a ' �3wd mw ement" type cuccurrence� It was evidimt that scarf?ce ,:. bb ioinIig p,,o'}1 ,.�' 0- the. ri(+rth eras 1r�';l�u iv +ar��s the s'CrItiy I-e?ng ustd zs a gravel p' �`-1`."-it, 'ry 1sh Paw Jac' tbns**ucted ricar t}e a.'ea of diversion It is �+robabie tf iat overilovr ��,;� wA • , ..� ri a r . .:�orre,.i dr,.ring tainfall events and excess flow, then i;:t'4ttt Fir thugs t.:iusiw VIC erosion slide to OE:cur. ey fi:�i. i 34e�ti port, it is not Uelj that furthercli�iing utll ciccur, unless of .;�'a. it runnff tale:> }dace The natura' soils located on tt e side of the fit' v sere L ,..tir_ iocsk place are highly consolidated sands, heavy gravels and silts a no! no-_MK.ti -ceplibie to rnassi�� Sand slide car nwvement unless distLrbed hevon, is natural angle -:!n qe There were no other areas in the irnmediatp vicinity of tht C.j*,ecj ins'63b:iii` of the �•`Lt1f f i X x e'. Y .Jbcd ay offsrtr diversion of surface water rur.,:,t° -� ,s:hannek:d to an area 1 a-have the blowout of the stc>;�e !t , , „ «ill probably ex rir _," r_ATcarn into your walt!r supple (dam) area While the ac, riot posy s threat to the V�uaII!% of the water supply, it is .c:,- •,c, u continually clears out the ponding pool behind the dam. I estimate r�up if the slide afea v--Ould he hxltvveen S5,000 - $10.OWO ,O, a:>~✓�ndin ra�LL_ ;! :ttc k,e" tioils. !t rs �,robZbNe ;Fiat a pc'prllt wi;i f� ZIeC�C� rtmprt -f Vk fii;herrc:.; to order to %,.or{; in the stream vf,luf conccm.s regarding slope stability, cause of problems, and shr ^ercr it ti�►u i�avc rangy gyctstion�, need further ir.fortnavor ter de5s trig<.ici:nup process, piease let me know .may Frederick A. Kegel, P.E P L �C A. WAS R1AL a_ WI WASI IINGTON STATE DEPARTMLNi of Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands KALEEN COriINGHAM tunervisor November 1, 1996 A- fACRMENT � Richard Mcdciros NE 2481 Old Be]flair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RF,: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 ])car Mr. Mcdciros: ( alll 1'C5�)Unding to your December 28, 1996, letter to Wari—en Warfield. I have inspected the rcicrcnccd property and can provide the. following inforntali0n: Recent activity in the southern area of the rttirte operation YOU referred to in your latter is related to controlling the surface discharges from thy, property. Itlorc specifically, the work is under the jurisdiction of the Department of F cology, Scott Morrison. The work is not under theillt'rsdretiort of the Department of Natural Resources Rcgikrding !hc emergency water outlet, I rcvicNvCd tilt file and it appears that DNR required an casenient from your o�•cdlow discharge in the late 1980s. Bcliair Sand and gravel never acquired the casenIcnt and, Ihcrcfore, DNR never approved the plan. Since that time, the 1993 legislature amended the slatUtc.•'1 and transferred the v,atcr related issues to t11e01-isdic.lion of the Dcparlment of Fcology. ],'or dour information, Mr. Warfreld recently retired and the department is ill the preccss of Iindin�►a replacement. SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 28329 SE 4-18TH ST 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-0068 1 FAX,•(360)825-1672 1 1TY:(360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 4 �� Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer Al 1+" en N r C 1 131:FO1Zh;'11W POLLUTION CONTROL IG',ARINGS 130ARD STATE OF WASHING'TON 3 BELLFAIR SAND & GRAVEL, and ) { JEFFREY HARTMAN, ) 4 � 1 F Appellants, ) PCII13 No. 94-274 6 ! V. ) FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, i ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7 i MASON COUNTY DI-A'AWYNIENT ) ANI) ORDER 1 OF HEALTH SERVICES, ) p Respondent. ) 1Q t 1 The Pollution Control I karinl;s Board ("Board")heard this matter on May 19, 1995, in 1; the Board's Hearing Room in Lacey, Washington. The Board was comprised of Robert V. > Jensen, presiding; Richard C. Kelley and James A. Tupper,Jr. 1 } Appellant, Belf'air Sand & Gravel and Jeffrey Hartnran were represented by attorney, l� Ciary H. Sexton. Respondent, Mason County Department of Heald; Services, was represented by 17 Chief Deputy Prosecutor, Michael E. Clift. The court reporter was Betty Koharski,affiliated with Gene Barker& Associates, Inc. of Olympia. The Board heard sworn testimony and reviewed exhibits. Based I d c:reon, thy Hoard enters these: " I i `1 1 FENAL FINDINGS OF FACT, >7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 11CIIn 9.1-274 1 1 FINDINGS OF FACT Z I 3 Andernnan Emccl)riscs, lnc., owned primarily by 3ef cy Ilarttn,un, in, 1985 purchased a 40 4 acre site surface mining site, north of Belfair in iviason County to produce sand and gravel for 5 sale. The prior owner declared bankniptcy before selling the property. Originally, the company G was named Andennan Sand & Gravel. In 1993 or 1994, the name was changed to Belfair Sand 7 Gravel ("BS&G"). S II 9 The gravel operation lies on a large hillside on the side of a valley. The hillside slopes to, t 0 the east. The surface mirung area lies mid-slope. Ilie soil on the hillsid:: is largely clay, which is 1I relatively impermeable. 1` III 13 Access to the property is front an easement road which runs west. from the county road 1-4 and along the southern edgy-of the property. Ilse easement road crosses the property of Allen 1.5 Hoover, which lies between the county road and the mine site. Mr. Hoover's parcel encompasses I t> i 2.98 acres. South of the mine site, adjacent to the easement road, lies 7.9 acres of land belonging 17 to Richard Madeiros. 18 IV 19 The Union River lies approximately 3,300 feet from the site, in t"ie valley. It ultimately receives runoff from the site. 21 I V 22 BS & G has continuously tried to control surface rw)offfrom the mine area. Mr. Goit, the operator, has dug additional retention ponds and installed a sprinkler system to take water from the large ponds up the:hill to a Corested area for spraying. 'Ms system has generally i VINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 27 ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 1 I XV ,y Also on June 9, County Health issued a Notice of Violation to 1311 & G. Oil June 3, Mr. 31 Tokos had observed, while on site, the deposition of several loads of demolition materials on the 4 J r site. Mr. Tokos reminded Mr. Goit that demolition materials could not be mixed �Azth wood ' G waste for recycling, or be brought on dic site. 7 XVI On July 9, 1993, County Health ordered BS & G to stop accepting; wood waste on the site 9 until there was documentation that the total quantity of wood waste was:.ubstaritially reduced. 10 � . t 1 Witli the exception of receiving some small tree limbs on January 26, 1994, as a part of a"clean- 1 2 up" Idad from a contractor, BS & G has not received any wood waste sin-.e the July 9 order. 1.3 XV19 14 Mr. Goit, on January, 18, 1994, wrote County Health stating thatItlie total quantity of 15 wood waste on the site was 7,000 cubic yards; that BS & G accepted approximately 1,500 cubic 1 t; 17 yards of wood waste in 1993; and that the company exported in the same year, 3XO cubic yards of recycled wood waste. BS & G estimated that it would recycle 100% of the wood waste received each year from 1994-1996. The letter further stated that the wood waste pile is �0 surrounded by a ditch; and that BS & G has placed a 10,000 gallon underground tank at the bottom of the pile, from which it periodically pumps Ieachate into the pond system. I'INAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 27 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCIIB 94-274 � 1 XVIII 2ICounty Health still believes, based on its observations of ponding black water below the J 1 wood waste pile; of surface water going through the pile andi.raveling of site; and the fact that 4 J there are still large quantities of wood waste piled or, the site; that there is the likelihood that G ( leachate will contaminate the ground and surface waters of the area. XIX b County Health, on May 10, 1994, denied BS & G's application for a solid waste handling 9 I . permit for its wood waste recycling operation. The denial was for two reasons: first, the high lt) potential for leachate to migrate into the brouutd and surface waters of th(.area; and second, the 11 history of non-compliance with County Health directives and orders. BS & G timely appealed this decision to the Mason.County Board of Health. 14 Yx l� ! Mark E. Trueksess, M.D., Mason County Health OITlicer, heard the appeal, and on 16 ' November 21, 1994, affirmed County Health's denial of the permit. xxi i 1,1 i BS & G timely appealed that decision to the Board on December 1-5, 1994. u xxU . Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is adopted ,is such. Based on these findings, the Board makes the following: i i `t' I FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF L.AW AND ORDER 1 I CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2 ) I 11-ic Board has jurisdiction over the persons and sub,,;xi matter of this appeal. RCW 4 43.2113.110(1)(d); RCW 70.95; WAC 173-303-300(3)(a); WA(' 173-303-600(l)(a). 5 6 II .7 The Solid Waste Act("SWA")encourages recycling as a method of waste reduction. RCW 70.95.010(3)-(4), (6). In so doing, the Legislature was not unlnuldful of the potential 9 environmental and economic consequences of such a program. Thus, at RCW 70.95.010(6), the 1l) SWA declares: I1 . 1 It is the responsibility of state, county,and city governments to provide for a waste management infrastructure to fully implement waste reduction and source separation 1 strategies to process and dispose of remaining wastes ia-a-mamifflhat is environmentally 1 I falnd .c�rZQrui�ja �y sound._- si her the rup_nsi governments to monR[htag�y.1 � '�tiafety of combusting 1.5 I separated waste, processing mixed waste, and rercliU� -.vpr-ogLa . I 16 (Emphasis added.). IIi 17 18 The Department of Ecology ("Ecology") is authorized, under the SWA, to adopt minimal i 19 functional standards for solid waste handling. RCW 70.95.060. Ecology is :also awhorized to 0 promulgate regul.Morls, as "necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives"of the act. RCW 21 70.95.260(6). FINAI, FINll1NGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AIND ORDER PC'I I R 94-774 1, MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES Shelton,Woshingion 98584 (360)427-9670• Bel!olr:275.4467 LNVIROMILNTAL EILADH PERSONAL HEALI H WATER QUAL P.O. BOX 1666 June 25, 1996 303 N. FOURTH P.O. BOX 11 Rep. Peggy Johnson P.O Box 40669 Olympia, Washington 98504-0669 NE: Belfair Sand And Gravel Woodwaste Dear Rep. Johnson, Mason County Environmental Health has been receiving almost daily fax communication from Mr. Medeiros regarding Belfair Sand and Gravels (BS&G) activities and alleged code violations. Since Mr. Medeiros provides you with copies of some of his complaints, we felt it appropriate to clarify to you our Position. Mason County's position is that BS&G is not allowed to bring any more woodwaste . c,nto the site but is allowed to recycle what woodwaste is currently there. BS&G is currently moving the remaining woodwaste from a steep slope to a better suited location on an upper level of the property. We do not believe that BS&G is violating any provisions of the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The Final Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order, Pollution Control Hearing Board (RE: PCHB NO. 94-274) stated: i. This matter is remanded to County Health to require whatever additional information from the permit applicant that County Health deems appropriate. 2 . County Health may impose conditions on the issuance of a permit as appropriate and necessary to comply with the minimal functional standards, its own solid waste ordinance and the County's solid waste management plan. 3. County Health further may impose reasonable conditions in 3.igtit of Past solid waste violations by BS&G. These order's only apply to any future application piocebs 13S&G may undertake for the issuance of a Woodwaste Permit. lf you have any fttrthc-r questions regarding this, if3sli , pj(casc contact Uan Watts tit (360) 427-9670 ext. 279. Since -el Min Watts, Environmental Health Specialist. cc: Richard Medeiros MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH SERVICES Sneiton,Woshlnfltor,,•8584 A7TACgMENT D (3b0)427-9670• Belfo :t 275-4467 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - P.O. BOX 1666 PLRSONAL HEALTH WAM s CX I 303 N. FOURTH P.O. August 5, 1996 Richard Medeiros NE 2481 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Belfair Sand And Gravel Woodwaste Dear Mr. Medeiros, Mason County Environmental Health has been receiving almost daily fax communication from you regarding Belfair Sand and Gravels (BS&G) activities and alleged code violations. Since this issue . remains unclear to you, we felt it appropriate to clarify to you our position. Mason County' s position is that BS&G is not allowed to bring any morelwoodwaste onto the site but is allowed to recycle what woodwaste is currently there. BS&G is currently moving the remaining woodwaste from a steep elope to a better suited location on an upper level of the property. We do not believe 'that BS&G is violating any provisions of the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The Final Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order, Pollution Control Hearing Board (RE: PC:HB NO. 94 -274) stated: 1 . This matter is remanded to County Health to require whatever additional information from the permit Lpplicant that County Health deems appropriate. 2 . County Health may impose conditions on the issuf)-ace of a permit as appropriate and necessary to comply with the minimal functional standards, its own solid waste ordinance and the County's solid waste management plan. 3 . County Health further may impose reasonable conditions in light of past solid waste violations by BS&G. These order' s only apply to any future application process BS&G may undertake for the issuance of a Woodwaste Permit. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please contact Dan Watts at (360) 427-9670 ext. 279 . Sincerely, t. I recycling operation. As we pointed out its Conclusion X1V, further testin" of ground and surface y waters are necessary, to ensure adequate protection of those nnport,uit resources. XVIII 4 i 5County Health improperly used past violations as a basis for denying the permit. 1.3 z v 6 l3c and or`Adjttstment, 80 Wn.2d 209, 221, 492 P.2d 1374 \11972). We believe, however, that 7 through the permit process, reasonable conditions can be tailored to a project in light of past violations. This is because a permit is a form of enforcement. 1t would be folly for decision- 9 makers to put blinders or), when they grant pemiits, such that in so doing they encourage further lil violations and environmental degradation. 1i 12 x1x 13 BS & G's argument that County I lealth issued a permit on June 7 or 9, 1993, is belied by 14 j the language of the docurnrn-ts themselves. Not only does the later document state that it is a 15 partial list of permit conditions discussed between County Health and BS & G, but neither document contains the signature of the appropriate County Health official. County Health did not grant a solid waste permit to BS & G prior to the pennit denial on May 10, 1994. 1:► X1 Any finding of fact which is deemed a conelusio�i of law is hereby adopted as s Yrotn these conclusions of law, the Board caters the. follov:ing: I FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PC I M 94-274 l 3 Pv1ASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH SERVICES Shelton,Woshlrigfc,n 98584 (360)427-9670• Selfoir:275-4467 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH P.O. BOX 1666 PERSONAL HEALT(t -"— -- 303 N. FOURTH WATER QUA( June 26, 1996 P.O.BOX 1 Department of Natural P.esources C\O Warren Warfield P.0 Box 68 < Enumclaw, Washington 98022-0068 RI•:: Helfair Sand And C;ravrl Woodwastc� Dear W . Warfield, Mason County . Environmental. Health has been receiving almost daily fax communication from Mr. Medeiros regarding Belfair Sand and Gravels (BS&G) activities and alleged code violations. Since Mr. Medeiros provides you with copies of some of ),is complaints, we felt it appropriate to clarify to you our Position. Mason County's position is that BS&G is not allowed to bring any more woodwastea onto the site but is allowed to recycle what woodwaste is currently there. BS&G is currently moving the remaining woodwaste from a steep slope to a be location on an upper level of the property. +tter suited We do not believe that BS&G is violating any provisions of the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The Final Findings of Conclusions of Law and Order, Facts, Pollution Control Heating Board (RE: PCHB A'0. 99-274) stated: 1• This matter is remanded to County Health to require whatever additional -information from the permit applicant that deems appropriate. County Health 2• Cowzty Health may impose conditions on the issuance of a permit as apP'z-opriate and necessary to co;;ply with the minimal functional standards, its own solid waste ordiriance and the waste management plan. CourIty's solid 3 . County Health further may impose reasonable conditions :in light of past solid waste violations by BS&G. 'Tht ce e,rder'F only apply to any fut.urF: a1-)l;licatior;i s t�rocesE: BS&G may undertake for t h� m.janec of a Woodwaste Perriit . If you have any further questio-)s regatdinq "it' iF•sue, please: cot;tact Dan Wattr, at (.360) 427-9670 ext. . 279. Sincerely, V t'a" Wat-ts, Er)vir-ollmental Health Specialist CC: Riehaid Medeiros I'(.Ilution Cor.lr(I 11carines Board s'"fir (3601 4$9-632) Shnrelints Hearings Board �'k {fAk)(360)4S9-6329 forest Pra(tices Appeals Board H;draub(s Appeals Board S1AfE Of WASHLNGION'' LNVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS Of I ICE SO 4224 - 61h Asenuc SE, Bldg.2, Rowe Six P.O. box 40903, Lacey, WA 98504-0903 June 20, 1990 r Richard Medeiros NF 2481 Old Belfair IIwy. Belfair, WA 98528 Re: RELFAIR SAND R GRAVEL and JERRY HARTMAN N% MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, PCIIB 94-274 Dcar Mr. Medeiros: The Pollution Control Hearings Board has received your June 18, 1996 letter, in which you allege that Belfair Swid & Gravel continues to operate its woodwaste operation iAthout a permit. The Boar: ruled t1 at Belfair Surd & Gravel was required to obtain a permit from Mason County, under N%IAC 173-304-300(3)(c)(i)and (ii). RCW 70.95.240 makes it unlawful "for any person to dump or deposit or-permit the dumping or depositing of any solid waste onto or under the surface of the ground or into the waters of this state except as a solid waste disposal site for which there is a valid pennit." The Board does not have enforcement powers. Those powers lie in the Prosecuting Attorney and the Attorney General. Accordingly, I am forwarding a copy of your letter to Gary Burleson, Mason County Prosecuting Attorney and Jay Alarming, Senior Assistant Attorney General for Ecology,so that they may review and respond to your concerns. I am also forwarding a copy to Gary Sexton,attorney for Belfair Sand & Gravel. Sincerely, Robert V. Jensen, Presiding R V Ji1.�c:)ft1�1• cc: Gary Burleson w/enc. Jay Manning w/ell,,. Gary IL Sexton, ��!�n�.. l f mailed a copy oft'-.?; t3 w.d address:s list.--, :. T m 2 rectTw acic E., C r C 1 BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 g BELLFAIR SAND & GRAVEL,and ) JEFFREY HARTMAN, ) ; 4 ) 5 Appellants, } PCI-1B No. 94-274 } g V. } FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT ) AND ORDER S OF HEALTH SERVICES, ) 9 Respondent. ) 10 11 The Pollution Control I-learings Board("Board")heard this mattej-on May 19, 1995, in 12 the Board's Hearing Room in Lacey, Washington. The Board was comprised of Robert V. 13 Jensen,presiding; Richard C. Kelley and James A.Tupper,Jr. 1 } ? Appellants, Belfair Sand& Gravel and Jeffrey Ilartnran were represented by attorney, Gary H. Sexton. Respondent, Mason County Department of Health Services,was represented by 16 17 Chief Deputy Prosecutor, Michael E. Clift. The court reporter was Betty Koharski,affiliated , 18 with Gene Barker & Associates, Inc. of Olympia. 19 The Board heard sworn testimony and closing arguments; and reviewed exhibits. Based :'n thereon, the Board enters these: 1 ,1 3 ..1 2;-) 26 I FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 127 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 11C tR 94-274 1 1 FINDINGS OF FACT 2 I 3 Anderman L'•ntcrprises, Inc.,owned primarily by Jeffrey llartman, in 1985 purchased a 40 4 acre site surface mining site,north of Belfair in Mason County to produ,-'e sand and gravel for 5 sale. The prior owner declared bankruptcy before selling the property. Originally, the company 6 was named Anderman Sand& Gravel. In 1993 or 1994, the name was changed to Belfair Sand i & Gravel ("BS&G"). S II 9 The gravel operation lies on a large hillside on the side of a valley. The hillside slopes to, t the cast. The surface mining area lies mid-slope. The soil on the hillside is largely clay, which is 1 a relatively impermeable. 12 III 13 Access to the property is from an easement road which runs west: from the county road 14 and along the southern edgtof the property. The easement road crosses the property of Allen 15 Hoover, which lies between the county road and the mine site. Mr. Hoover's parcel encompasses 16 2.98 acres. South of the mine site, adjacent to the easement road, lies 7.9 acres of land belonging 17 to Richard Madeiros. 18 IV 1`> The Union River lies approximately 3,300 feet from the site, in the valley. It ultimately An 0 receives runoff from the site. "1 V '''-' BS & G has continuously tried to control surface runoff from the mine area. Ivlr. Goit, �'3 I the operator, has dug additional retention ponds and installed a sprinkler system to take water 21 fiom the large: ponds up the hill to a forested area for spraying. This system has generally r J 26 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 27 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 1 XV Also on June 9, County Health issued a Notice of Violation to B'S & G. On June 3, Mr. 3 Tokos had observed, while on site, the deposition of several 19ads of demolition materials on the site. Mr. Tokos reminded Mr. Goit that demolition materials could not be nuxed «Zth wood J ' waste for recycling, or be brought on the site. ' XVI On July 9, 1993,County Health ordered BS & G to stop accepting; wood waste on the site 9 10 until there was documentation that the total quantity of wood waste was substantially reduced. I ' t 1 With the exception of receiving some small tree limbs on January 26, 1994, as a part of a"clean- 1.2 up" Idad frorn a contractor, BS & G has not received any wood waste since the July 9 order. 13 XVII 14 15 Mr. Goit;on January,18, 1994, wrote County Health stating that"the total quantity of wood waste on the site was 7,000 cubic yards; that BS &G accepted approximately 1,500 cubic 1 ti 17 yards of wood waste in 1993;and that the company exported in the same year, 3,250 cubic yards 18 of recycled wood waste. BS& G estimated that it would recycle I00% of the wood waste 19 received each year from 1994-1996. The letter further stated that the wood waste pile is U surrounded by a ditch; and that BS & G has placed a I0,000 gallon underground tank at the "1 bottom of the pile, from which it periodically pumps leachate into the pond system. "3 I I''5 !b IFINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 27 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PCIIB 94-274 6 1 XVIII 2 County Health still believes, based on its observations of ponding black water below the; 3 wood waste pile; of surface water going through the pile and traveling oAf site; and the fact that 4 5 there are still large quantities of wood waste piled on the site;that there is the likelihood that G leachate will contaminate the ground and surface waters of the area. i XIX b County Health, on May 10, 1994, denied BS & G's application for a solid waste handling 9 permit for its wood waste recycling operation. The denial was for two reasons: first, the high 10 potential for leachate to migrate into the ground and surface waters of the area; and second, the 1 L history of non-compliance with County Health directives and orders. BS &G timely appealed this decision to the Mason.County Board of Health. 14 xx 1J 1 Mark E. Trucksess, M.D., Mason County Health Officer, heard the appeal, and on 16 November 21, 1994, affirmed County Health's denial of the permit. 17 1g XXI 10 BS & G timely appealed that decision to the Board on December 15, 1994. 20 xxH ''1 iAny conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is adopted as such. Based on these .)2 I findings, the Board makes the following: 2.1 +` 2,3, I FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 27 + CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER I 1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2 I 3 I'he Board has jurisdiction over the persons and subjeci matter of this appeal. RCW 4 43.21B.I I0(1)(d); RCW 70.95; WAC 173-303-300(3)(a); WAC 173-303--600(1)(a). 5 6 1 II 7 The Solid Waste Act("SWA")encourages recycling as a method of waste reduction. RCW 70.95.010(3)-(4), (6). In so doing, the Legislature was not unmindful of the potential u ' environmental and economic consequences of such a program. Thus, at RCW 70.9.5.010(6), the 1t) SWA declares: 11 12 It is the responsibility of state, county,and city governments to provide for a waste management infrastructure to fully implement waste reduction and source separation strategies to process and dispose of remaining wastes in a manner that is enyir!Q=entally 14 I oaf lid economically sound. It is further the responsibility of st le.-county, and city gv,�o Gn1,s to monitor the cost- ective�s and environmental safety of combusting 15 separated waste,processing mixed waste,and r-ecycling programs. 16 (Emphasis added.). III 17 18 The Department of Ecology("Ecology") is authorized, under the SWA, to adopt minimal 19 functional standards for solid waste handling. RCW 70.95.060. Ecology is also authorized to 00 promulgate regulations, as"necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives"of the act. RCW 70.95.260(6). 2 f� `6 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 27 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDC;R PCIt R 94-274 R 1 IV 2 Counties, in cooperation with the various cities located therein, are required to prepare 3 , coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plans.`RCW 70.95.080. Ecology reviews .t 5 and approves these plans. RCW 70.95.094(2). f, V 7 ( Local governments are required to adopt regulations or ordina nces implementing 8 the comprehensive solid waste management plan covering storage, collection, 9 transportation, treatment,utilization,processing and final disposal including but not limited to the issuarice of permits and the establishment of minimum levels and types of 10 service for any aspect of solid waste handling. . . . Such regulations or ordinances may be t more stringent than the minimum functional standards adopted by the department. 1 RCW 70.95.160. 13 VI ! WAC 173-304, promulgated by Ecology,comprises the minimum functional standards 15 16 for solid waste handling. WAC 173-304-300(3)contains the provisions;governing waste 17 recycling requirements. Under WAC 173-304-300(3)(a), "f a]ll applicable solid waste recycling 18 facilities shall apply for and obtain a solid waste permit under WAC 173-304-600,permits." 19 VII `t) WAC 173-304-300 3 c establishes specific standards for this )ermit re uirement. It c')t ) � p�� I a 2t provides: 2) 3 (c) All facilities storing solid waste in outdoor piles or surface impoundments for the purpose of waste recycling shall be considered to be storing or disposing of solid waste if t 5 26 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, 27 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 1 I recycling operation. As we pointed out in Conclusion XIV, further testin of ground and surface 2 waters are necessary, to ensure adequate protection of those important resources. 3 XVIII ; r County Health improperly used past violations as a basis for denying the;permit. B,3nz v. 6 13oard of Adjustment, 80 Wn.2d 209, 221,492 P.2d 1374(1972). We believe, however, that 7 through the permit process, reasonable conditions can be tailored to a project in light of past violations. This is because a permit is a form of enforcement. It would be folly for decision- makers to put blinders on,when they grant permits, such that in so doing they encourage further lit violations and environmental degradation. 11 12 X1X 13 BS & G's argument that County Health issued a permit on June 7 or 9, 1993, is belied by 14 the language of the documents themselves. Not only does the later document state that it is a 15 partial list of permit conditions discussed between County Health and BS & G,but neither 16 document contains the signature of the appropriate County Health official. County Health did , ]7 is not grant a solid waste permit to BS &G prior to the permit denial on May 10, 1994. 19 1XI 120 Any finding of fact which is deemed a conclusion of law is hereby adopted as s 121 from these conclusions of law, the Board enters the following: FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER PC'NR 94-274 13 i MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES Snelton,Woshinflton 98584 ATACIAM94T (360)427-9670• 6e1fo;r:275-4467 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSONAL HEALTH WATE:;CUB P.O. BOX 1666 303 N. FOURTH P.O.is August 5, 1996 Richard Medeiros HE 2481 Old Belfair Highway- Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Belfair Sand And Gravel Woodwaste Dear Mr. Medeiros, Mason County Environmental Health has been receiving almost daily fax communication from you regarding Belfair Sand and Gravels (BS&G) activities and alleged code violations. Since this issue remains unclear to you, we felt it appropriate to clarify to you our position. Mason County' s position is that BS&G is not allowed to bring any moretwoodwaste onto the site but is allowed to recycle what woodwaste is currently there. BS&G is currently moving the remaining woodwaste from a steep slope to a better suited location on an upper level of the property. We do not believe that BS&G is violating any provisions of the Pollution Control Hearings Board. The Final Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order, Pollution Control Hearing Board (RE: PCHB NO. 94 -274) stated: 1 . This matter is remanded to County Health to require whatever additional information from the permit applicant that County Health deems appropriate. 2 . County Health may impose conditions on the issuance of a permit as appropriate and necessary to comply with the minimal functional standards, its own solid waste ordinance and the County's solid waste management plan. 3 . County Health further may impose reasonable conditions in light of past solid waste violations by BS&G. These order' s only apply to any future application process BS&G may undertake for the issuance of a Woodwaste Permit. If you have any further questions regarding this issue, please contact Dan Watts at (360) 427-9670 ext. 279 . Sincerely, Pollution Cor,lrol Hcarinfis Board �� `'''<<� (360)4S9.6327 SMrelines Hearings Board • 4 (FAX)(360)438.7699 Forest Practices Appeals Board Hydraulics Appeals Board STATE OF WASHINGfON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE ir 4224-61h Avenue SE, Bldg. 2,Rowe Si% P.O.Boa 40903, Lacey, WA 98504.0903 June 20, 1996 Richard Medeiros NE 2481 Old Belfair Ilwy. Belfair, WA 98528 Re: BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL and JERRY IIARTNIAN N,. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES,PCHB 94-274 Dear Mr. Medeiros: The Pollution Control Hearings Board has received your June 18, 1996 letter, in which you allege that Belfair Sand &Gravel continues to operate its woodwaste operation without a permit., The Board ruled uyat Belfair Sand & Gravel was required to obiain a permit from Mason County, under WAC 173-304-300(3)(c)(i)and (ii). RCW 70.95.240 makes it unlawful"for any person to dump or deposit or-permit the dumping or depositing of any solid waste onto or under the surface of the ground or into the waters of this state except as a solid waste disposal site for which there is a valid pennit." Ile Board does not have enforcement powers. Those powers lie in the Prosecuting Attomey and the Attorney General. Accordingly,I am forwarding a copy of your letter to Gary Burleson, Mason County Prosecuting Attorney and Jay Manning, Senior Assistant Attorney General for Ecology,so that they may review and respond to your concerns. I am also forwading a copy to Gary Sexton,attorney for Belfair Sand& Gravel. Sincerely, Robert V. Jensen, Presiding RVJ/belf lil- cc: Gary Burleson w/enc. Jay Manning w/ettc. j I railed a copy oft:;?, Gary H: Sexton, w/enc.. in a receptacle fir At'a lo Pn)lution Control Hearings Board . ="''= (360)459-6327 Sh(relines Hearings Board ..4 (FAX)(360)438.7699 Iorest Practices Appeals Board - Ils(baulus Appeals Board SIATE Of WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE 4224•61h Avenue SE,Bldg.2, Rowe Six P.O. Box 40903,lacer,WA 98504.0903 10 August 7. 1996 < . V 1Zichard 1\ledeiros NE 2481 Old Belfair H%vy. Belfair. WA 98528 Re: BELFAIR SAND& GRAVEL and JERRY HARTMAN v. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES,PCHB 94-274 near Mr. Medeiros: Irtic Pollution Control I learings Board has received your August 6, 1996 letter, in which - you repeat your allegations that Belfair Sand & Gravel continues to operate its woodwaste operation without a permit. You attach a letter signed by Dan Watts, Environmental Health Specialist for the Mason County Department of Health Services,dated August 5. In that letter, and in an earlier identical letter addressed to Representative Peggy Johnson.the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Ecology, Mr. Watts state's that the Board's decision only applies to future applications by the Belfair Sand&Gravel for a woodwaste permit. The letter makes no mention of the approximately 7,000 cubic yards of woodwaste on the site, for which the Board concluded Belfair Sand & Gravel needed a solid waste permit under WAC 173- 304-300(3)(a) and 300(3)(c). The Board did reject the Health District's denial of the permit on the basis of past violations by Belfair Sand& Gravel,but affirmed the denial on the lack of information. The Board's order refers to the additional information which the Health District could impose on the permit,and additional conditions which could be imposed on the issuance of a permit. Belfair Sand & Gravel was arguing that it was either exempt from a permit;or that it had already been issued a permit. The Board ruled against the company and in favor of the Health District on both grounds. As you note. I stated in the Board's letter of June 20, 1996 to you, the Board does not have independent enforcement powers. There is currently no appeal pending before the Board. Nevertheless, I believe that your letter deserves a response from those agencies which regulate solid waste; namely, the Mason County Health District and the Department of Ecology. I am forwarding a copy of your most recent letter and the attachment to Mr. Burleson, Mason County, Prosecutor and Mr. Manning, Senior Assistant Attorney General fur the Department of Ecology, for their response. I also am forwarding a copy to Mr. Sexton. the attomey for Belfair Sand & Gravel. I 16002 OWN Rwr CT Print: Key Output Page I r17165S; V3R7MO 961108 MASON 06 /18/99 ll12O : 54 Uisplay Oevico . . . . . . OSP20 U:>c,r . . . . . . . . . . . BLR Movie : TNCUiRY REAL PROPERTY parcel # 7.2317 11. 00000 Rng 1 'rwy ?3 5er; 17 Tax Yr, 00 lax -ayer, # HART 47i5 JEFFREY & LUCNOA HARTMAN TRS T /P Ch9 Vale 4/0'1/96 Title Owner # KNUO 3300 KNUDSEN . MARGIE L T/P Chg By P.3L Contract owner # HART 4775 JEFFREY & LUCINDA HARTMAN TRS Loarl # Pl,jC/Condo 'fy Code B1k Lot Unit Dock Ge�c:riptiorr �e.E NE Asfaoc M /H Clio Gate 2/26/99 chi Uy P.JKS 2495 NE OLD BELFAIR HWY Chg Rs FL FS 05037 : BELFAIR fax Code 0241 1 403 A P:3 F2 L C H Land Use 8700 CLASS FORE r Zoning Code Tax Stat TX TAXABLE.' Reval 2 Chy 8s F/P ? Y Ac 3000 30 . 00 l.on(A Improved Uniriproved Timberland Total Land Improvement Total kV Acres 1000 3000 40 . 00 Taxable CU 45 , 000 3 , 660 48 . 660 E; , 6b0 55 , 160 9arket OS 45 , 000 12d , 0o0 165 , 000 ty , 50W lfl , 500 New/C L /AV Mob Home AV Sub Cd Int% 5r Cit Cci Reg Exmppt: o/R Regular Taxable 55 , 160 Licht Date AF' #� 522467 As—Tx Yr App # Agr # W r NDOW Inquiry Type vL HE: LP Cmd Keys; 1 , 2 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 11 Many times the truck drivers will stop on the easement in front of my house and urinate. My children and the foster children we care for nor the other children in the neighborhood should be exposed to these conditions. 6) See above 7) In the operations and reclamation plan that Mr. Hartman agreed to from Service Fuel (copy enclosed) "IX. Plan of Surface Mining: The sequence of mining operation will be to start at the back portion of the thirty-two acre parcel and progress down and toward the Old Belfair Highway. It is our intention to maintain 50 feet of natural vegetation buffer strip along the east and south lines of the site." Picture enclosed. If this plan was complied with there would be no trespass, no turbid runoff to neighbors properties and on the streams and rivers, salmon bearing, no noise or dust problems. Everything would be contained in the hole they would dig. 8) See above If Mr. Hartman and his people would have COMPLIED with the plan and the law,they might have had a good operation. He and his people did not and there are no indications that his current people under Allen Shearer are doing anything to be in COMPLIANCE. I do not understand how an operation so out of control could be allowed to continue, especially with the record that Mr. Hartman and his people have. Tjiank You Allan an Karen Hoover e'! fir ; r `F.0 ..f t,.' .,.. - ,. tf. 'a .!i!� x)i �y I r..'•: �• .+.1'�71 :'F3+' ry..?tj.(.f.^ Y`{ �,er i♦ •,�•. «. _. .•�1' r+ r' iii'j '1 ... ?:i�::' Z!.+.: .. if3r:.`!. ;ir .._ ji'i!l( pe li::i; !. "��i 'fit:.. . '�:, �+ '.�', ,.j. .ti.r i<i 4 r.i •".`!:. + - � JUL 08 '96 10:07 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275�211-0� P. 1 July 08, 1996 Mason County Dcparnnant of Caener�d Services &Nam Courthouse Guilding mP JUL 0& 426 W. Cedar PO Box 186 Shelton, Wa. 98584 lip --_..._.,..,__„ Richard Medeiros 0 7-0 8-9 6 0 9: 54 CC NE2481 Old Belfair Ilwy. Belfair, Wa. 98528 Re; Recreational Vehicle Use on Private Property: Dear Mr. Denison Attached to this letter is a copy of a photo taken by me on February 03, 1996, indicating the first day of occupancy. When Auggusst third atives, one hundrod and amity consecutive daily occupancy will be completed. Since f eftmy 03, 1996, the septic tank that you allowed Belfair Sand and Caravel to use, has not boon pumped, and as you are aware of, has no leach field. If Belfair Sand and Gravel has not installed an engineered plan for a septic system, I would hope that enforcement action would follow immadiatvly, The safety of the ground water, and the,lands adjacent to the Belfair Sand and,Crawl would be in danger, not to n=fion the Union River. Because this effects everyone in N son County, Y would appreciate a reply from you, or your department. ou' chard�1ed:' os cc: Randy Loun 711 i q� ns le "en, �R "'A ' i s.;, vr.. ,, ?.. ti->:�,.. - as .x �:,. .5 •uas• ,.,..r. T ... ;f}i 4 JUL 31 '96 13:29 RICHRRD MEDEIROS ::60 275 2110 P.1 July 31, 1996 _Mason County Department of G=cral Services Courthouse Building III 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Wa. 98584 Richard\Qodoiros NE2481 old Belfair Hwy. Belfair, Wa. 98528 Re: Recreational Vehicle Use on Private Property ! S►do System Doar :Mr. IX-nison, On July 08, 1996, I wrote a letter, along with a copy of the first day of occupancy, on the travel trailer parked at the Repair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site, located at NE2493 OW Belfair Highway, Bclfair, Wa. I asked for a reply on what Mason (bounty intends to do, because on August 03, 1996, one hundred and eighty(180)consecutive days will k completed. As this could be a danger to our ground water, and adjacent property owners, and the Union River. I would appreciate a copy of the engineered plan for dw installation of a drain field and septic pump system. Bk;cause this effects everyone in Mason CoutYty, I would appreciate a reply as soon as Possible. Thank You for your concern on the above Ynatt m e , crowd Medeiros cc: Randy Loun >Y G 1 t e � .} J" t I � ) n ItUnty � f � � ym. ? S f AUG 05 '96 06: 18 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 2110 P. 1 August 05, 1996 _vlason County Dcpartmont of Gon.oral `ierijCQ-, Courthouse Building III 416 W. Cedar P,O. Box 186 Shelton, Wa. 98384 fax. 4 (360) 427-7798 P1,:hard Medeiros N-E2481 Old Bellair Hwy. &lfair, Wa. 98528 Re.: Recreational Vehicle Use on Private Property/ Septic System Decor Mr. Denison, Oa August the 3rd, 1996, cotnpleatcd 180 consecutive days for the travel trailer parked at the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site. On July 08, 1996, and July 31, 1996, 1 wrote letters, along with a copy of the first clay of occupancy of the travel trailer parked at the Belfilir Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine sits. Both a man and woman are living in this trailer, and it has all the appearances that perintanent residency has been established. I have many more photo's and video's that will show that over 180 consecutive clays of occupancy have already been completed. 1Bccause Mason County, has allowed a septic tank that has no leach field, to be used for human waste, and has the danger of creating a health hazard to the groundwater, and the environment surrounding the Belfair Sand and Gravel, inc. mine site, virnnediate enforcement of the regulation:► are n000ssary so that thz protection of the people, adjacent to. and the people on the Union River south of the mine site can be protected. I would appreciate: a copy of the erngancered plan, for the installation of a drain field and septic pump systam. MT.havo statod in my first 1ester, I have never seen the septic tank at the rnine site over being pumped. I would appreciate a reply on how Mason Cowrcy intends to proceed with the enforcement regarding sewage/gray water disposal. (provide proof of compliance;) Since chard Mledeiros cc: Randy Loun a t x k y.� .+'Y f ,�3 > s s, 'v ray €i t i t nt � � � i �r se, �. � r'�j r ro 4 F � r xt r + x, a `r > a nr ys !� > �., l „t a!'. "'i ,. tt.>�.. fi .i r �` . �,,.. - AIJG 06 '96 09:35 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 2110 P.i i Fax ton6mber. (360) 427-7798 Attention: Pam Denton Date: i August 06 , 1996 From: j Richard Medeiros NE2481 Old Betfair Hwy.Betfair,Wa.98528 Number of pages: Cover Sheet + one page , additional comments: Dear Pam Denton, i I I am contacting you because it: is very L .important that the violation at the Belfair - k; Sand and Gravel mine site be resolved. f Mx. Denison has allowed the use of a septic (� tank without a leach field to be used for the AUG 06 I gray water / human waste for the last six ' months. It is time now 'for the travel trailer to either have a engineered septic system, or the removal of the travel trailer. I I intend to wriiiB a letter each and every day , I I that the violation exist. i i I'Richard Medeiros NE2481 Old Betfair Hwy. �}IBelfniar,W1 ,V8528v'�' a So n "� 3 3'} + s t �fnyUr YA 1 . t Y t } 5 W t Tf4_:... d� :>, Y...<., , ,t;h:.t l� ...xn.. +Ptesidert .Union River Basin. Protectior Association JUL 31 '96 13:30 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 2110 P.2 Fax to number j Fax (360) 427-7798 Attention: Mr. Denison Date: July 31 , 1996 From: I Richard Medeiros NE2481 Old Beffair Hwy,Beffair,Wa.98528 Number of pages: Additional cow*rds; j Because this is a very important issue .to every-one in Mason County a quick reply For each day no would be appreciated. action is taken 1- will reply with a letter, -ing out the violation. ---------- Richard Medeircs NE2481 Old Setfair Hwy. Belfi;jr. Wa. gsopEj ..Mason COUnty DMS AUG 06 '96 09:19 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 2110 P.1 August 06, 1996 'v mson County Department of General Scrviccs C'ounliouse Building 1H 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Wa. 98584 Fax. Or' (360)427-7798 Richard kledeiros :N'E2481 Old Belfair H". Be,fidr, Wa. 98528 Re,. Recreational '' c1dcle'Use on Private Property/ Septic System Dear Mr. Denison, On August the 3rd, 1996, compleated 180 consecutive days for die travel trailer parked at the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site. On July 08, 96, July 31, 96, Aug. 05, 96, l wrote letters, along with a copy(photo) of the first day of occupancy of the travel trailer parked at di-, Beifair Sand and Gravel. Inc. mine site'. froth a man and woman are living in this trailer, and it has all the appearances that permanent residency has been established_ I have many more phords and vldLo's dial will show that over 180 consecutive days of occupancy have already been eompletcd. Because Mason County, has allowed a septic tattle that has no leach field, to be used for hutnan waste, and has the danger of ru-catatg a health hazard to the groundwater, and the environment surrounding the Belfair Sated and Gravel, Inc. mina site, immediate cnforcernamt of d-w, regulation are,r:": sary so that the protection of the people adjacent to, and the people on the Union hiver south of the, mine site, can be protected. I would appreciate. a copy of the, e g ri"red plan, for the installation of a drain$cld and septic pump system, eU I have: stated in my first letter, I have never seen the septic tank at the mina site ever bring pump:d. I would appreciate a reply on how Mason County intends to proceed with the enfbrcernent regarding sewage/Way wator disposal. (provide proof of compliance) A letter will follow each and every day that this violation is tatting place. c rd'. e:iros u;: Randy Loun 0c, Patti Menton A Ty 1� J RECEIVED WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF JENNIFNatural Resources Comm ER M.BofPubl ELCHER DEC1 7 1998 _ _ comet;5s;o„e,of Public Lands MASON CO. PLANNING DEP.T, December 15, 1998 Allen Borden, Senior Planner Mason County Department of Community Development County Courthouse Bldg. III 426 West Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Revised Reclamation Plan- SEPA Lead Agency Dear Mr. Borden: This letter is in response to our recent discussion regarding the SEPA Lead Agency status for the referenced permit. Gary Yando notified us in writing that Mason County was requesting to be the SEPA lead agency on this proposed project. Washington Administrative Code 197-11-942 allows agencies of jurisdiction to come to an agreement as to which agency will have SEPA lead agency status. The Department of Natural Resources hereby concurs with Mr. Yando's request for Mason County to be the SEPA lead agency for the referenced project. I trust this'will clarify the matter. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, I can be reached at (360) 825-1631. Sincerely, David S. Pierce l Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh DEC99/92 SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN ST N 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-0068 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TTY:(360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED Pnvea CJ . _ 1 RECEIVED WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF p ER M.BELCHER 0 E C 1 7 197� Natural Resources Commissioner of Public Lands MASON GO. PLANNING DEP.T, December 15, 1998 Allen Borden, Senior Planner Mason County Department of Community Development County Courthouse Bldg. III 426 West Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Revised Reclamation Plan - SEPA Lead Agency Dear Mr. Borden: This letter is in response to our recent discussion regarding the SEPA Lead Agency status for the referenced permit. Gary Yando notified us in writing that Mason County was requesting to be the SEPA lead agency on this proposed project. Washington Administrative Code 197-11-942 allows agencies of jurisdiction to come to an agreement as to which agency will have SEPA lead agency status. The Department of Natural Resources hereby concurs with Mr. Yando's request for Mason County to be the SEPA lead agency for the referenced project. I trust this'will clarify the matter. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, I can be reached at (360) 825-1631. Sincerely, Q&A� J David S. Pierce Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh DEC98/82 SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN ST N 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-0068 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TTY. (360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER t� NOV 30 '98 14:22 RICHRRD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P. 1 -� November 30., 1998 Richard Medeiros NE2481 Old Belfair Highway Belfair Washington 98528 Fax 9 (360)275-9186 Allan Bordon Mason County Dept. of Community Development Courthouse Building HI 426 W. Cedar Shelton, Washington 98584 Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel Inc. continuous erosion and damage Dear Mr. Bordon, Please consider this letter a formal complaint_ Once again, this letter is one of many sent to Mason County Department of Community Development, with complaints of water damage and erosion coming from the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site, causing continuous damage to my property. The rear section of my property is covered with mud, dirt, concrete, and other items of debris,that have come from erosion from the mine site, after continuous letters of complaints on the repeated issues of water damage, erosion damage coming from the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mane site. You should be aware of the seriousness of may complaints. To date, thousands of yards of material is being deposited onto my property along with hundreds of thousands of gallons of turbid drainage of water. My property consists of eight acres, and of those eight acres, only one to two acres are livable. The remaining six to seven acres have and continue to be destroyed be turbid water damage and erosion coming from the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site. Maybe the appropriate question would be, "does someone's property have to be completely destroyed before cnforcement can take place ?T' Sincere , to and Medeiros .: U.N.Fe. i)aw®Fiba" uc: j1p-k. Swu mmdoa c.: Cowuy c::omen+:+loner 01SM �: R4;wy t,oua NOV 30 '98 14:23 RICHRRD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P.2 November 30, 1998. Richard Medeiros NF2481 Old Belfair Highway ATT-N. COMMISSIONER OLSEN Belfair Washington 98528 Fax 9 (360)275-9186 C(OPY Allan Bordon Mason County Dept. of Community Development Courthouse Building fl.l. 426 W_ Cedar Shelton, Washington 98584 Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel inc, continuous erosion and damage Dear Mr_ Bordon, Please consider this letter a formal complaint. Once again,this letter is one of many sent to Mason County Department of Community Development, with complaints of water damage and.erosion coming from the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site, causing continuous damage to my property. The rear section of my property is covered with mud, dirt, concrete, and other items of debris, that have come from erosion from the mine site, after continuous letters of complaints on the repeated issues of water damage, erosion damage coming;from the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site. You should be aware of the seriousness of my complaints. To date,thousands of yards of material is being;deposited onto my property along with hundreds of thousands of gallons of turbid drainage of water. My property consists of eight acres, and of those eight acres, only one to two acres are livable. The remaining six to seven acres have and continue to be destroyed be turbid water damage and erosion corning from the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc_ mine site. .Maybe the appropriate question would be, "does someone's property have to be completely destroyed before enforcement can take place `T' Since --Ric#iard Medeiros v.N.x. Da-m ije9w ar D.O.E. Same Uwzisoa a:: C'.uuwy C=ivaiuna OLum co: .Randy Luuu 1r APPLICATION FOR ` WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF SURFACE MINING r Aar, Natural Resources RECLAMATION PERMIT (Form SM-2) This application is for (check one): ID new permit Z revision of existing permit f]transfer of permit. NAME OF COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL APPUCANT(S) TOTAL ACREAGE OF PERMIT AREA APPLIED FOR This will be the name on the permit. (Type or print In ink.) (Include all acreage to be disturbed by mining,setbacks and buffers, and associated activities during the life of the mine.) 41.18 18 Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. acres MAILING ADDRESS COUNTY Mason No attachments will be accepted.Legal description of permit area: Attn: Mr. Jeff Hartman Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. NE 2493 Old Belfair HWY Belfair, WA 98528 Telephone (949) 644-2002 1/4 1 1/4 Section Township Range SURFACE OWNERSHIP Nr. I 17 23 1W Give names, addresses, and signatures of ail individuals with possessory �TF interest in land.(Attach signed copies of this document if more than one.) $artman Family Trust Nov. 1, 1990 I verify that the applicant has my permission to mine from my land. Signature of owner Date Application fee of S650.00 for a new reclamation permit is herewith attached? Q Yes 0 No OWNERSHIP OF RIGHTS TO REMOVE MINERALS BY SURFACE Street address and milepost of surface mine MINING Give names, addresses, and signatures of ail individuals with rights.(Attach signed copies of this document if more than one.) NE 2493 Old Belfair HWY Belfair, WA 98528 1 verify that the applicant has my permission to mine from this land. Signature of owner Date Distance(miles) Direction from Nearest community 2.5 SW Belfair Do you or any person, partnership, or corporation associated Method of mining Maximum depth of mine with you now hoid, or have you held, a surface mining 95 r operating or reclamation permit? f�Yes 0 No Pit If you answered yes to the above, please list: Expected start date of mining Estimated annual prcduc-;an Ongoing, 14 yrs. 1161,500 tons, or Permit Active Reclamation current remaiaJ gl cu yas number operation or complete Estimated numo of years Yes No Yes No Minerals to be mined Total Quantity to be mined over life of mine(estimated): .J tans,or 70-012066 % X Sand and Gravel 2,261,000 'Acuvds Have you ever had a surface mining operating or reclamation permit revoked? 0 Yes No Have you ever had a reclamation security forfeited? 0 Yes No If you answered yes to the above,give permit number(s) Are all of these mines now in compliance with RCW 78.44, WAC 332-18, and conditions of the permits? 0 Yes 0 No The applicant shall be considered as the permit holder for this surface mine and shall be responsible for compliance with RCW 78.44, WAC 332.18, the approved reclamation plan(Form SM-8A and attachments),and the conditions of the permit if issued by the Department of Natural Resources. Sign re of company repres ntativ or individual appiican[(s) Name and title of company representative (piedse print) Date signed s-18-95 JEFFREY A. HARTMAN, Secretary Fox t a la U� • Reclamation Permit No. Date�cc dI `I Accepted by v Ccpy distribution:White•Olympia.Yellow.Region,Pink.Applicant Application for Surface Mining Reclamation Permit(SM•2) Rewsed 9193 5a,44 6-flve4 , qqV Me dlw,6441r 6elrnt(- Alrrq IV C---Ytf W. r7 Alw -r2;�j 123*00' R 2 W 1 400 1 500 000 FE?RTH) R 1 W 47°30' 12 7 9 10 / r 10 L 9 O o a 13�0 18 4 n L p� I p� 13 C O L , T23N 19 4 j241 J 123 4 LGrS Lak 30 2 2 I Bel air I 3 32 33 3. 3 Lynch cove 1 int 106 q J� 3 3 n Suobenrfi (o , 1 - P 7 82.6 ` 1012 9 s�°` P,� eu U 302 8I G a Lak NoM1h ^,� 9a 18 13, 14 18 150 000 FEET O 09 (NORTH) 2 _ A on C.D. L ofr. 24 sewn z T 22 N 22 au: •. ° ' � -..�� _ - r - WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF 5-1-AIV DAKL y.... `` Natural Resources RECLAMATION PLAN v (Form SM-8A) DO I NEED TO FILE A RECLAMATION PLAN? — Mines with working faces higher than 30 feet The Surface Mining Act(RCW 78.44), as amended in 1993, and steeper than 45' requires you to file a reclamation plan for: You must file a reclamation plan for mines with Mines more than three acres in size working faces that are both higher than 30 feet and You must file a reclamation plan for mines in which steeper than 1 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical(45°), three or more aces (including highwalls, pit floors, unless there is a pre-existing natural hazard in the area. stockpiled areas, side-cast areas, and processing-plant Note: Lands that have already been reclaimed to the standards sites)will be or have been disturbed by mining. given in RCW 78.44 should not be Included when calculating the disturbed-area or face-height thresholds. A disturbed area is any place where operations in preparation for or during surface mining physically This form will help you by providing a checklist of the infor- disrupt, cover, compact, move, or otherwise alter the mation required. Even so, it is not uncommon for applicants characteristics of soil, bedrock, or topography that to have to modify their original plan before it is acceptable to existed prior to such operations. Disturbed areas may the Department. include, but are not limited to: working faces, excavated Note: This form is also available on disk. water bodies, pit floors, processing plant sites, stockpile Note: When signed by the applicant and approved by the Depart- sites, spoil-pile sites, and equipment staging areas. ment of Natural Resources, this document and the associated maps, Disturbed areas do not include mine access roads cross sections, and other attachments will be the approved reclama- tion plan for this permit that the permit holder must follow for the unless these roads have characteristics of topography,drainage, slope stability, or ownership that make mine site. Variation from the approved reclamation plan may re- quire that a new plan be submitted to the Department for approval. reclamation necessary. Please answer all questions legibly in ink and sign. NAME OF APPLICANT/PERMIT HOLDER(S) (Type or print in ink.) NAME OF MINE This will be the name(s)on the permit and performance security. Belfair Sand and Gravel Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. Street address and milepost of suriace mine Attn: Jeff Hartman 4 Corporate Plaza, Suite 215 NE 2493 Old Belfair HWY Newport Beach, CA 92660 Belfair, WA 98528 - (360) 275-7110 Phone: (949) 644-2002 MAILING ADDRESS Distance(miles) Direction from Nearest community NE 2493 Old Belfair HWY COUNTY Belfair, WA 98528 No attachments will be accepted. Legal description of permit area: (360) 275-7110 1/4 1/4 Section Township Range Telephone NE NE 17 23 1 W SURFACE OWNERSHIP Give names and addresses of all Individuals with possessory Interest In land. (Continue on another sheet if more space is needed.) Hartman Family Trust Nov. 1, 1990 MINING AREA TO BE DISTURBED (include all acreage to be disturbed by mining, reclamation setbacks, and associated activities during the life of the mine.) In the following 36 months 11 -13 acres Total during the life of the mine 34.46 (This should be the same number as on Form SM-2.) acres Reclamation Permit/Application No. Standard Reclamation Plan(Form SM-8A) Revised 10193 PLANNING FOR RECLAMATION a -1 Reclamation of a site must meet or exceed the minimum rec- any segment within two years of abandonment of mining on lamation standards required by the Washington State Surface that segment(except as provided for in a segmental reclama- Mining Act (RCW 78.44). The primary purpose of the Act is tion agreement). to insure that segmental reclamation occurs promptly and A reclamation plan should be simple, practical, and easy properly for all permitted mines. Each requirement of the rec- to implement. It should be flexible, taking into account the lamation law may not fit every mine. The law provides some potential for unanticipated changes in the geology and the latitude for variance. If you have a good reclamation idea or a market that will affecf reclamation. The plan should have pro- unique operating problem, see the reclamation officer at your visions for quality reclamation even if mining to depletion Department of Natural Resources Region office. never occurs. Form SM-8A and the required maps and cross sections are WHAT IS A RECLAMATION PLAN? adequate documentation for most mines. In some instances, A reclamation plan can be thought of as both a financial plan- separate reports, such as an expanded checklist, a hydro- ring document and a contract that defines the topography, geologic evaluation, or an environmental impact statement, drainage, and vegetation of the site after reclamation is com- may be necessary. plete. This plan describes the permit holder's strategy to When signed by the applicant/permit holder(s) and land- achieve acceptable reclamation at the lowest possible cost and owner(s) and approved by the Department of Natural Re- establishes an economic limit of production for each site based sources(DNR), this document and the associated maps, cross on the area available for mining and the grade of the deposit. sections, and other attachments will be considered the ap- It also identifies and addresses mitigation of potential environ- proved reclamation plan for this permit, which the permit mental impacts, such as gullying of impermeable clays, for holder must follow for the mine site. Significant variations which the permit holder is liable; establishes a segmental se- from the approved reclamation plan require that a new recla- quence of mining and reclamation that will avoid unnecessary mation plan be submitted for approval. Managers and senior earth moving; and identifies equipment needed. equipment operators must be familiar with the reclamation ob- The plan should provide a schedule for initiating reclama- ligations to which the permit holder has committed. tion as soon as possible on parts of the site where surface mining has been completed. Reclamation activities, to the ex- The checklist below will help you be sure that nothing is tent feasible, should be conducted simultaneously with surface forgotten. Neatness counts! If a plan is not neat and legible mining, and, in any case, reclamation must be completed on and in ink, it will be rejected. CHECKLIST OF MINIMUM RECLAMATION STANDARDS GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS Direction of ground water flow: Assumed SE Please check the appropriate boxes and fill in the blanks below. Is the aquifer perched? ❑ yes n no Where required,please explain in the space provided. /f the question Is the shallowest aquifer: ❑ confined M unconfined? does not apply to your mine, please write in 'NA"for 'not applica- ble'to let us know you have read the question. If additional space is The site will be mined: ❑ wet M dry ❑ both needed, write '(Continued)' in the blank and restate the question Explain Static groundwater elevation and continue your answer on a separate sheet, or write'See attached report'in the blank and attach a report.Any unanswered questions unknown. may result In this form being returned to you unapproved. MINE TYPE Type of mine: M pit ❑ quarry Material(s) to be mined: El sand and gravel ❑ rock or stone ❑ clay ❑ metal ❑ limestone ❑ silica ❑ other Deposit type: M glacial ❑ river flood plain (alluvial) If any of the following conditions apply, a hydrogeologic evalu- ❑ river channel deposits ❑ talus ❑ bedrock ❑ unknown ation that outlines measures to protect against or mitigate ❑ lode ❑ other avulsion, erosion, and damage to fisheries may be necessary. The site is in a: HYDROLOGY ❑ river or stream channel ❑ 100-year flood plain Water table depth is feet below sea level, or ❑ critical aquifer recharge area ❑ sole source aquifer ❑ the surface, or ® other unknown ❑ wellhead protection area ❑ special protection area ❑ public water supply watershed Annual fluctuation of water table is from feet ❑ designated aquifer protection area on to feet on Hydrogeologic evaluation is attached ❑ yes M no (date) (date) Standard Reclamation Plan(Form SM-8A),Page 2 of 12 Reclamation Permit/Application No. mixed with sterile soils.Topsoil should not be used tor screen- xplain: government be- cause berms required by county or municipal g cause this would preclude its timely use for reclamation. Depth of topsoil is 2' + feet. Depth of subsoil is unknown feet. Depth to bedrock is unknown feet. Topsoil will be salvaged where possible? 97 yes Ono If no, explain: Salvaged topsoil will be utilized SUBSEQUENT LAND USE in the continuous reclamation of the mine. Subsequent land use: M industrial ❑ agricultural ❑ forestry M residential O wetlands and lakes ❑ other Subsequent land use is compatible with county Topsoil and overburden will immediately be moved or municipal comprehensive plan? [3 yes 0 no to reclaim adjacent depleted segment? Pfl yes ❑ no County or Municipality Approval for If no, explain: Surface Mining(Form SM-6)is attached? 0 yes ❑ no If any answers are no, explain: The site has a county designation of Rural Single Family 1DU/5AC. The reclaimed site will be Topsoil and overburden storage areas will be beyond the subdivided into 8 single family lots limits of mining but positioned for the shortest possible The owner intends to explore a rezone downhill transport during reclamation? El yes ❑ no to Light Industrial Land Use. If no, explain: Note: Approval of the reclamation plan and (or) Form SM-6 does not vest the subsequent land use. Subsequent use may be changed by the permit holder with the written approval of local government up until the time reclamation is complete and the reclamation permit Is terminated. Change of subsequent use by the permit holder may Before materials are moved, vegetation will be cleared and require submission of revised Forms SM-6 and SM$A and a State drainage planned for the storage areas? l l yes ❑ no Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)checklist. If no, explain: SITE PREPARATION Permit and Disturbed Area Boundaries The permit holder should delineate the permit boundaries and maximum extent of disturbance and setbacks with clearly vis- Storage areas will be stabilized with vegetation if ible permanent boundary markers. The permit holder must materials will be stored more than one season? le�yes ❑ no maintain the boundary markers until the termination of the If no, explain: reclamation permit. Boundary of the permit area has been marked with permanent boundary markers? IN yes ❑ no Boundaries of areas to be disturbed by mining (permit area minus setbacks) have been marked permanent Setbacks and Screens with permanent boundary markers? ❑ yes ❑ no If no, explain: The boundaries will be Permanent setbacks and screens help control erosion, and provide seed sources for reclamation. Screens should consist established prior to clearing any of native vegetation and(or)topography. Permanent setbacks additional area within the mine. are not required for pits(unconsolidated deposits)but may still be useful if the mine has close neighbors or adjacent scenic resources, and setbacks may be required by local government. Permanent setback and screen material should not be mined Saving Topsoil and Overburden for Reclamation or used for reclamation.The minimum permanent setback for Prior to any surface mining operation, the permit holder shall quarries (consolidated deposits) permitted after June 30, carefully stockpile all available topsoil and overburden in stable 1993, is 30 feet. storage areas for use in later reclamation or immediately move The permanent setback for this site will them to reclaim adjacent depleted segments. Topsoil needed be 30 feet wide. N, E, S for reclamation may not be sold or given away or removed or 65 feet from creek on West Reclamation Petmit/Application No. Standard Reclamation Plan(Form S1A•BA),Page 3 of 12 Reclamation Setbacks Conservation Setbacks_ If the cut-and-fill method will be used to restore slopes rather In special cases,setbacks may be necessary to protect unstable than mining to a final slope, a setback from the property slopes,wildlife habitat,or other sensitive areas or to limit tur- boundary or permanent setback (where used) is necessary to bid water discharge from areas that will be disturbed. insure sufficient material for reclamation.The reclamation set- - - - ------- back for pits (unconsolidated deposits) permitted after June Conservation setbacks are necessary for: ❑ unstable slopes 30, 1993, must be at least equal to the maximum anticipated O wildlife habitat M water Quality height of the adjacent working face. (A setback equal to the ❑ other -. working face will provide only enough material for a 2:1 slope. _ To meet the standards of the law for slopes of between 2:1 Explain: A 6 5' stream buffer setback is and 3:1, a larger setback is generally required.) required by Mason County from the Class Maximum depth of the mine will be III stream along the West side of the 95 feet. all on hill. property. The reclamation setback(material that can be used for reclamation)for this site will be 30 feet wide. Conservation setbacks have been marked no Reclamation setback has been marked with with Permanent boundary markers? ❑ yes It will be permanent boundary markers? 29 yes ❑ no SEGMENTAL RECLAMATION marked If no, explain: The permit holder must reclaim each segment of the mine within two years of completing mining on that segment and (or)in the manner described in this reclamation plan or a sepa- rate segmental reclamation agreement. Segmental reclama- tion helps establish self-sustaining vegetation,especially native This site will not have a reclamation setback pioneer vegetation, and promotes stable slope conditions and because a backfilling plan is attached? ❑ yes M no improves the water quality and appearance of the site. This site will not have a reclamation setback for the Permit area has been divided into segments for mining and reclamation purposes? ❑ yes b no following reason(s): If no, explain: Continuous mining will occur Over burden of one unit is removed annually and utilized to reclaim the completed mine unit behind actively mined unit. Each segment is smaller than seven acres, has less than 500 Setbacks to Protect Streams and Flood Plains linear feet of working face, and has characteristics Generally no mine may be located in or near streams or on that make it feasible to treat it as a unit? M yes ❑ no 100-year flood plains unless a Shoreline Permit has been is- Explain: Annual unit consists of 2 acres± with sued.Setbacks from streams and flood plains should be at least a 240 f t ± working face. 200 feet wide. Wider setbacks may be necessary for stream and flood-plain stability and to prevent breaching of the pit at a later date. A stream setback of at least 200 feet has been marked with A schedule for the sequence of mining and segmental permanent boundary markers? ❑ yes no reclamation of each segment or a Segmental A setback of at least 200 feet from the 100-year Reclamation Agreement is attached? ❑ yes M no flood plain has been marked with permanent If no, explain: Mining is continuous with boundary markers? ❑ yes 1 no reclamation of a unit on an annual basis. Explain: N/A MINING PRACTICES TO FACILITATE RECLAMATION Copy of Shoreline Permit from the Department of Removal of Vegetation Ecology and (or)local government is attached? ❑ yes ® no Vegetation will be removed sequentially from areas Hydraulic project approval from the Department to be mined to prevent unnecessary erosion? 129 yes ❑ no of Fisheries and Wildlife is attached? ❑ yes Q no Standard Raclamation Plan(Form SM•8A),Page 4 of 12 Reclamation Permit/Application No. Drainage within mine will be airectea to the settling ponds and french drains on site. Best management practices will be maintained. Small trees and other transplantable vegetation will be sal- Revegetation, sheeting. and (or)matting will be vaged for use in revegetating other segments? ❑ yes ® no used to protect areas susceptible to erosion? ] yes ❑ no If yes, give details- Three patches of forest If yes, give details; if no, explain: Topsoil replacement located on the site - they will be logged; recycled wood waste and revegetation using marketable timber removed. . The remainder fir and cedar trees and nature planting cut for firewood and the slash k 8t=s on perimeter and slopes. Future building recycled in the proposed wood waste pads to be seeded with grass. operation. -- Temporary water-control systems used for erosion control will: Wood and other compactible debris should not be buried; it Divert clean water around the pit? yes Cl no should be recycled, removed, burned, or chipped.If wood and Trap sediment-laden runoff before other compactible debris will be buried, solid-waste disposal P and land-use permits must be obtained. it enters a stream? IN yes ❑ no Result in essentially natural conditions Wood and other compactible debris will be: ® recycled❑ removed ® chipped ❑ burned ❑ buried of volume, velocity, and turbidity? ® Yes ❑ no 13 used to synthesize topsoil or mulch Be designed for 25-yr, 24-hr peak event? ® yes ❑ no Be removed or reclaimed? ® yes ❑ no ❑ other If any answers are no, explain: Solid-waste disposal, burning, and land-use permits are attached? ❑ yes n no Some wood and other debris will be salvaged and used for fish and wildlife habitats? ❑ yes El no If yes, give details; if no, explain: Ditches, flumes, and (or) armored channels will be established to prevent erosion of setbacks on neighboring properties? 1 yes ❑ no If yes, give details; if no, explain: -. - Armored channels will be _ _ provided along the south and — east setback to contain and — _ route water to the stormwater — _ facilities and protect — downstream properties. Erosion Control Stormwater conveyance ditches and channels will be Erosion control measures are generally necessary during min- lined with vegetation or riprap? ISl yes ❑ no Ing to avoid severe erosion or loss of topsoil. Each site must If yes, give details; if no, explain: be evaluated on an individual basis, and multiple techniques to control erosion may be necessary.The Department of Ecology requires discharge permits for most surface mines.In addition, some mines at higher elevations should plan for the effects of rain-on-snow events on slope stability and erosion. Pit floor will slope at gentle angles toward highwall, sediment retention pond, or proper drainage? Pal yes ❑ no Standard Fiecianution Plan(Form S?A-BA),Page 5 01 12 fieclamadar,Permit/Application No. Nab=l-and.adm dmimge-chsraie wih.bekeptfreeof SloptXequiremeats for Pits and Waste Rock Dumps'; equipment►wastes, stockpiles, and overburden? For unconsolidated material (such as sand and gravel pits, M Yes ❑ no waste rods dumps, etc.), final slopes must meet the following If no, explain: The mine will -bs2-set back-65' requirements.— from the Class III intermittent stream Slopes will vary between 2.*0 and 3:0 feet horizontal along the West: property-fine Drainage to 1.0 foot vertical or flatter, except in limited areas from the mine will be directed away from where steeper slopes are necessary to create sinuous topography and control drainage. yes ❑ no - this stream and to the stormwater facilities- no,explain. in place. RECLAMATION TOPOGRAPHY The goal of reclamation is to create stable, usable land. New drainages should be established; and contours should blend For pits, slopes will not exceed 1.5 feet horizontal to smoothly with adjacent offsite topography. To promote slope 1.0 foot vertical except as necessary to blend stability and revegetation, slopes should generally vary be- with adjacent natural slopes? . M yes ❑ no tween 2.0 and 3.0 feet horizontal to 1.0 foot vertical or flatter. Give details: The majority of the site will Slopes steeper than 1.5 feet horizontal to 1.0 foot vertical are not acceptable for pits except in limited areas to tie in to offsite have 3: 1 to 2: 1 slopes. Steeper slopes topography. The reclaimed mine site should appear natural— are not anticipated. that is, slopes should be sinuous and right-angle corners should be eliminated by rounding. Sinuous slopes can be formed either by mining to the prescribed angles, which is Slope Requirements for Quarries and generally more cost effective, or by using the cut-and-fill method. Backfilling is not allowed unless prior approval.is ob- tained from DNR For consolidated rock, such as basalt, andesite, granite, lime- stone, or quartzite, a vertical highwall face may be acceptable. FINAL SLOPES There is no prescribed angle or height. Slopes will vary in steepness? ❑ yes 3 no If no, explain: The mai ority of slopes w�1 1 - Some slopes will be reclaimed as cliffs? ❑ no yes ❑ be 3• 1 topography with some at 2: 1 . They If yes, explain by checking the appropriate box below: ❑ Slopes steeper than 1.0 foot horizontal to 1.0 foot will tie into the adiacent buffers. vertical are an acceptable subsequent land use as confirmed on Form SM-6. Slopes will have a sinuous appearance in both ❑ Cliffs are indigenous to the immediate area and profile and plan view? ayes ❑ no already present a threat to human life. Photo attached to document presence of cliffs. If no, explain: ❑ Geologic or topographic characteristics of the site Final slopes will undulate - preclude slopes being reclaimed at a flatter angle and between 2 : 1 and 3 : 1 with are an acceptable subsequent land use as confirmed terraces for future streets and on Form SM-6. building sites. Explain: Slopes will have no large rectilinear (that is, right angle or straight, planar) areas? 0 yes ❑ no If no, explain: Where reasonable, tracks of the final equipment pass will be preserved and oriented to trap moisture, Selective blasting will be used to remove benches and soil, and seeds and to inhibit-erosion? IN yes ❑ no walls and to create chutes, buttresses, spurs, scree slopes, If no, explain: and rough cliff faces that appear natural? ❑ yes ❑ no If yes, give details; if no, explain: Standard Reclamation Ptan(Form Su•8A),Page 6 of 12 Reclamation Permit/Amiication No. Roeclarnation blasting will.bwused to reduce the entire- Mine floor will be gently graded into sinuous drainage highwall to a scree or overburden slope less than channels to preclude sheet-wash erosion during 2.0 feet horizontal to 1.0 foot vertical? ❑yes ❑ no intense precipitation? ❑ yes M no If yes, give.details; if no,.explain: NSA If yes,give details; if no, explain: The mine will be graded to provide drainage consistent with the future development layout. Small portions of benches will be left to provide habitat for raptors and other cliff-dwelling birds? ❑ yes ❑ no Backfilling Mine floor will be bulldozed, plowed, ripped, or If backfilling is proposed, it is necessary to give the source of blasted to foster revegetation? ❑ yes no the backfill material,quantity needed,grading and compaction If yes, give details; if no, explain: See Above scheme, erosion control plan, and immediate vegetation plan. If backfill is to be brought from off site, copies of all permits from local government will be necessary. Slopes will require significant backfilling? ❑ yes M no DNR-approved backfilling plan and(or) permits are attached? ❑ yes I'll no LAKES, PONDS, AND WETLANDS If no backfilling plan attached, explain: If surface mining results in the formation of a swamp, pond, or lake useful for recreation,wildlife habitat,water quality con- trol, or other beneficial wetland purposes, the site must be reclaimed in the following manner: Reclaimed areas below the permanent low water table Backfilling will be done with overburden material in soil, sand, gravel, and other unconsolidated material will have a slope no steeper than 1.5 feet (not topsoil) perched above the mine? �1 yes ❑ no horizontal to 1.0 foot vertical? M yes ❑ no If no, what is the source of the material? If yes, give details; if no, explain: All grading/backfilling will be done with non-noxious, non- If not already present, soils, silts, and clay-bearing combustible, relatively incompactible solids? ❑ yes it no material will be placed below water level to If yes, give details; if no, explain: Backfilling will enhance revegetation? M yes ❑ no be done with overburden material from If yes, give details; if no, explain: the mine. The final detention pond will be a two cell wet pond which will be planted with emergent — Backfilled slopes will be compacted? ® yes ❑ no and submergent vegetation. If yes, give details; if no, explain: Wheel Rolled Some parts of pond and lake banks will be shaped so that a person can escape from the water? 21 yes ❑ no If yes, give details; if no, explain: Constructed at slopes of 3:1 or flatter. MINE FLOORS Rat areas will be formed into rolling mounds? ❑ yes M no Armored spillways or other measures to prevent If yes, give details; if no, explain: Mine is on hillside. undesirable overflow or seepage will be Benches will be created for terraced affect, provided to stabilize bodies of water and adjacent slopes M yes ❑ no The benched areas will provide building sites If yes, give details; if no, explain: An armored- spillway and street right—of—ways for future use. will be provided on final pond for overflow The benches will be back sloped in extreme runoff events. to route water to the street and drain system and away from the down hill slope face. Standard Reclamation Plan(form SM-BA),Page 7 of 12 Reelafnation Permit/Applieafion No. Wildlife habitat will be developed, incorporating Drainages will be constructed on each reclaimed segment such measures as: to control surface water, erosion, and siltation, . and to direct clean runoff to a safe outlet? [a yes ❑ no Sinuous and irregular shorelines? yes ❑ no If yes, give details; if no, explain: Interim storm water Varied water depths? ® yes ❑ no 1'd facilities will be installed and maintained Shallow areas<18 inches deep? yes ❑ no Islands and peninsulas? ❑ yes ❑ no during the active life of the mine_ Give details: Wet pond size will be sized for The grade of ditches and channels will be the design storm. constructed to limit erosion and siltation? M yes ❑ no If yes, give details; if no, explain: In addition a be Two cells with Common isthmus. will be maintained to assure runnoff from the mine cannot reach the intermittent stream Ponds or basins will: along the west line. Be located in stable areas? M yes ❑ no Have sufficient volume for expected runoff? M yes ❑ no SITE CLEANUP AND Have an emergency overflow spillway? 1I yes ❑ no PREPARATION FOR REVEGETATION Have protected spillways and outfalls Dealing with Hazardous Materials (for example, rock armor) to prevent failure and erosion? j yes ❑ no If surface mining will expose hazardous natural materials, such as acid-forming coals and metalliferous rock or soil,the permit If any answers are no, explain: holder must attach a plan to handle such materials. All grad- ing/backfiiling to cover the hazardous materials must be made with non-noxious, noncombustible, relatively incompactible solids unless the permit holder provides written approval from all appropriate solid waste regulatory agencies. Other meth- ods may also be acceptable. Proper measures will be taken to prevent seepage from water impoundments that could cause flooding outside the Natural hazardous materials are present permitted area or adversely affect the stability of at the mine site? ❑ yes Eno impoundment dams or adjacent slopes? ❑ yes ❑ no The final ground surface drains away from If yes, give details; if no, explain: any hazardous natural materials? ❑ yes M no The pond provided is in sump If yes, give details; if no, explain: Wood waste recycling condition. operation will have treatment facilities to handle any leachate generated off Written approval from other agencies with the jurisdiction stockpiles. to regulate impoundment of water is attached? ❑ yes ❑ no Plan for handling hazardous mineral wastes If no, explain: N/A indigenous to the site is attached? ❑ yes Kl no If no, written approval from all appropriate solid waste regulatory agencies is attached? ❑ yes gl no Removal of Debris All debris(garbage, "bone piles", treated wood, etc.) Final Drainage Configuration will be removed from the site? ® yes ❑ no Reconstructed drainages must be graded and contain enough All temporary sheds, scale houses, and other energy-dissipation devices so that essentially natural condi- structures will be removed from the site? M yes ❑ no tions of water velocity,volume, and turbidity are re-established w If either answer is yes, give details; if no, explain: within six months of reclamation of each mine segment. Upon completion of the site offices,-.batch will be capable of carrying the peak flow of the 2-5-year, 24-hour precipitation event? plant, wash rack, stormwater, puMp G ions, (Data are available at DNR Region offices.)? 7 yes ❑ no sheds, maintenance buildings, ppri liberal If yes, give details; if no, explain: For- fha-rectaimed equipment, bone piles, etc. . will hP removed site the storm water facilities will exceed from the site an either salvagers nr____snosed the 25 year, 24 hour event During the in an approved manor at an annrnveri sib. active minimg of the site the stormwater The wood waste recycling facility may remain facilities will meet this standard. if the zoning can be changed to light industries Standard Aadamation Plan(form SM-8A),Page 8 of 12 fiOclamalion Psfmit/Application No. �. SOIL RFPL-At rm=-4>< -- ---�- - •- on site that could be used to supplement topsoil !f available.up to 3-feet-of-of topsoil and(or)subsoil for reclamation? ❑ yes & no will be restored? M yes Cl no If no, expo- Materials are not avaliable If no, explain: on -site. Silts from settling ponds or a filter press will Topsoil will be restored and seedbeds prepared as be used for reclamation? M yes ❑ no necessary to promote effective revegetation and If no, explain: to stabilize slopes and mine floor? M yes ❑ no If yes, give details; if no, explain: Mining will be continuous and overburden and reclamation of a unit will be done on an annual basis. Settling pond clay slurries will be pumped or Topsoil will be replaced to an approximate depth of hauled to other segments for reclamation? ® yes ❑ no 0.5-1 If no, explain: feet on the pit floor and a depth of 0.5-1 feet on slopes. Topsoil will be distributed evenly over the site (N yes ❑ no If no, explain: Topsoil will be replaced with equipment that will minimize compaction, or it will be plowed, disked, or ripped following placement? Z1 yes ❑ no if no, explain: If topsoil is in short supply, it will be strategically placed in depressions and low areas in adequate thickness to conserve moisture and promote revegetation? IN yes ❑ no If no, explain: Unlikely to be short of material Topsoil will be immediately stabilized with grasses as wood waste recycled materials are and legumes to prevent loss by erosion, slumping avaliable to augment restoration of or crusting? M yes ❑ no t'lese beds No topsoil from the site If no, explain: will be exported. Topsoil will be moved when conditions are not overly wet or dry? 0 yes ❑ no If no, explain: REVEGETATION The revegetation plan should show how, when, where, and what vegetation will be planted. A thorough and detailed plan Topsoil will be imported? ❑ yes ® no increases the chances that plants are well established when Explain: reclamation is finished. It is best to do test and demonstration plantings early and to monitor the results so that appropriate changes can be made before mining ceases. The mine site is in: ❑ eastern Washington M western Washington? Synthetic topsoil will be used and (or) made on The mine site is: ❑ wet ❑ dry? site to supplement existing topsoil? ® yes ❑ no The average precipitation is 00 inches/year. 1f no, explain: Revegetation of a segment will start during the first proper planting season(fall for grasses and legumes, fall or late winter for trees and shrubs) following restoration of slopes? �1 yes ❑ no Reclartulian PermiUApplicalion No. Slandard A"malion Ptan(form SM-BA).Page 9 of 12 If yes, give details: if no, exalaint Western Washington Wet Areas .Temporary seeding of inactive -portions of the mine. when opening a ❑ birdsfoot trefoil ' sedges _unit (annually) topsoil removed, M cedar ❑ tubers salvaged, and overburden will Q cottonwood It wetland grasses —immediately be placed as fill and —topsoil utilized on the unit being ❑ creeping red fescue ❑ willow reclaimed to the desired grades on M red alder* —the site plan. The unit will then be _planted with mix specified below. Other Monitoring and replacement will be —conducted on an annual basis. Reclamation will be progressive. Eastern Washington Dry Areas Test plots will be used to detenrrune optimum vegetation plans? ❑ yes i3 no ❑ alder* ❑ juniper The site will not be actively revegetated because: ❑ alfalfa* ❑ lodgepole pine ❑ It is a rural area with a rainfall exceeding 30 inches ❑ black locust* ❑ lupine* annually and erosion will not be a problem Cl deciduous trees ❑ ponderosa pine (requires approval of DNR Region office). ❑ deep-rooted ground cover ❑ Russian olive' ❑ Demonstration plots and areas will be used ❑ diverse evergreens ❑ shrubs to show that active revegetation is ❑ grasses ❑ clover* not necessary. Other ❑ Revegetation is inappropriate for the approved subsequent use of this surface mine. Explain: Eastern Washington Wet Areas ❑ alder* ❑ serviceberry ❑ cottonwood ❑ tubers ❑ poplar ❑ willow Documentation is attached? ❑ yes ❑ no ❑ sedges Other RECOMMENDED PIONEER SPECIES Segmental reclamation allows plant communities to develop according to ecological succession stages. A combination of Give planting details: natural reseeding and intentional planting is the most effective means of establishing diverse and prosperous pioneer vegeta- tion. Revegetation with grass and legumes should occur during the first appropriate season after slope shaping and replace- ment of topsoil. Establishing widespread healthy vegetation generally takes several seasons. Follow-up evaluations may be necessary to monitor progress and to determine why plants did not thrive. In eastern Washington, continuous ground cover may not be achievable because of arid conditions or sparse topsoil. However, revegetation shall be as continuous as reasonably possible. The sections below glue suggestions for species most likely to suruiae in different types of climate. Check the species that will probably be planted at your mine site. Western Washington Dry Areas ❑ alfalfa* & lupine* 30 lbs. N clover* 5 lbs. M orchard grass 25 lbs. M cereal rye 5 lbs. M perennial rye 15 lbs. M colonial bent grass 5 lbs.❑ ponderosa pine M creeping red fescue 30 lbs. ❑ red alder* ' indicates nitrogen-fixing species M Douglas fir ❑ shore pine PRINTING TECHNIQUES ❑ ground cover(other) M shrubs Mined sites generally present harsh conditions that hamper Other 300 trees/acre Mixed t,-aac revegetation. Nevertheless, much can be done to increase on slopes, grasses on terraces. the chances for successful seeding and planting. Standard Reclamation Plan(Form S?A•aA),Page 10 01 12 Reclamation Permit/Acplication No. Ripping and tilling? _0 yes b no Information about your proposed reclamation plan should be Blasting to create permeability? 13 yes ICI no provided on several types of maps:(1)a site-access map,(2)a Mulching? It yes ❑ no pre-mining topographic map, (3) a reclamation sequence Irrigation? p yes no map, and (4) a final reclamation map with at least two inter- secting cross sections. These maps and cross sections should Fertilization? Yes ❑ no be at an appropriate scale to show the desired information. Importation of clay or Suggested Map Scales humus-bearing soils? ❑ yes IJ no _ Site size Map scale Adding other soil conditioners or amendments? C1 yes ❑ no 3-5 acres not less than 1 inch - 50 feet 5-10 acres not less than 1 inch - 100 feet rive details: _ — 10 or more acres not less than 1 inch - 200 feet Utilizing salvaged topsoil augmented with Other Map Requirements recycled wood waste. Quantities are Preferred map size is 11 x 17 inches unless otherwise noted; _ sufficient to cover the site. Seed_, _ larger maps are acceptable, but you must be prepared to fur- fertilizer, mulch and restoration nish additional copies, if requested. If maps are small, they planting is all that is required. may be grouped together on a single sheet of paper. _ Each map must include: ❑ Scale ❑ Bar scale ❑ North arrow Trees and shrubs will be planted in topsoil ❑ Legend with all symbols defined or explained or in subsoil amended with generous ❑ Title block with the following information: amounts of organic matter? yes ❑ no ❑ Title of map If yes, give details; if no, explain: ❑ Application/permit number — The slopes and pond border will be planted ❑ Name and address of applicant/permit holder(s) with trees Source is the WDNR Nursery ❑ Space for signature in Olympia. ❑ Map/exhibit number ❑ Date map was drawn or revised Mulch will be piled around the base of SITE ACCESS MAP trees and shrubs? ® yes ❑ no High-qualitystock will be used? � yes ❑ no An 81.12 x 11 inch copy of the pertinent section of a road map that clearly shows how to get to the site from the nearest town. Trees and shrubs will be planted while yes ❑ no PRE-MINING TOPOGRAPHIC MAP' they are dormant? Stock will be properly handled, kept cool and This map is necessary to establish the location and setting of moist, and planted as soon as possible? El yes ❑ no the mine site. It must show: . Seeds will be covered with topsoil or mulch ❑ Permit area plus an appropriate border on all sides. no deeper than a half inch? laJ yes ❑ no ❑ Elevations and contours, natural ground slopes, drainage If any answers are no, explain: patterns, and other topographic features 2. N/A ❑ Boundaries and names of counties and municipalities. ❑ Boundaries of property ownership, including adjacent properties. ❑ Names and addresses of adjacent property owners. ❑ Locations and names of other mines. ❑ Locations and names of all roads, railroads, utility lines, or any other rights of way. A Reclamation and Seeding Report(Form SM-3)will be filed with the Department upon completion of ❑ Locations and names of all streams and natural and revegetation for each segment? 7 yes ❑ no manmade drainways. If no, explain: 1 For a base map,use U.S.Geological Survey 7.5-minute maps,which are available from sporting goods stores or may be ordered from the U.S. Geological Survey, (509) 353-2524, or DNR Photo and Map Sales, P.O. Box 47031, Olympia, WA, 98504-7031, (206) 902- Note: The Department of Natural Resources will not release a recta- 1234. motion permit or performance security until it deems that effective revegetation has commenced. That is, vegetation has survived 2 Contour intervals are deemed adequate if they accurately reflect the through at least one growing season and come up again (usually conditions of the site. Generally, contour intervals should be between about 18 months). 5 and 20 feet. Standard Reclamation Plan(Form SM-SA).Page 11 of 12 Reclamation PetmitJApplication No. other manmade features. ❑ Location and depth of replaced topsoil. ❑ Locations and names of all wells, lakes, springs, and ❑ Permanent drainage and water-control systems(with existing wetlandsl. expanded view, if needed. ❑ Boundaries of the areas that will be disturbed by training. ❑ Area to be revegetated and proposed species. RECLAMATION SEQUENCE MAP ❑ Other information pertaining to the permit and required This map shows the details of the plan for mining and segmen- by statute. tal reclamation. It should cover the same area as the pre-min- Cross sections ing topographic map and display the following information: ❑ At least two cross sections (generally at right angles) Cl Permit area plus an appropriate border on all sides. show original and final topography and water table. G' Boundaries of the areas that will be disturbed by mining. ❑ Locations of ail permanent boundary markers. GEOLOGIC MAP2 ❑ Location of proposed access roads to be built When required by the DNR, a detailed description of geologic in conjunction with the surface mining operation setting and the type of deposit to be mined. and whether they will be reclaimed or left as roads. PHOTOS AND OTHF—q SUPPORTING DATA ❑ Locations and types of setbacks and berms. Aerial and(or)other photographs should be submitted in sup- ❑ Numbered segments and the direction and sequence of port of the application, when feasible. Additional maps, pho- ;pining. Avoid mining from the center outward. tos, and detailed reports may be required by DNR. ❑ Topsoil storage areas and sequence of stripping, storing, CK and replacement on mined segments. FIN UHF ❑ Overburden storage areas and sequence of stripping, ❑ All documents submitted have the date, the name and storing, and replacement of soil on mined segments. address of the permit holder, and the appiication number ❑ Waste rock piles and how they ill on every be reclaimed and ry lega of the material. stabilized. ❑ The plan contains predominantly reievant information. ❑ Operation plant and processing areas. When signed by the applicant and approved by the Department of Natural Resources, this document and the associated maps, cross ❑ Measures taken to protect adjacent surface resources, sections, and other attachments will be the approved reclamation including prevention of slumping or landslides on plan for this permit that:he permit holder must follow.Significant adjacent lands. uariations from the approxd reclamation pion may require :hot a new plan be suomit:ed :o :he Department;or approval. ❑ Location and description of the erosion control systems, including drainage facilities and settling ponds. 11 ,hereby agree to compry, to this pian. jDate signed C Other pertinent features. 4ELFAIR A 'D an� GRAVEL, ITC.FINAL RECI-MMATION MAP a ppi ZanC/p`ea'rlritt h1dI rf Secret rlg T his is a topographic map of the site as it will lock after Tinerif that I have see n and approve :his plan. (Date signed reclamation. It must show all applicable data required in the narrative portion of the reclamation plan and details of the mine reclamation.The map should cover the same area as the pre-mining topographic map and should display the following information: ❑ Permit area plus an appropriate border on all sides. (Signatures o/all India+duals with possessory interest)l n Pinal elevations and co^:ours, adjacent natural ground -el' /1=•• '17' T• Y� elf•' ._.�..... . slopes, reclaimed drainage patterns, and other topographic features. Approved by (Cate approved ❑ Locations and names of all roads, railroads, utility lines, or any other rights of way. Comments by Region ❑ Locations and names of all streams and drainages. Lc-cations and names of significant buildings, parks, and other structures, facilities, or features. 1 Existing wetland should be clearly shown on the plans. If wetland questions arise, contact the Department of Ecology(DOE). 2 L^.formation about geology may be available from the Department of Natural Resources,Division of Geology and Earth Resources,P.O.Box 47007, Olympia, WA 98504-7007, (206) 902-1450 or the USGS, (509) 352-2524. Standard Reciarnaiion Plan(Form SM-aA).Page 12 of 12 Reclamation Pefmit/AoQlicatfon No. as !7FCEIVED "01VION v SEP 17 1998 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF MASON CO.PLANN11JyA� ? Natural Resources Comm ER M.B Commissioner of Public Lands September 16, 1998 Allen Borden, Shoreline Planner Mason County Department of Community Development PO BOX 578 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-12066 Revised Reclamation Plan by A.D.A. Engineering, L.L.C. (1998) Dear Mr. Borden: On July 24, 1998,Todd Bohle(department Geomorphologist) and I inspected the stream and adjacent slope immediately west of the current mine site. The purpose of our inspection was to determine the possible effects reducing the current reclamation plan buffer to 65 feet (measured horizontally)would have on the stability of the slope. I have reviewed the referenced revised reclamation plan by A.D.A. Engineering, L.L.C. and the report by Mr. Bohle(copy enclosed). Based upon this information the department can make the following statement: • The reclamation plan referenced above meets statutory requirements per RCW 78.44. • The 65-foot-wide,no-disturbance buffer(measured horizontally) is adequate to protect the Type 3 stream. Mr. Bohle's report, under Recommendations, makes reference to the width of clearing and subsequent mining with regard to protecting the buffer from intrusions of landslides which could jeopardize both the water quality and stream stability. This information is defined as operational in nature and outside the jurisdiction of the Surface Mine Reclamation Act 78.44. It is also outside the jurisdiction of Forest Practices Act RCW 76.09. On August 3, 1998, we met to discuss the planned revised reclamation plan, more specifically, the stream side buffer width and the wood-waste, recycling-processing center. At the time we met, you stated it was yet to be determined if the planned wood-waste processing site would be under county jurisdiction per health department ordinances. SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN ST N 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-0068 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TTY:(360)825-6387 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER LJ Allen Borden Page 2 September 16, 1998 If the proposed use is under your jurisdiction as the local land use authority, then Mason County would be the SEPA lead agency. If Mason County is not the SEPA lead agency, SEPA rules dictate that Washington Department of Ecology be the SEPA lead agency. Please keep the department informed as to the status of your decision on the SEPA issue. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, I can be reached through the South Puget Sound Office at(360) 825-1631. Sincerely, David S. Pierce Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh SEP98/59 Enclosure c: Jeff Hartman, Hartman Family Trust GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR STA o A ou N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r n T = PLANNING -SOLID WASTE- UTILITIES , 2� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 September 22, 1998 David S. Pierce, Surface Mine Field Inspector Washington Dept. of Natural Resources P.O. Box 68, Enumclaw, Washington 98022-0068 RE: SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION PERMIT 70-12066 REVISED RECLAMATION PLAN (1998) Dear Mr. Pierce: Mason County Department of Community Development has received your letter of September 16, 1998 and its contents have prompted discussion among this Department's staff. The SMR permit is not a Mason County permit and no county permit is mandated by the proposed actions (gravel and mineral mining is exempt from a county grading or land modification permit). This means that Mason County has no authority under this permit and would not be the SEPA lead agency. As you note in your letter, SEPA rules dictate that the Washington Department of Ecology is the SEPA lead agency. Mason County Department of Community Development still has a position of concern for current problems in the Belfair Sand and Gravel operations. The portions of the operations above the berms on the south and east side cause drainage problems to adjacent properties. The location of the subject property adjacent to the designated aquifer recharge area for the Union River presents conflicts with protecting this critical area. The water usage as part of the operation raises water right issues. The incorporation of wood waste materials in the operation could lead to impacts to the area aquifer. From recent discussions among staff, consideration of a determination of significant environmental impacts by the operations and future plans would be merited. ADA Engineering has submitted their materials for environmental review to Allan Borden of this Department. Please advise this Department whether these materials should be returned or forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources for further review. For questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Community Development at (360�427-9670 [Allan Borden at ext. 365 or Gary Yando at ext. 2701. Sincerely, �- ',Allan Borden, Senio anner cc: file, Hartman, ADA Engineering Recycled GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR P�oN.srgTFo o A oU DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ►'- o T i PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES z� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 of 1864 e'o SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 October 23, 1998 David S. Pierce, Surface Mine Field Inspector Washington Dept. of Natural Resources P.O. Box 68, Enumclaw, Washington 98022-0068 RE: SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION PERMIT 70-12066 REVISED RECLAMATION PLAN (1998) Dear Mr. Pierce: This letter is to further clarify the letter by Senior Planner Allan Borden sent on September 22, 1998 to the Department of Natural Resources (your attention). That letter did acknowledge that Mason County had no authority under the surface mine reclamation permit for Belfair Sand and Gravel, but Mason County had concerns on the operations of Belfair Sand and Gravel and potential impacts to area resource values. The application materials and SEPA checklist for the Belfair Sand and Gravel revised reclamation plan were sent to the Mason County Department of Community Development for our review. Department staff did discuss the proposal, the reported problems with the current operation, and the county approvals or permits that may relate to the revised reclamation plan. From these discussions, it was concluded that Mason County did not have a permit or approval related to the reclamation plan, but Mason County did have concerns about the impacts to water quality and property in the vicinity of the Belfair Sand and Gravel operations. Apparently, it was not clear in the September 22, 1998 letter, but Mason County would like to have lead agency status in reviewing the revised reclamation plan of Belfair Sand and Gravel. In your letter of September 16, 1998, you state that the Department of Natural Resources may take the lead in the proposal review and at times, the Department of Ecology takes the lead agency role. In examining the SEPA Rule (WAC 197-11-936), this Department can understand this designation of lead agency, but Mason County would like to see a thorough evaluation of the surface mine operation and revised reclamation plan. Another point in your letter of September 16, 1998, you state that the impacts to water quality and slope stability by mining operations are beyond the scope of RCW 78.44, the Surface Mine Reclamation Act, and not in the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. These criteria are not beyond the scope of the State Environmental Policy Act and must be addressed. Mason County believes these issues to be of probable significant adverse impact that call for further evaluation of the proposal. Recycled 4 Mason County feels that this proposed reclamation plan needs careful review and evaluation in order to make the proper threshold determination of the impacts of the proposal. If the Department of Natural Resources and Ecology cannot make the thorough proposal evaluation and threshold determination, the Mason County Department of Community Development requests that Mason County be designated the lead agency for the SEPA review of the revised reclamation plan of Belfair Sand and Gravel (D.N.R. surface mine reclamation permit 70-120066). Such designation can be accomplished by Mason County petitioning the Department of Ecology for this determination on lead agency status, as stated in WAC 197- 11-942 (Agreements on lead agency status), or share in that status by another fair means of determination. A copy of this letter is being sent to Scott Morrison at the Department of Ecology to solicit a comment on this request. Please advise this Department on the issues about this proposal and lead agency status raised in this follow-up letter. For questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670 [Senior Planner Allan Borden at ext. 365 or Director Gary Yando at ext. 270]. Sincerely, Gary rando, Director Department of Community Development cc: file, Department of Ecology (Morrison), Jeffrey Hartman AS PA& Y RECEIVED WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF JENNINatural Resources Comm ER M.BofPubl ELCHER DEC 1 7 1998 Commissioner of Public Lands MASON CO. PLANNING DEP.T, December 15, 1998 Allen Borden, Senior Planner Mason County Department of Community Development County Courthouse Bldg. III 426 West Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Revised Reclamation Plan- SEPA Lead Agency Dear Mr. Borden: This letter is in response to our recent discussion regarding the SEPA Lead Agency status for the referenced permit. Gary Yando notified us in writing that Mason County was requesting to be the SEPA lead agency on this proposed project. Washington Administrative Code 197-11-942 allows agencies of jurisdiction to come to an agreement as to which agency will have SEPA lead agency status. The Department of Natural Resources hereby concurs with Mr. Yando's request for Mason County to be the SEPA lead agency for the referenced project. I trust this'will clarify the matter. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, I can be reached at (360) 825-1631. Sincerely, (� J � ti David S. Pierce Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh DEC98/82 SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN ST N 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-0068 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TTY:(360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER ti WASHINGTON DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE STEVE VALLEY 600 CAPITOL WAY N. P.O. BOX 1601 OLYMPIA WA 98501 BELFAIR WA 98528 MILTON JENSEN WILLIAM BROUGHTON 2341 NE OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY 2400 NE OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY BELFAIR WA 98528 BELFAIR WA 98528 POPE RESOURCES LEONARD AND CHERYL BROWNE P.O. BOX 1780 2521 NE OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY POULSBO WA 98370 BELFAIR WA 98528 JOHN AND SHIRLEY BYERLY DENNIS AND CRISTINE WARD P.O. BOX 133 2661 NE OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY BELFAIR WA 98528 BELFAIR WA 98528 LARRY AND CARMEN McELHANEY SCOTT MORRISON / JOHN PIERTZ 733 NE BEAR CREEK - DEWATTO RD. DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - SWRO BREMERTON WA 98312 P.O BOX 47775 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7775 CAROL SERDAR UNION RIVER BASIN PROTECTION ASSOCIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES P.O. BOX 714 1405 RUSH ROAD BELFAIR WA 98528 CHEHALIS WA 98532-8763 ALLAN HOOVER MR JEFFREY HARTMAN 2491 NE OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY 4 CORPORATE PLAZA, SUITE 215 BELFAIR WA 98528 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ALLEN SHEARER SAND & GRAVEL RICHARD MEDIEROS P O. BOX 1880 2481 NE OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY BELFAIR WA 98528 BELFAIR WA 98528 RECEIVED C Fc-:)) JAN 1 11999 January 11, 1999 NE2481 Old Belfair Hwy. Belfair,Wa. 98528 Gary Yando Dept. of Community Development 411 N. 5 h Street Shelton, Wa. 98584 Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel,Inc. revised reclamation plan Dear Mr. Yando First, I'd like to thank you for responding to my letters, and I hope this letter can help you understand my concerns. Your letter dated December 21, 1998, points out a few things that concern me and possibly others. The site is not now or has it been in compliance with laws,rules, and regulations since Hartman and Goit took over the Service Fuel mine site in 1985. In your letter,item number one, you state,w it is my understanding that the existing mining operation are exempt from grading permits". You may have misunderstood my explanation of the damage that is occurring and will continue to occur if Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. continues to operate in the method it is operating Grading permit has no relevance in the material entering my property and causing extensive amounts of damage. When I explained about the thousands of yards of material, consisting of mud, silt, sand, concrete, and other items corning onto my property from the mine site, it's because Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. has constructed several ponds that are not adequate to contain rain water. The infrastructure is designed to direct water run-off away for the mine site onto adjacent properties. Ponds fill up, are pumped or overflow,or directed to my property, Mr_ Hoovers property, and Milt Jensens property, and the tributary behind the mine site and the Union River. As you are aware of or should be aware of: "it is not possible to extract minerals without producing some environmental impacts. At the same time,comprehensive regulation of mining and through reclamation of mined lands is necessary to prevent or mitigate conditions that would be detrimental to the environment and to protect' the general welfare,health,safety,and property rights:of the citizens of the state, (RCW 7&44.010 Legislative finding) j1993 c 518 §2, 1970 ex.s. c 64 §2J t C cO Py Turbid drainage comes from several areas within the mine site, and is diverted onto my property and violates my rights to protect my general welfare,health, safety,and property rights. The following as you are already aware of and contribute to the damage of my property from Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site are- (1) Diverted drainage, and or overflows coming onto my property consist of mud, sand, silt,leachate, concrete,plastics,tires, and septic. (2) Turbid drainage comes from the mid-level settling pond that can not contain the water because it is built on fill,and continually overflows during each and every rain event,bringing with it thousands of yards of material that has been deposited onto my property from the mid-level pond constructed on fill,that can't contain the water and breaks causing hundreds of thousands of gallons of turbid water to be deposited onto my property,bringing with it hundreds and hundreds of yards of mud, sand,and silt with it. The diverted drainage onto Hoovers property, flows through the settling pond onto his property damaging his property. Milt Jensen, get turbid drainage when the mine site pumps their pond over the back side of the pit. (this turbid drainage is the Jensen's drinking water.) (3) Dirty water is diverted onto my property from the 10,000 gallon septic tank (leachate)that is overflowing out of control continually because the pump is not working. When the pump is working the 10,000 gallon tank is pumped into the lower settling pond, and that pond overflows onto Hoovers property and down the easement driveway onto my property. (4) Leachate coming from the woodwaste stock pile comes onto my property from the lower level of the mine site. The woodwaste consists of over the 2,000 cu. Yards allowed by law. That is not to mention the thousands of yards that were brought from the lower lever to the most upper level of the mine site.(mason county bas an order from Pollution Control Hearings Board and refuses to enforce that order) (5) Overflow from the lower settling pond comes down the easement driveway and enters my property from the county right-of-way. The amount of drainage consist of a very large stream of turbid and non-turbid drainage that consist of thousands of gallons of drainage when it rains. (you have been aware of for some time) (6) Diverted drainage that comes down to the lower level goes into a culvert that is illegally installed(you have been aware of for some time)goes through my property(damaging my property in it's path), into a culvert in front of my property, under the Old Belfair Highway,into a ditch,and into the Union River. 2 (7) Thousands of yards of material that has been deposited onto my property from the mid-level pond constructed on fill,that can't contain the water and breaks causing hundreds of thousands of gallons of turbid water to be deposited onto my property, bringing with it hundreds and hundreds of yards of mud, sand, and silt with it. The diverted drainage onto Hoovers property, flows through the settling pond onto his property damaging his property. Milt Jensen, get turgid drainage when the mine site pumps their pond over the back side of the pit. (this turbid drainage is the Jensen's drinking water.) The above are only a few ways that diverted turbid drainage enters my property, causing extensive amounts of damage. I would like to share my concerns pertaining to the following. I. The legislature recognizes(RCW 78-44-011)that the extraction of minerals through surface mining has historically included regulatory involvement by both state and local governments. All reclamation plans must,be approved' by the department of'natural resources,however the department of natural resources may eleg tte enforcementzuthority to countiesi cities,towns. It is my understanding that Mason County is waiting for the department of natural resources to make Mason County to be lead agency for the revised reclamation plan? If so,why would Mason County want to be lead agent if it has no surface raining ordinances??? 2. It is the intent of the legislature to clarify that surface mining is an appropriate land use, subject to reclaznatwn authority exercised by the depar rnent of l natural resources and land use and+operation tegulatary autl+arity by c�tles, 3. WAC 197-11-050(Lead agency)(1)A lead agency shall be designated when an agency is developing or is presented with a proposal,following the rules beginning an WAC 1.97-11-922 The lead agency shall be the agency with main responsibility for complying with SEPA's procedural requirements and shad be the only agency responsible for a. The tbrshold Bete oration;and b. I'repara ion and CAn ef2t of;ervironnwnta1 inVact statemmnts.' 3 cop � RCW 78.44.031 Definitions "Operations"means all mine-related activities, exclusive of reclamation,that include,but are not limited to activities that affect noise generation, air quality, surface and ground water quality, quantity, and flow, glare,pollution, traffic safety, ground vibrations, and 1 or significant or substantial impacts commonly regulated under provisions of land use or other permits of local government and local ordinances or other state laws. Many things should come to mind when considering property rights. The first being the Washington State Constitution"Article One,Section Sixteen" . The second being the intent of legislatures statutes. RCW 78.44.083 Reclamation Permit—Refusal to issue. The department shall refuse to issue a reclamation permit if it is determined during the SEPA process ftt the impacts of a proposed space mine 1cannot be adequately mitigated: The department or county, city, or town may refuse to issue any other permit at any other location to any miner or permit holder who fails to rectify deficiencies set forth in an order of the department within the requisite time schedule. However,the department or county, city, or town shall issue all appropriate permits when all deficiencies are corrected at each surface mining site. f 1993 c 518 § 33.) As you have been aware of, or should have been aware of,that the department of natural resources, department of ecology,pollution Control Hearings Board have sent letters of deficiencies and have not yet been rectified. As I can continue on with many more pages,I prefer to end by saying that under the law,I or any other person has the right to appeal the decisions of the administrative agencies if G( a person aggrieved by an agency action has the right to judicial appeal and if an agency has an administrative appeal procedure,such person shall,prior to seeking any judicial review,use such agency procedure if any such procedure is available,unless expressly provided otherwise by state statute." RCW 43.21C.075(4). RCW 34.05.530(1)(2)(3) Both Mr. Hoover and myself has a right to judicial appeal,unless you have an appeal process that you may prefer. The items that should be brought to your attention are as follows: I....Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. is on land use(forest practices) 2....Revised reclamation plan 3....Tires buried in excess of 3000 4....Roads built with construction debris(no permit) 5....Superfund material deposit on site(no permit) 6....Leachate underground tank(after the fact permit) 7....Woodwaste on site exceeding 2000 cu. Yds. (no permit) 4 8....Woodwaste violation Pollution Control Hearings Board Order 9....Operational violations 10....Encroachment onto my property by Belfair Sand and Gravel l I....Encroachment onto Hoover property by Belfair Sand and Gravel 12....Encroachment onto Jensen property by Belfair Sand and Gravel 13..._Diverted drainage onto adjacent properties. 14....Berms built onto adjacent properties. 15....Damaging of adjacent properties. 16....Damage to tributary behind mine site. 17....Damage to Union River 18....Other to be brought up in judicial brief. 19....Flooding of my property and others 20....Damage through diverted drainage(turbid) I will end this letter by saying that the department of natural resources instead of enforcing any statutes as you contend they should,they have suggested that I talk with the owner of Belfair Sand and Gravel,Jeffrey A. Hartman. My attorney has written a letter to there attorney, and we are waiting for a reply. You have informed Mr. Hoover that Waiter J. Goit is no longer with Belfair Sand and Gravel. I don't know what that is supposed to mean??? With or without Mr. Goit, damage and the safety of my family is still being threatened. I would appreciate a copy of Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. SEPA. You are aware of that a Environmental Impact Statement is required,or at least an Environmental Review. ince l , char edei Zos cc: Randy Loun cc: Commissioner Olsen cc- Allan Borden cc: Tim Sheldon cc: Dave Peirce DNR cc: Scott Morrison DOE cc: Bremerton Sun 5 P. 01 i I , i � s RICHARD MEDFI.-ROS NI 2481 OLIO BELFAIR 1IIIG11WAY BELFAIR , WASHINGTON 98528 i FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL 81113E FROM: I i Gary Ian o /Allcn Bordonicklard ASedeiros CQM PANY: DATE; MASON COUN'IT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Febn12ry 20, 1999 i NAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER (360) 427-3425 4 P>;ONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REOIERENCE NUMBER kax: (360) 275-9186 Rf: YOUR REFERANCE NUMBER: Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel , i ❑IJRGEiN'l- FOR REVJ,F.W ❑ PLtASE COMMFNT PLLASP.REPLY CJ PLEASE RFCYCT.a N.bTES/COMMENT S: I { I I { i Aa 4A i � hAtl I i 1 e i I • j { I I I • i I � 1 , i I � j1 i i I i I I { j i fIi � 1 I . I r P. 02 f k Richard Idedeiros 14132481 old Bel it Highway---Belfair,Washington---98528 Homc; ($60)275-2110 Fax; (360)275-9.186 I 11 February 19, 1999 f j . I Scott Morrison Dept, of Eco ogy i RECEIVED Southwest Rggional Office Post Office Box 47775 FEB 2 2 1999 Olympia, Wa hington 98504-7775 j MASON CO.PLAINNG DEFT Re: Allen S earer Salad and Gravel, LLC n. j Dear Mr. Morriso , k I This letter is inquiry, whether or not Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel, LLC has'a National Poll' tion Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDEP) Allen Sheare has been operating a surface mining operation for the last two mo4ths vVithout a NP ES permit. Allen Sheare Sand and Gravel LLC, is a licensed legal entity doing business under license r umber 601916325 doing business at location NE2493;Old Belfair Highway. I j Belfair Sand ind Gravel, Inc. is a licensed legal entity doing business,under licence number d01471415, oing business at location NE2493 Old Belfair Highway. I Ooth cotmparlies are separate legal entities doing business at the same location and both afire required o have a National Pollution Discharge Elie 'nation Pemiit. If one or bot are not in compliance, immediate suspension must be enforced. If allowed to continue to operate, please inform mein xLriting why. i Attached both Washington State Department of Revenue State Business recgrds. I are 13 F ± • I I t S' rely, I I � " Richard Medeiros i cc: Randy L un ec: Dave Pierce (DNR) cc. Mason Uourlty Community Development, Gary Ya do/Allen Bordon • 1 j � E ,•! P. 03 j � 1 s Washington State Department of Revenue State Business Records Database Deta l i TRX REPO TING NUMBER: 601916325 LEGHL EN ITY NUMBER: 601316325 LLGRL EN�ITY: RLLEN SHEARER SAND RNDi GRAVEL LLC DOING BUSINESS HS: MAILING f DURESS: BUSINESS LOCATION: PO BOX 1 80 2493 HE OLO BELFRIR HUY BELFHTR, IWA 98528-0000 BELFRIR, NA 98528-0000 OWNER TYPE: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACCOUNT PENED: 11/11/099 ACCOUNT LOSED: OPEN j STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CODE: 5949 2/20/99 11:55 f FOR NUN-COMMERCIAL USE ONLY Ej'V�UE i I I i I i i 7 . i l • � 1 � i P. 04 E I ! Washington State Department of Revenue E State Business Records Database DetEdl j THx REPO TING NUMBER: 601471415 LEGHL EN ITY NUMBER: 601471415 LEGHL EN ITY: BELFHIR SHND 9 GRHYEL INC j DOING BU INESS HS: j MRILING DURESS; BUSINESS LOCHTION: 4 CORPOR TE UR STE 215 2493 OLD BELFHIR RD NEWPORT EHCH, CH 92660-7906 BELFHIR, WAi98528-0000 OWNER TY E: CORPORHTION ! HCCOUNT PENED_ 06/15/1993 ACCOUNT LOSED: OPEN i STHNDHRO INUUSTRIRL CODE: 1794 2/20/99 12:9' j i I REVE UE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE UNIT , j R � I � 1 ' 1 ; I 1 ' 1 1 I • I 1 1 i i I I i 1 i j • � j i 1 1 i ' , 1 S i i i j i T 1 1 1 j 1 i j • j 1 1 i • j i i j i • s 7r v WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands January 12, 1999 ADDRESS CORRECTION TO DECEMBER 15, 1998, LETTER Richard Medeiros NE 2481 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation permit No. 70-012066 - Belfair Sand and Gravel Dear Mr. Medeiros: I received copies of your letters to Scott Morrison of the Department of Ecology and Allan Borden of Mason County,dated November 13, 1998. I also received copies of four letters sent to Allen Borden, dated November 23, 24, and December 5, 1998. Thank you, I will include the copies our file- It is my understanding Jeffery Hartman, property owner, has made some changes to the organization of Belfair Sand and Gravel. I suggest you contact him at: Jeffery A. Hartman, A Professional Services Corporation, 4 Corporate Plaze, Suite 215, Newport Beach, California 92660, telephone (949) 644-2002. Perhaps the recent changes will affect you in a positive way. I hope this information is helpful. If you have questions, I can be reached through the office listed below. Sincerely, David S. Pierce Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh DEC98/80 c: Scott Morrison, Washington Department of Ecology Allen Borden, Mason County Planning Department,/ Jeff Hartman, owner 1111 WASHINGTON ST SE 1 PO BOX 47000 1 OLYMPIA,WA 98504-7000 FAX:(360)902-1775 1 TTY.•(360)902-1125 1 TEL:(360)902-1000 ® 5k.18 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER��i l February 1, 1999 Mason County Department of Community Development Courthouse Building III 426 W. Cider P.O. Box 578 Shelton, Wa. 98584 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request; Dear Mr. Yando, It has come to my attention that Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. is coming close to an approval of a revised reclamation plan. I live adjacent to the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site and I am being impacted by said mine. In order that I may fully participate in any decisions regarding this proposal, I request,pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act(FQIA), 5 U.S.C. a 552 (1982), copies of the following documents: 1. the proposed plan of the revised reclamation plan, and any supporting documents submitted by Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. 2. any documents that discuss the potential environmental impacts to the proposed mining operation,including any environmental assessments or environmental impact statements,or declaration of non-significance,or SEPA documents. 3. any correspondence between Befair Sand and Gravel, Inc. and Department of Natural Resources and Department of Ecology and any Mason County departments,including any violation of previously approved plans or reclamation requirements. 4. any data on critical aquifer recharge areas in the proposed revised reclamation area; 5. and water quality data currently available on surface and ground water resources in the area of the proposed mining operation; 6. and engineered studies done by, or on behalf of Mason County on the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site; 7. and any engineered plan done for Belfair Sand and Gravel, and Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel. I ask that you waive all fees connected with the request, as authorized by both FOlA, 5 U.S.C. u 552 (a)(4)(A),and departmental regulations,43 CFR U 2.19(c). The documents I am requesting will not be used for private gain. I will use them as indicated 1 ' to permit me to participate effectively in your decision making process. In the event that fees will not be waived,please do not incur any charges without first notifying me. Thank you for the time and the attention to this request. If you have any questions about the documents I have requested or the fee waiver,please do not hesitate to contact me. S)InRrely, Richard Medeiros cc: Randy Loun Return address: Richard Medeiros NE2481 Old Relfair Hwy. Belfair,Washington 98528 C36�)275--Z 1 d0 GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR yON.STgTFO A U U U) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT z o T i PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 864 SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 1 January 27, 1999 Richard Medeiros 2481 NE Old Belfair Highway Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Inquiry about the surface reclamation plan for the Belfair Sand and Gravel property Dear Mr. Medeiros: Mason County Department of Community Development has received your recent letter, dated January 18 1999, stating that the revised surface reclamation plan for Belfair Sand and Gravel (now called Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel) was approved. With this letter, this Department would like to clarify the status of the revised surface reclamation plan review. In early July 1998, Mason County did receive a revised surface reclamation plan and application materials from Belfair Sand and Gravel's engineer; the application materials were for the Department of Natural Resources permit, and courtesy copies were submitted to Mason County. Discussions between Mason County and Department of Natural Resources took place over the subsequent months, ending with the Natural Resources letter of December 15, 1998. This letter concurs with Mason County's request to be Lead Agency for the SEPA environmental review of the revised surface reclamation plan. Mason County Department of Community Development is now determining issues of review prior to making a threshold determination on the proposal (a choice of determination of non- significance, a mitigated or modified determination of non-significance, or determination of significance). The environmental evaluation will then proceed through agency and public review. Based upon the application materials and the results of the eventual environmental evaluation, a decision will be made on the surface mining reclamation plan. A decision on the proposal has not yet been made. As an adjacent property owner, you will be notified as this environmental review proceeds. If you have questions on this proposal, you may contact the Department of Community Development at (360) 275-4467 [Senior Planner Allan Borden, ext. 365 or Director Gary Yando, ext.270]. Sincerely, Allan Borden, Senior Planner S Recy;Jed P. 01 � R January 19, 1999 REr VED JAN.. 1 9 1999 General letter to: D.N.R., Mason County, and D.O.E. ' ; MASON Co.PLANING DEPT. Attn: Gary Xando Rumor has it that a revised reclamation plan has been approved, As I don't believe in rumors, I would appreciate confirmation on the process of the revised teclamation plan. As you are, or should be aware of in from my previous letters that I intend to file a judicial appeal on,the revised reclamation plan, thcrcfore, 1 need to be informed. el , 2 Richard Medelros cc: Randy Loun . 4 GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR �oN.STq lFO P 'O o A°u N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT i o T PLANNING - SOLID WASTE- UTILITIES �o Y oy BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 1864 SHELTON, WA 98584 * (360) 427-9670 January 27, 1999 Richard Medeiros 2481 NE Old Belfair Highway Belfair, Washington 98528 RE: Inquiry about the surface reclamation plan for the Belfair Sand and Gravel property Dear Mr. Medeiros: Mason County Department of Community Development has received your recent letter, dated January 18 1999, stating that the revised surface reclamation plan for Belfair Sand and Gravel (now called Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel) was approved. With this letter, this Department would like to clarify the status of the revised surface reclamation plan review. In early July 1998, Mason County did receive a revised surface reclamation plan and application materials from Belfair Sand and Gravel's engineer; the application materials were for the Department of Natural Resources permit, and courtesy copies were submitted to Mason County. Discussions between Mason County and Department of Natural Resources took place over the subsequent months, ending with the Natural Resources letter of December 15, 1998. This letter concurs with Mason County's request to be Lead Agency for the SEPA environmental review of the revised surface reclamation plan. Mason County Department of Community Development is now determining issues of review prior to making a threshold determination on the proposal (a choice of determination of non- significance, a mitigated or modified determination of non-significance, or determination of significance). The environmental evaluation will then proceed through agency and public review. Based upon the application materials and the results of the eventual environmental evaluation, a decision will be made on the surface mining reclamation plan. A decision on the proposal has not yet been made. As an adjacent property owner, you will be notified as this environmental review proceeds. If you have questions on this proposal, you may contact the Department of Community Development at (360) 275-4467 [Senior Planner Allan Borden, ext. 365 or Director Gary Yando, ext.270]. Sincerely, /N& " Allan Borden, Senior Planner Recycled Allan J. Hoover 25 January 1999 2491 NE Old Belfair Hwy Belfair Wa 98528 (360)275-4362 Department of Natural Resources South Puget Sound Region PO Box 68 Enumclaw Wa 98022-1631 Attn.: Surface Mine Field Inspector re;Mine permit 12066 Dear Mr. Pierce: Please allow me a few quotes from Chapter 78-44 RCW(1984 Laws); 78.44.010 At the same time, proper reclamation of surface mined land is necessary to prevent undesirable land and water conditions that would be detrimental to the general welfare, health, safety, and property rights of the citizens of the state. 78.44.030 (8)"Operator" shall mean any person or persons, any partnership, limited partnership, or corporation, or any association of persons, either natural or artificial, including every public or governmental agency engaged in surface mining operations, whether individually,jointly, or through subsidiaries, agents, employees, or contractors. 78.44.030 (9) "Department" means the Department of Natural Resources. 78.44.030 (11) (c) Proposed practices to protect adjacent surface resources 78.44.030 (11) (f) Method of prevention or elimination of conditions that will create a public nuisance, endanger public safety, damage property, or be hazardous to vegetative, animal, fish, or human life in or adjacent to the area. 78.44.040 The Department of Natural Resources is charged with the administration of this chapter. 78.44.050 This chapter shall not affect any of the provisions of the state fisheries laws, the state water pollution control laws, the state game laws, or any other state laws, and shall be cumulative and nonexclusive. 78.44.080 (10) An operator may not depart from an approved plan without having previously obtained from the department written approval of his proposed change. 78.44.160 When the department finds that an operator is conducting surface mining on an area for which a valid operating permit is not in effect, or is conducting surface mining in any manner not authorized by his operating permit or by the rules and regulations adopted by the department, the department may forthwith order such operator to suspend all such operations until COMPLIANCE (AJH) is effected or assured to the satisfaction of the department. In the event the operator fails or declines to obey such order, the operator shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount of not more than five hundred dollars for each violation. Every day on which a failure or declining to obey the order continues is a separate violation. Your note of 8/8/94 regarding the east line and Mr. Ottmar(AES Consultants) memo, indicates to me that the site is not in COMPLIANCE. Please find enclosed, a letter from Kegel Engineering together with another engineering drawing of my west property line which is the Hartman property east line (mine permit 12066). Would you please add these to the department file on permit 12066. As you can see, this reinforces my complaint to you that the mine operation has trespassed upon my property. Please see Warren Warfield letter dated March 22 1994, and your notes of 8-8-94 and 8-10-94. Also enclosed is a letter from Gary Yando of Mason County. I believe in item 3 that he is saying that the Department of Natural Resources should respond to the complaint of problems caused by the operation. In our last phone conservation I indicated to you that the turbid water was directed off site onto my and the neighbors property. Also enclosed is my request form for ; 1) Documents on the permit transfer from Belfair Sand and Gravel to Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel 2) Documents on the Modification of reclamation plans 3) Reports of activities completed during the preceding year from 1993 to 1999 4) From Mason County Superior Court Cause No 90-2-000-16-1, a)A letter entered as exhibit 26, from Bill Lingley to Jeff Hartman and/or Anderman, requiring the restoration of the 50 ft setback on the mine site east property line and b)A letter entered as exhibit 7, stating that water generated from the work site shall not impact adjacent properties. Can you please find out if there have been any transcripts made from the tapes, I am interested in Bill Lingley and Dave Sims testimony, and I'd like to have a list of the exhibits and opportunity to review the exhibits. I see in my notes of the trial, that Bill Lingley testified that he, Dave Sims and Kenna Hoyser, drew a document on the afternoon of Aug. 11 1987, for the ponds to be placed in the 50ft setback area, and further says he gave a waver for this to happen. Due to the fact that a Hartman representative, Jon Rosander, signed the department form to follow the Service Fuel Operating Plan, which was to maintain a 50ft natural buffer on the east and south sides of the mine site, and to not disturb the 8 Acre swamp, swale, beaver pond in the southeast corner of the site, and to mine from the top of the site down and toward the Old Belfair Hwy, and due to the fact that the Department of Natural Resources was the regulatory agency, and DID NOT INSURE COMPLIANCE with the regulations of RCW 78-44, to protect the adjacent properties,I REQUEST THAT YOU REVOKE SURFACE MINE PERMIT 12066. Thank You cc Senator Tim Sheldon Mason County Dept. of Ecology Dept. of Navy(Jackson Park Site) Christopher Dunagan Etc Allan J. Hoover 28 Jan 1999 2491 NE Old Belfair Hwy Belfair Wa 98528 (360) 275-4362 Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 68 Enumclaw Wa 98022-0068 RE Surface Mine Permit 70-012066 Dear Mr Pierce; This letter is to request that you order to suspend surface mining under permit 70-012066, based upon 1) Statements of Bill Lingley and Dave Sims, under oath in Mason County Cause 90-2-000-16-1 That the property boundries had been violated by the mine operation, 2) Kegel Engineering letter dated November 13, 1995 together with Kegel Engineering drawing dated 10-5-95 JOB No 88-258A, 3) Your notes and drawing's of 8-8 and 8-10 94, and 4) RCW 78.44.260. Please find enclosed a letter from Gary Yando of Mason County where in item 3, the water runoff problems should be responded to by the Department of Natural Resources. As you are well aware, the TURBID WATER HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE DIRECTED OFF THE MINE SITE ON TO MINE AND OTHER NEIGHBOURS PROPERTIES. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Allan J. Hoover CC Mason County Dept of Ecology Dept of Navy R Loun C Dunagan R Medeiros RECEIVED FEB 111999 10 FEB. 1999 MASON CO PLANNING DEPT Allan J. Hoover 2491 NE Old Belfair Hwy Belfair Wa 98528 (360) 275-4362 Mr. Gary Yando Mason County Department of Community Development Dear Mr. Yando; Thank you for your recent letter. Please find enclosed copies of documents that I have sent to the Department of Natural Resources regarding surface mine permit 12066. As you should know, the site was in compliance with the RCW and operating and reclamation plan when Service Fuel operated the site. The site went out of compliance when Mr. Hartman and his group, whatever they choose to call themselves, took over the site and permit from Service Fuel. The site has not been in compliance since and I hope you will take every action within your power to help correct this travesty. I do have numerous documents which may help clear up any questions you may have. Please do not hesitate to let me know if I can be of assistance to you. Again Thank You / Allan J. Hoover l a�Z 4 V .� rev •�vv -L-T b � 0 Q UTYa''Yl GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR SON.S TA r P 'c A OU N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT = o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES z� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5T11 ST. • P.O. BOX 578 of 864 �o SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 April 27, 1999 In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21 C, the Mason County Department of Community Development is notifying the public that this department has made a Determination of Significance for the following development proposal. After the scoping period of 21 days, the applicant will be required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the impacts to the environment associated with this proposal, in accordance with RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This Scoping Notice is being sent to give the public the opportunity to share written comments with this department and those comments will be used to help define the final scope of the applicant's EIS. Description of the Proposal: The applicant has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation Plan for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre property. The plan calls for the removal of gravel materials (2,261,000 cubic yards) over a period of 14 years (between 10 to 100 foot depths), the processing of wood waste materials to be ground and mixed with soils to create blended topsoil, and the recontour of the site to allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and stormwater pond on site. Name of Proponent: ALLEN SHEARER - BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL Location of Proposal: 2493 NE Old Belfair Highway, Belfair, WA.; in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Parcel Number: 12317-11-00000. Proposed use: Revision of surface mining reclamation plan for existing gravel mine; area will be subject to material extraction and eventual site preparation of eight residential lots. Site acreage to be developed: 41 acres Proposed lifetime of use: 14 years Water: Well Sewage Treatment: on-site septic system Access: existing drive to Old Belfair Highway Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Environmental Features: The site lies within the Union River watershed. A type 3 stream flows north to south near the west boundary of the property and a type 4 stream is within 125 feet of the northeast corner of the property; a wetland area with category 3 wetland vegetation is found within 50 feet of the southeast corner of the property. The Union River Critical Aquifer Recharge Area bounds the east property line [designated by Mason County Resource Ordinance Chapter 17.01.080]. Nearly 90 percent of the property has been altered by past development and mining activities. Recycled Lead Agency: Mason County Department of Community Development. Areas of Environmental Concern: Thus far, the following areas have been identified as meriting further study in the EIS: 1. Adequacy of stormwater management on the property: how water volumes are handled (routing to ponds, size and number of ponds, conveyance of pond water to areas of the property); how quality is managed (NPDES pollution control strategies and monitoring). 2. Impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, including impacts to ground water quality and quantity of area streams and Union River; risk of contamination of the aquifer by petroleum products and other pollutants used in operations. 3. Impacts to type 3 stream on west side and type 4 stream on the northeast side of the mine site, including changes in vegetation buffer and introduction of water volumes and solid and dissolved materials by current stormwater management system. 4. Impacts to area resources by exposure of metal, organic, and inert materials buried on this site by previous operation activities, including wood waste, building materials, equipment, and chemicals used or brought on site. 5. Impacts to the surrounding environment resulting from traffic related to the proposal. 6. Impacts on public services related to the proposal, such roads and utilities. 7. Impacts on noise levels related to this proposal. 8. Impacts to air quality related to the proposal from mining, processing, handling, storage and transporting of soils and earth materials. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this proposal by writing to the following official: Gary Yando, Director Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 578, Shelton WA. 98584 You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. A copy of the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11), specifying the EIS scoping process is available upon request. Written correspondence on this matter should be sent to the Department at the above address, attention Allan Borden, and received by Tuesday May 11, 1999. GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR PEON.STgTFO o A o u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ o T = PLANNING - SOLID WASTE -UTILITIES N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. a P.O. BOX 578 OJ 1864 ?� SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 April 15, 1999 In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the Mason County Department of Community Development is notifying the public that this department has made a Determination of Significance for the following development proposal. After the scoping period of 21 days, the applicant will be required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the impacts to the environment associated with this proposal, in accordance with RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This Scoping Notice is being sent to give the public the opportunity to share written comments with this department and those comments will be used to help define the final scope of the applicant's EIS. Description of the Proposal: The applicant has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation Plan for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre property. The plan calls for the removal of gravel materials (2,261,000 cubic yards) over a period of 14 years (between 10 to 100 foot depths), the processing of wood waste materials to be ground and mixed with soils to create blended topsoil, and the recontour of the site to allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and stormwater pond on site. Name of Proponent: ALLEN SHEARER - BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL Location of Proposal: 2493 NE Old Belfair Highway, Belfair, WA.; in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Parcel Number: 12317-11-00000. Proposed use: Revision of surface mining reclamation plan for existing gravel mine; area will be subject to material extraction and eventual site preparation of eight residential lots. Site acreage to be developed: 41 acres Proposed lifetime of use: 14 years Water: Well Sewage Treatment: on-site septic system Access: existing drive to Old Belfair Highway Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Environmental Features: The site lies within the Union River watershed. A type 3 stream flows north to south near the west boundary of the property and a type 4 stream is within 125 feet of the northeast corner of the property; a wetland area with category 3 wetland vegetation is found within 50 feet of the southeast corner of the property. The Union River Critical Aquifer Recharge Area bounds the east property line [designated by Mason County Resource Ordinance Chapter 17.01.080]. Nearly 90 percent of the property has been altered by past development and mining activities. Lead Agena: Mason County Department of Community Development. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this proposal by writing to the following official: Gary Yando, Director Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 578, Shelton WA. 98584 You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. A copy of the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11) that specify the procedure for the EIS scoping process is available upon request. Written correspondence on this matter should be sent to the Department at the above address, attention Allan Borden, and received by Thursday May 6, 1999. Allan&Karen Hoover 28 May 1999 2491 NE Old Belfair Hwy Belfair Wa 98528 Mason County Department of Community Development RE; SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 Surface Mine Permit 12066 Jeffrey Hartman, Hartman Family Trust July o 1 1999 '•aASON CO.PLANMNG DEPT Dear Mr. Yando; The Hartman property is not in compliance with the current regulations or permit conditions and should not be allowed any revisions until it is brought into compliance. Form SM-2 asks "Are all of these mines now in compliance with RCW 78-44. WAC 332-18, and conditions of the permits?" Mr. Hartman has left it blank. Please find enclosed another copy of the property line survey and letter from Kegel Engineering. Mr. Hartman, when he took over the surface mine permit from Service Fuel and leased the property, had his agent Mr. Rosander sign the document required by DNR(Department of Natural Resources), that the OPERATIONS AND RECLAMATION PLAN, then in effect for Service Fuel would be complied with. Response to your areas of concern; 1) There are several court orders in place requiring the mine to not let any turbid water off-site. Only natural water in its natural drainage path may go off site. There are numerous pictures, videos, and personal accounts of the off site discharges both from past Hartman employees and the current Hartman employees. These discharges contain among others, leachate from the wood waste that was imported from the log sort yards(Northwest Forest Fiber Products) in the Port of Tacoma area known to contain Asarco Slag, a variety of heavy metals found in samples of adjacent properties including Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper and Lead. The construction debris imported from the Jackson Park(Dept. of Navy) Superfund site in Bremerton and placed by Hartman's people on my property may if fact contain Asbestos and the burm leaks. 2) Mr. Hartman and his people direct the water off-site in violation of the laws and regulations. Examples are the Valley property which Rep Eickmeyer recently viewed, and was written about in the local paper, the Medeiros and Hoover properties, and other various neighborhood properties at a lower elevation than the Hartman property. 3) See notes 1 &2 above. Also regarding the buffer, a 50ft natural buffer was established around the property when Service Fuel operated there and that was one of the requirements that Hartman agreed to when he took over the permit from them and then violated. The violations continue to this day. 4) Everything that is on the site was brought in with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Hartman, as he has testified in court and in deposition. 5) The vehicles, Mr. Hartman, his employees and most of the trucks going to and coming from the Hartman property speed on the easement across my property. The trucks are regularly overloaded and spill rock and dirt onto the Old Belfair Hwy as they leave the Hartman property. s s d k r . ,.n;�, ,3• �„� - -,tom -x e' 'yr STATE O,p o � `wd, �2 Oy M^rPEIVED STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY JUN 01 1999 P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 MASON 00.PLANNING DEPT. (360) 407-6000 • TOD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006 May 28, 1999 Allan Borden Dept of Community Development PO Box 578 Shelton WA 98584 Dear Mr. Borden Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the environmental impact statement for the Belfair Sand and Gravel reclamation plan for an existing 41-acre gravel mine. We have reviewed the document and have the following comments. All plans and reports required by the general NPDES permit for sand and gravel facilities must be updated to meet permit requirements and reflect changes in operations. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Scott Morrison with our Water Quality Program at (360)407-6292. Sincerely, r - Rebecca J. Inman RI: S #99-3047 cc: Scott Morrison, SWRO Abbe White, SWRO STA 7'o� �yl 1dtlA MuY State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 7 Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N-Olympia,Washington 98501-1091 -(360)902-2808 Region 7 Office location: Natural Resources Building-1111 Washington Street SE-Olympia,Washington June 2, 1999 RECEIVED Mason County Department of Community Development JUN 0 31999 411 North Fifth Street Post Office Box 578 NA81%00 P G bpi ATTENTION: Gary Yando Shelton , Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Yando: SUBJECT: State Environmental Policy Act Document, Determination of Significance; Allen shearer- Belfair Sand and Gravel Proponent, Revision of Surface Mining Reclamation Plan, Unnamed Tributaries to the Union River, Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 01 West, Mason County, WRIA 15.0503, WDFW Log# 00-D5993.01S The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document received on May 14, 1999, and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered as the project progresses. A Hydraulic Project approval (HPA) will be required to construct the proposed storm water system. We will require the design criteria and flow calculations for the storm water system. The system must provide for water quality and quantity. This may require detention, retention, and infiltration. The areas of environmental concern identified in the above referenced documents appear to be complete. Our concerns include the adequacy of stormwater management for the mine proposal. The plans included indicate that during mining, the existing stormwater system would be used. This system has proved inadequate in the past, and runoff from this site has negatively impacted two tributaries to the Union River, and the Union River itself. The Union River in the reach where stormwater from this proposal would be routed is habitat for summer chum and chinook salmon listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). An additional concern is the possible negative impacts from the mining proposal on groundwater that is in continuity with the Union River. Mr. Yando June 2, 1999, 1999 - Page 2 Our final concern is for any negative impacts to the tributaries of the Union River and their buffers. The proposed 65 foot buffer is inadequate to provide a full range of functions and values vital to the heath of stream channels. The stream identified as a type-4, is a type-2 or type-3 stream and will require adequate riparian buffers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions,please contact me at(360) 895-6123. Sincerely, Chris Byrnes Area Habitat Biologist CB:cb: D5993.01S cc: SEPA Coordinator, WDFW SEPA Coordinator, DOE JUN 02 '99 01:58PM WDFW PORT ORCHARD P. 1 s Nry 74 p O rf _ N e s State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 7 Mailing Address; Boo Capitol Way N-Olympia,Washington 98501-1091 -(360)902-2808 Region 7 Office location: Natural Resources Sullding-1111 Washington Street SE-Olympia,Washington June 2,. 1999 Mason County Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street Post Office Box 578 Post-it"'Fax Note 7671 Date4 2_fig paS1ea ATTENTION: Gary Ya.ndo To c. d Fro tip Shelton, Washington 98584 c ,p Pho o# Phony#6 0 s9,V S 612- a Dear Mr, Yando: Fax#_ , Fax � Z�' 6Y SUBJECT: State Environmental Policy Act Document, Determination of Significance; Allen shearer- Belfair Sand and Gravel Proponent,Revision of Surface Mining Reclamation Plan,Unnamed Tributaries to the Union River, Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 01 West, Mason County, WRTA 15,0503, WDFW Log 4 00-D5993.01S The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)has reviewed the above-referenced State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) document received on May 14, 1999, and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered as the project progresses. A Hydraulic Project approval (HPA) will be required to construct the proposed storm water system. We will require the design criteria and flow calculations for the storm water system. The system must provide for water quality and quantity. This may require detention, retention, and infiltration. The areas of environmental concern identified in the above referenced documents appear to be complete, Our concerns include the adequacy of stormwater management for the mine proposal. The plans included indicate that during mining, the existing stormwater system would be used. This system has proved inadequate in the past, and runoff from this site has negatively impacted two tributaries to the Union River, and the Union River itself, The Union River in the reach where stormwater from this proposal would be routed is habitat for summer chum and Chinook salmon listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). An additional concern is the possible negative impacts from the mining proposal on groundwater that is in continuity with the Union River. JUN 02 '99 01:58PM WDFW PORT ORCHARD P.2 Mr. Yando June 2, 1999, 1999 Page 2 Our final concern is for any negative impacts to the tributaries of the Union River and their buffers. The proposed 65 foot buffer is inadequate to provide a full range of functions and values vital to the heath of stream channels. The stream identified as a type-4, is a type-2 or type-3 stream and will require adequate riparian buffers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, If you have any questions, please contact me at (360) 895-6123, Sincerely, It 6g".� q Chris Byrnes Area Habitat Biologist CB:cb: D5993.01 S cc: SEPA Coordinator, WDFW SEPA Coordinator, DOE Union River Basin Protection Association 10195 West Old Belfair Highway Bremerton,Washington 98312 USA Phone(360).75-3011 Fax(360)75-9294 May 28, 1999 Allen Borden Department of Community Development . '%=I V E D 411 North 5th Street PO Box 578 J U N 0 11999 Shelton,Washington 98584 W.F-LAr MNG DEPT RE: SEPA#SEP99-0036 Determination of Significance Revised Reclaimation Plan for Belfair Sand&Gravel No.70-012066 Application for Surface Mining Reclaimation Permit Dear Mr.Borden: Thank you for the opportunity for us to be able to make some comments on this permitting process. However we have some great concerns regarding this process.As you are aware this is a long standing problem for the river and the people of the Union River Valley. We have some continued questions that should be addressed in this process. Does Mason County have a surface mining ordinance which addresses this site? Is it Allen Shearer doing business on this site or is it Belfair Sand and Gravel? If the reclamation plan of 1988 was not accepted and approved---What plan are they operating under? What is to be done about the Navy Yard superfund material,the contaminated soil from the City of Bremerton's 4th Street Project and all of the Wood waste that has been dumped at this site?How are these problems going to be addressed? What provisions are being taken to address the Endangered Species Act with regards to the Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum? Are we permitting Anderman or Belfair Sand&Gravel or Shearer? Who is the responsible party,the permitee or the County or the State DNR or DOE? If you would be so kind as to address all of the above questions,then we could prudently proceed to address the water quality and quantity of the water on this site,the leachate and run-off which threatens the Union River,it tributaries and the salmon,their habitat and very existence. We feel that prior to any permitting and or operation of any kind at this site these questions should be addressed.Further that any operation must keep all of its pollutants on site so that the rest of us do not have to deal with the resulting harm now or in the future. We request that all of the above be addressed in the SEPA process and that Mason County accept the responsibility for any failure herein. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and express our concerns, Sincerely, Elaine Manhefiner President Printed by Pam Bennet-Cumming 7/23/1999 3 : 57pm --------------------------------------- From: Pam Bennet-Cumming To: Allan Borden, Grace Miller, Robert Fink Subject: fwd: Gravel mine ------------- --- -------------------- --- ===NOTE===============7/22/1999==2 :18=P Allan - re: the preparation guidelines -- I took a look, and have some suggestions. a. "what he said" (Bob's email) . b. below: 1. In both part III and part IV I'd suggest adding some wording which makes them connect a little more clearly with the issues brought out in the EIS scope. It may be as simple as adding that wording in the places where it would apply (sometimes more than one place) , to connect this set of guidelines with the issues relating to this particular project. 2 . What about specific noise and air quality studies?. (that's something I ended up with after the reissue of McEwan.) The wording could be drawn from the scope list again, with additional detail about content to be addressed. 3. Also, add in all the environmental impact concern related information from the SEPA comment letters. They'll need to be in both sections III and IV. With McEwan, what I did was xerox all the letters, then go through the copy set with a highlighter to identify the environmental issues. It was much less trouble to pull the issues out that way. 4 . RE: the existing solid waste (and resulting pollution) violation. How are you going to require cleanup be taken care of? Require that the problem and its proposed solution be addressed in the EIS? if so, say so and how. Fwd=by:=Allan=Borden==7/23/1999==3 :45=P Fwd to: Allan Borden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . please see me Fwd=by:=Allan=Borden==7/23/1999==3 :56=P Fwd to: Allan Borden, Pam Bennet-Cumming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . testing to see if your comments can be forwarded. ------- ------------- ------------------- Page: 1 Printed by Pam Bennet-Cumming 7/23/1999 3 : 58pm --------- ------------- ----------------- From: Robert Fink To: Allan Borden, Grace Miller, Pam Bennet-Cumming Subject: Belfair sand and gravel ------ --------------------------------- ===NOTE===============7/22/1999==9 :42=A I understand that the draft EIS is to be sent out Friday, or Monday at the absolute latest. I looked at the draft EIS outline and I do not see the scope of work issues emphasized in it. In particular: / ✓ - IB1 should address #S specifically - }C shoul have similar language to #1,2,and (One thing that I have heard is that siltation and contaminated run off has been flowing into streams. Should the specific issue of risk of more of the same and techniques to minimize or eliminate risks be proposed as mitigation? - IC1 and 2 (?) should address lthe issue of existing contamination (#4' ' perhaps as a baseline vs new contamination - IIAa [a or 1?] should address #7� - IIC3 should address the concerns that lead to #5 (Is the concern noise, dust, and traffic in a residential area? Then it should address location of land use and impacts on same.) - IID and IV should address #6.s (Does this address #6 clearly and entirely?. It is unclear to me what concerns were raised that lead to #6 in the scope?) ----------------------- ---------------- Page: 1 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS SEPA NO.SEP99.0036 May 10,1999 in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act Department RCW 43muni the Mason Affidavit of Publication County Department of Community Develop- ment is notifying the public that this department nas made a Determination of Significance for the following development proposal.After the 'WASHINGTON, scoping period of 21 days,the applicant will be SS. required to complete an Environmental Impact 'Y OF MASON Statement(EIS)to address the impacts to the environment associated with this proposal,in accordance with RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c).This Scoping Notice is being sent to give the public JU 1 i e G. 0 rme being first duly swom the opportunity to share written comments with this department and those comments will be ses and says that she is the clerk used to nelp define the final scope of the applic- ,LTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspapP ant's EIS. 7al newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six Description of the Proposal:The applicant ublication hereinafter referred to,published in the English g has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation eekl newspaper in SHELTON,Mason Count Washington, Plan for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre ill of said tim as Tinted in an office maintained at the afor property. The plan calls for the removal of P gravel materials(2,261,000 cubic yards)over A said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNT a period of 14 years(between 10 to 100 foot ith day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the S depths),the processing of wood waste materi-:)n County. als to be ground and mixed with soils to create LEGAL NOTICES blended topsoil,and the recontour of the site to sexed is a true copy of a Determination of 1-31 allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and stormwater pond on site. en Shearer - Belfair Sand and ( risk of contamination of the aquifer by petro. Name of Proponent:ALLEN SHEARER- leum products and other pollutants used in op- BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL erations. Location of Proposal:2493 NE Old Belfair 3. Impacts to type 3 stream on west side Highway,Belfair,WA.;in the northeast quarter dished in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said and type 4 stream on the northeast side of the of the northeast quarter of Section 17,Town- mine site,including changes in vegetation buff. ship 23 North,Range 1 West,W.M. )nce each week for a period of two er and introduction of water volumes and solid Parcel Number:12317-11-00000. weeks,commencing on the and dissolved materials by current stormwater Proposed use: Revision of surface mining management system. reclamation plan for existing gravel mine;area day of May , 19 99 ,and e 4. Impacts to area resources by exposure will be subject to material extraction and even- of metal,organic,and inert materials buried on tual site preparation of eight residential lots. day of May ,19 9 9 both d this site by previous operation activities, in- Site acreage to be developed:41 acres y y cluding wood waste,building materials,equip- Proposed lifetime of use: 14 years i newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during merit,and chemicals used or brought on site. Water:Well the full amount of the fee charged for the 5. Impacts to the surrounding environment Sewage Treatment:on-site septic system resulting from traffic related to the proposal. Access:existing drive to Old Belfair High- blication is the sum of$ 2 2 4 . 0 0 6. Impacts on public services related to the way proposal,such roads and utilities. Comprehensive Plan Designation:Rural c 7. Impacts on noise levels related to this Environmental Features:The site lies with- k proposal. in the Union River watershed.A type 3 stream 8. impacts to air quality related to the pro- flows north to south near the west boundary of 2 7 th posal from mining,processing,handling,stor- the property and a type 4 stream is within 125 rid sworn to before me this — age and transporting of soils and earth mateh- feet of the northeast comer of the property;a als. wetland area with category 3 wetland vegeta- May 19 9 9 Agencies,affected tribes,and members of tion is found within 50 feet of the southeast I the public are invited to comment on this pro- comer of the property.The Union River Criti- �7x; A44 aJ A _F__ posal by writing to the responsible official listed cal Aquifer Recharge Area bounds the east Notary Public indiid for the State of Washington below.You may comment on alternatives,mit- property line [designated by Mason County Residing at Shelton,Washington igation measures,probable significant adverse Resource Ordinance Chapter 117.01.080].�J 0 impacts,and licenses of other approvals that Nearly 90 percent of the property has been al- ssion expires �� 20.QL may be required.A copy of the SEPA rules � , tered by past development and mining activi- (WAC 197-11), specifying the EIS scoping ties. process is available upon request. Lead Agency:Mason County Department of /s/Gary J.Yando Community Development. Responsible Official Areas of Environmental Concern:Thus far, 5-10-99 the following areas have been identified as Date meriting further study in the EIS: Responsible Official: 1.Adequacy of stormwater management on Gary Yando,Director the property:how water volumes are handled Department of Community Develop- (routing to ponds,size and number of ponds, ment conveyance of pond water to areas of the prop- 411 North Fifth Street erty);how quality is managed(NPDES pollu- P.O.Box 578,Shelton WA.98584 tion control strategies and monitoring). (360)427-9670 or 275-4467 2. Impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge Written correspondence on this matter Area,including impacts to ground water quality should be sent to the Department at the and quantity of area streams and Union River; above address, attention Allan Borden, and received by Tuesday June 1,1999. 5120-27 2t srgTFo GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR P 'c o A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPME T u o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE -UTILITIES z� N Y Y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 1864 SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 April 27, 1999 In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the Mason County Department of Community Development is notifying the public that this department has made a Determination of Significance for the following development proposal. After the n scoping period of 21 days, the applicant will be required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the impacts to the environment associated with this proposal, in accordance with RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This Scoping Notice is being sent to give the public the opportunity to share written comments with this department and those comments will be used to help define the final scope of the applicant's EIS. Description of the Proposal: The applicant has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation Plan v for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre property. The plan calls for the removal of gravel materials (2,261,000 cubic yards) over a period of 14 years (between 10 to 100 foot depths), V the processing of wood waste materials to be ground and mixed with soils to create blended topsoil, and the recontour of the site to allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and stormwater pond on site. Name of Proponent: ALLEN SHEARER - BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL Location of Proposal: 2493 NE Old Belfair Highway, Belfair, WA.; in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Parcel Number: 12317-11-00000. Proposed use: Revision of surface mining reclamation plan for existing gravel mine; area will be subject to material extraction and eventual site preparation of eight residential lots. Site acreage to be developed: 41 acres Proposed lifetime of use: 14 years Water: Well Sewage Treatment: on-site septic system Access: existing drive to Old Belfair Highway G Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural �" lot Environmental Features: The site lies within the Union River watershed. A type 3 stream 1� flows north to south near the west boundary of the property and a type 4 stream is within 125 feet of the northeast corner of the property; a wetland area with category 3 wetland vegetation is found within 50 feet of the southeast corner of the property. The Union River Critical Aquifer Recharge Area bounds the east property line [designated by Mason County Resource Ordinance Chapter 17.01.080]. Nearly 90 percent of the property has been altered by past development and mining activities. / � 1 Lead Agency: Mason County Department of Community Development. Areas of Environmental Concern: Thus far, the following areas have been identified as meriting further study in the EIS: 1. Adequacy of stormwater management on the property: how water volumes are handled (routing to ponds, size and number of ponds, conveyance of pond water to areas of the property); how quality is managed (NPDES pollution control strategies and monitoring). 2. Impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, including impacts to ground water quality and quantity of area streams and Union River; risk of contamination of the aquifer by petroleum products and other pollutants used in operations. 3. Impacts to type 3 stream on west side and type 4 stream on the northeast side of the mine site, including changes in vegetation buffer and introduction of water volumes and solid and dissolved materials by current stormwater management system. 4. Impacts to area resources by exposure of metal, organic, and inert materials buried on this site by previous operation activities, including wood waste, building materials, equipment, and chemicals used or brought on site. 5. Impacts to the surrounding environment resulting from traffic related to the proposal. 6. Impacts on public services related to the proposal, such roads and utilities. 7. Impacts on noise levels related to this proposal. 8. Impacts to air quality related to the proposal from mining, processing, handling, storage and transporting of soils and earth materials. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this proposal by writing to the following official: Gary Yando, Director Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 578, Shelton WA. 98584 You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. A copy of the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11), specifying the EIS scoping process is available upon request. Written correspondence on this matter should be sent to the Department at the above address, attention Allan Borden, and received by Tuesday May 11, 1999. (( (( zz I1 NZZ1 Z U rz ,y i�0-4 tro ' 1}C, z (HiUON) Q 0 AD 000 09l 81 bl i b UVON n `` ✓ / lO ZOE n na l 0�° 6 u5 zlot ere / I Ol �� � gxegvng v E E 90I ui� z L Tag:,: e 4aniuij £:... E I E zE E I!-leg 7- z Z OE �D 7 5 D7 I s EZt C ad eN J 'L v N CZ 1 61, x , o �— El d a �8 L o'E l O 11 6 / 01. 6 /n L Z L (Hla N)1333 000 009 L 004 L OEoLb AA H M Z a 100.Ez l �ry� '7 J— �iii all X 00 dJ5 �r APPLICATION FOR WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF SURFACE MINING .:. J`. Natural Resources RECLAMATION PERMIT (Form SM-2) This application is for (check one): O new permit M revision of existing permit CI transfer of permit. NAME OF COMPANY OR INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS) TOTAL ACREAGE OF PERMIT AREA APPLIED FOR This will be the name on the permit. (Type or print In ink.) (Include all acreage to be disturbed by mining, setbacks and buffers, and associated activities during the II(e of the mine.) 41.18 18 Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. acres MAILING ADDRESS COUNTY Mason No attachments will be accepted.Legal description of permit area: Attn: Mr. Jeff Hartman Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. NE 2493 Old Belfair HWY Belfair, WA 98528 Telephone (949) 644-2002 1/4 i 1/4 I Sec:lon i Townsnin Range SURFACE OWNERSHIP I I 17 23 I 1W Up Give names, addresses, and signatures of ail indiviauais with possessors NE interest in land. (Attach signed copies of this document if more than one.) Hartman Family Trust Nov. 1, 1990 1 verify hat the applicant has my permission to mine from my land. Signature of owner Date Application fee of S650.00 for a new reclamation permit is herewith attacnea? ❑Yu 0 No OWNERSHIP OF RIGHTS TO REMOVE MINERALS BY SURFACE Street address and milepost of surface mine MINING Give names, addresses, and signatures di ail individuals with rignts. (Attach signed copies of this document if more than one.) NE 2493 Old Belfair HWY Belfair, WA 98528 I verify that the appiicant has my permission to mine from this land. Signature of owner Date Distance(miles) Direction from Nearest community 2.5 I SW Belfair Do you or any person, partnership, or corporation assorated Method of mining Maximum aeplh of mine with you now hold, or have you held, a surface mining 95 r operating or reciamadon permit? Yes Q No Pit If you answered yes to the above, please list: Expected start date of mining Estimated annual prcduc�fon Ongoing, 14 yrs. 161 500 tans, or Permit Active Reclamation current remalIliIIQ s �I Cu yds number operation or complete Estimated numo�efT of years Y No Yes No Minerals to be mined Total quantity t be mined over life Yes I I of mine test:maed): ...I tons, or 70-012066 X % Sand and Gravel 2,261,000 'fitcuyds Have you ever had a surface mining operating or Yes M No reclamation permit revoked? Have you ever had a reclamation security forfeited? C3 Yes M No If you answered yes to the above,give permit number(s) Are all of these mines now in compliance with RCW 78.44, WAC 332.18, and conditions of the permits? ❑Yes 0 No The applicant shall be considered as the permit holder for this surface mine and shall be responsible for compliance with RCW 78.44,WAC 332-18, the approved reciamation plan (Form SM-8A and attachments), and the conditions of the permit if issued by the Department of Natural Resources. Sign ure of company reLn,anv or individual appiicant(s) Name and title of company representative (please Print) Date signed S-�y-96 JEFFREY A. HARTMAN , Secretor , • to fa Reclamation Permit No. Date�cc d ) Accepted by Region,Pink.Applicant Apoitcation for Surface Mining Reclamation Pvmit(SM-2) Revered 9/99 Copy distribution:White.Olympu,Yalbw- GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR �oN.sTq rFo o A° N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r o T i PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES 2� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 of o 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 May 7, 1999 In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the Mason County Department of Community Development is notifying the public that this department has made a Determination of Significance for the following development proposal. After the scoping period of 21 days, the applicant will be required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the impacts to the environment associated with this proposal, in accordance with RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This Scoping Notice is being sent to give the public the opportunity to share written comments with this department and those comments will be used to help define the final scope of the applicant's EIS. Description of the Proposal: The applicant has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation Plan for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre property. The plan calls for the removal of gravel materials (2,261,000 cubic yards) over a period of 14 years (between 10 to 100 foot depths), the processing of wood waste materials to be ground and mixed with soils to create blended topsoil, and the recontour of the site to allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and stormwater pond on site. Name of Proponent: ALLEN SHEARER - BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL Location of Proposal: 2493 NE Old Belfair Highway, Belfair, WA.; in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Parcel Number: 12317-11-00000. Proposed use: Revision of surface mining reclamation plan for existing gravel mine; area will be subject to material extraction and eventual site preparation of eight residential lots. Site acreage to be developed: 41 acres Proposed lifetime of use: 14 years Water: Well Sewage Treatment: on-site septic system Access: existing drive to Old Belfair Highway Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Environmental Features: The site lies within the Union River watershed. A type 3 stream flows north to south near the west boundary of the property and a type 4 stream is within 125 feet of the northeast corner of the property; a wetland area with category 3 wetland vegetation is found within 50 feet of the southeast corner of the property. The Union River Critical Aquifer Recharge Area bounds the east property line [designated by Mason County Resource Ordinance Chapter 17.01.080]. Nearly 90 percent of the property has been altered by past development and mining activities. Recycled Lead Agency: Mason County Department of Community Development. Areas of Environmental Concern: Thus far, the following areas have been identified as meriting further study in the EIS: 1. Adequacy of stormwater management on the property: how water volumes are handled (routing to ponds, size and number of ponds, conveyance of pond water to areas of the property); how quality is managed (NPDES pollution control strategies and monitoring). 2. Impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, including impacts to ground water quality and quantity of area streams and Union River; risk of contamination of the aquifer by petroleum products and other pollutants used in operations. 3. Impacts to type 3 stream on west side and type 4 stream on the northeast side of the mine site, including changes in vegetation buffer and introduction of water volumes and solid and dissolved materials by current stormwater management system. 4. Impacts to area resources by exposure of metal, organic, and inert materials buried on this site by previous operation activities, including wood waste, building materials, equipment, and chemicals used or brought on site. 5. Impacts to the surrounding environment resulting from traffic related to the proposal. 6. Impacts on public services related to the proposal, such roads and utilities. 7. Impacts on noise levels related to this proposal. 8. Impacts to air quality related to the proposal from mining, processing, handling, storage and transporting of soils and earth materials. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this proposal by writing to the following official: Gary Yando, Director Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 578, Shelton WA. 98584 You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. A copy of the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11), specifying the EIS scoping process is available upon request. Written correspondence on this matter should be sent to the Department at the above address, attention Allan Borden, and received by Friday May 28, 1999. STATE OF WASHINGTON � �L'.• VL' l � DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ANNUAL RECLAMATION REPORT FROM JULY 01 , 1999 TO JULY 01 , 2000 CTION A : PERMIT NC. 70 012'066 LOCATED IN MASON COUNTY DESCRIBED AS SEC 17 TWN 23 RNG 01 W MiNE NAME ( IF ANY ) OLD BELFAiP U$I NO : �:F3 60 f 44-71 D N R AREA DISTRICT 'UNIT OPERATOR ; DELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL INC ADDRESS : C/O ALLEN SHEARER TRUCKING PO BOX 1880 BELFAIR , WA 98528 �U� C/ cynf''�� PHONE NO ; ( 360) 275-3465 i f 3) / V SUBMIT NO LATER THAN : JULY 01 , 1999 1 . FILL OUT AND SIGN SECTION B 2 . RETURN TO REGION 3 . SEND COPY OF 8 1/2 X 11 SKETCH MAPS SHOWING ITEMS 131 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 . RETURN TO : SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 950 FARMAN ST N PO BOX 68 l� ENUMCLAW, WA 9802?-0068 G t IN CASEC OF QUESTIONS CALL . (360) 925- 1631 CTION B OPERATORS STATEMENT 1 . TOTAL ACRES PERMITTED: 32 . 00 DEPTH PERMITTED: 200 . 00 FT 2 . DATE OF MOST RECENT MINING : ------------------- 3. TOTAL ACRES DISTURBED TO DATE : _� -- ------- ---- 4 . TOTAL ACRES NEWLY DISTURBED LAST 12 MONTHS : 5 . ACRES TO BE DISTURBED NEXT 36 MONTHS ' f_ ,_ 6 . CURRENT DEPTH MINED : -------------------------------- y 7 . HAS RECLAMATION STARTED' NO _ _ YES DATE ----- ------------------ S. NUMBER OF ACRES RECLAIMED TO DATE 9. ACRES NEWLY RECLAIMED LAST 12 MONTHS _ 10 . ACRES TO BE RECLAIMED NEXT 12 MONTHS _ f� _� Q�____ I CERTIFY TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THE I ORMATION CONTA EDO^�I-r. HEREIN IS COMPLETE AND ACCURATE. TYPED OR PRINTED NAME PERMIT OLDERS 5 ATURE DATE / I GN � 1 �l s r l C), 6h so �e Fil 0 ot-,n&4�(DC d Allan& Karen Hoover 28 May 1999 2491 NE Old Belfair Hwy Belfair Wa 98528 Mason County Department of Community Development RE; SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 Surface Mine Permit 12066 Jeffrey Hartman, Hartman Family Trust JUN 01 1999 ",aAcON CO.PLANMNG DEPT Dear Mr. Yando; The Hartman property is not in compliance with the current regulations or permit conditions and should not be allowed any revisions until it is brought into compliance. Form SM-2 asks "Are all of these mines now in compliance with RCW 78-44. WAC 332-18, and conditions of the permits?" Mr. Hartman has left it blank. Please find enclosed another copy of the property line survey and letter from Kegel Engineering. Mr. Hartman, when he took over the surface mine permit from Service Fuel and leased the property, had his agent Mr. Rosander sign the document required by DNR(Department of Natural Resources), that the OPERATIONS AND RECLAMATION PLAN, then in effect for Service Fuel would be complied with. Response to your areas of concern; 1) There are several court orders in place requiring the mine to not let any turbid water off-site. Only natural water in its natural drainage path may go off site. There are numerous pictures, videos, and personal accounts of the off site discharges both from past Hartman employees and the current Hartman employees. These discharges contain among others, leachate from the wood waste that was imported from the log sort yards (Northwest Forest Fiber Products) in the Port of Tacoma area known to contain Asarco Slag, a variety of heavy metals found in samples of adjacent properties including Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper and Lead. The construction debris imported from the Jackson Park(Dept. of Navy) Superfund site in Bremerton and placed by Hartman's people on my property may if fact contain Asbestos and the burro leaks. 2) Mr. Hartman and his people direct the water off-site in violation of the laws and regulations. Examples are the Valley property which Rep Eickmeyer recently viewed, and was written about in the local paper, the Medeiros and Hoover properties, and other various neighborhood properties at a lower elevation than the Hartman property. 3) See notes 1 & 2 above. Also regarding the buffer, a 50ft natural buffer was established around the property when Service Fuel operated there and that was one of the requirements that Hartman agreed to when he took over the permit from them and then violated. The violations continue to this day. 4) Everything that is on the site was brought in with the knowledge and approval of Mr. Hartman, as he has testified in court and in deposition. 5) The vehicles, Mr. Hartman, his employees and most of the trucks going to and coming from the Hartman property speed on the easement across my property. The trucks are regularly overloaded and spill rock and dirt onto the Old Belfair Hwy as they leave the Hartman property. Many times the truck drivers will stop on the easement in front of my house and urinate. My children and the foster children we care for nor the other children in the neighborhood should be exposed to these conditions. 6) See above 7)In the operations and reclamation plan that Mr. Hartman agreed to from Service Fuel (copy enclosed) "IX. Plan of Surface Mining: The sequence of mining operation will be to start at the back portion of the thirty-two acre parcel and progress down and toward the Old Belfair Highway. It is our intention to maintain 50 feet of natural vegetation buffer strip along the east and south lines of the site." Picture enclosed. If this plan was complied with there would be no trespass, no turbid runoff to neighbors properties and on the streams and rivers, salmon bearing, no noise or dust problems. Everything would be contained in the hole they would dig. 8) See above If Mr. Hartman and his people would have COMPLIED with the plan and the law, they might have had a good operation. He and his people did not and there are no indications that his current people under Allen Shearer are doing anything to be in COMPLIANCE. I do not understand how an operation so out of control could be allowed to continue, especially with the record that Mr. Hartman and his people have. ank You Allan any Karen Hoover l IV Counties, in cooperation with the various cities located thereirn, ri-e required to prepare 3 coordinated, comprehensive solid waste management plans. 'RCVv' 70.9�.080. Ecology reviews 5 I and approves these plans. RCW 70.95.094(2). V 7 Local governments are required to adopt regulations or ordinances implementing the comprehensive solid waste management plan covering storage, collection, 9 I transportation, treatment, utili7.ation,processing and final disposal including but not limited to the issuance of permits and the establishment of minimum levels and types of 10 I service for any aspect of solid waste handling. . . . Such regulations or ordinances may be more stringent than the minimum functional standards adopted by the depaytrnent. I j n i RCW 70.95.160. z,^ VI WAC 173-304, prc mull ated 1>y Lcology, cunilir�sc� iIle minirnur,i function-oil standards 5 for solid waste handling. \%'AC 173-304-300(3)contains the provisions governing waste 1.7 recycling requirements. Under WAC 173-304-300(3)ra), "[a]ll applicable solid waste recycling I facilities shall apply for and obtain a solid waste permit under WAC 173-304-600,permits." VIf t) WAC 173-304-300(3)(c) establishes specific standards.for this permit requirement. It i provides: (c) All facilities storing solid waste in outdoor piles or surface impoundments for the purpose of waste recycling shall be considered to be storing or disposing of solid waste if I `t' ( FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, _.>7 CONCLUSIONS OF I,AW AND OIZDEIZ June 1, 1999 Richard Medeiros "C C E I y E D NE2481 Old Belfair Hwy. Belfair, Wa. 98528 JUN 01 1999 Gary Yando, Director MASON 00.PLANNING DEPT. Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street Shelton, Washington 98584 Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. revised reclamation plan. Dear Mr. Yando As per our phone conversation it is very hard to make this letter a short letter, and in some cases may even be repetitive. There is a serious problem, where so much damage has already occurred, and to do an environmental impact statement is so far over due. What must be addressed is the clean-up of all the environmental damage already done. I hope the following can point out some of the past the problems that have been an issue along with many complaints, with no results. All statements that I make in this letter are true and based on facts. I apologize for the lent of this letter. FN> Why is Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel, LLC, mining the Hartman property ? Allen Shearer Sand and Gravel, LLC, being a legal entity number 601485990, doing business at NE2493 Old Belfair Highway, Belfair, Washington 98528, standard industrial code: 5261, dated 2/22/99.,(see attachment A)Mining requires a reclamation permit under RCW 78.44.081. Reclamation Permits required—Applications. After July 1, 1993, no miner or permit holder may engage in surface mining without first obtained a reclamation permit from the department. [Captions—Severability—Effective date— 1993 c 518: See notes following RCW 78.44.010. Under RCW 78.44.031 (6) "Miner" means any person or persons, any partnership, limited partnership, or corporation, or any association of persons, including every public or governmental agency engaged in mining from the surface. Under RCW 78.44.031 (10), "Permit holder"means any person or persons, any partnership, limited partnership, or corporation, or any association ofpersons, either natural or artificial, including every public or governmental agency engaged in surface mining and/or the operation of surface mines, whether individually,jointly, or through subsidiaries, agents, employees, operators, or contractors who holds a state reclamation permit. [Captions—Severability—Effective date-1993 c 518: See notes following RCW 78.44.010. ID Why is Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. filing for a revised plan ? Two things come to mind, the first being that the permit that is to be revised, was never completely approved. (see attachment B) therefore,you are dealing with a operational plan, in plane english, is not worth the paper it is written on. RCW 78.44.081. Reclamation Permits required —Applications. After July 1, 1993, no miner or permit holder may engage in surface mining without first obtained a reclamation permit from the department. [Captions— Severability—Effective date—1993 c 518: See notes following RCW 78.44.010. Though this may be one of the reasons why the plan is to be revised,you must consider all the damage that has occurred to my property from the 1988 plan that was not completely approved, and can be referenced by a letter from DNR, dated November 1, 1996(see attachment B). The second is Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. is not mining the mine site, therefore, why is Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc.filing an application for a revised reclamation plan. [E> Reclamation Plan: Before 1993, both reclamation and operations, were the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. After 1993,jurisdiction was split into three categories. Reclamation being the jurisdiction of Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality, being the jurisdiction of the Department of Ecology, and Operations, the Department of Community Development. In 1993, the Department of Natural Resources, transferred a permit from Anderman Enterprises, Inc. to Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. (same owner), knowing that the operational part of the plan was not approved. A culvert inside the mine site required an easement from me in order to approve the plan. Many letters were sent to the Department of Community Development along with personal visits,phone calls, with no results on complaints that an illegal culvert was depositing waste from the site that has contaminated,flooded, damage, and created an unsafe environment for my family. A letter was written to DNR, asking for confirmation of the illegal culvert, and was confirmed with a letter from DNR, written Nov. 1, 1996 (see attachmentB)A plan that was never completely approved was transferred to Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. and now you are asking to revised that same plan. ID In order to address the request for comments on scope of EIS SEPA NO. SEP99- 0036, dated May 10, 1999, there are a few items that need to be explained. The description of the proposal, the applicant has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation Plan for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre property. In answer, I believe the existing plan is incomplete, and was never completely approved, and the mine site is a 40 acre site, where only 32 of the 40 acres can be mined. It also states, wood waste materials to be ground and mixed with soils to create blended topsoil, and re-contour of the site to allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and storm water pond on site. In response to wood waste activities of any kind on the mine site, the following must be considered. L. Mason County Department of Community Development has no jurisdiction for the recycling or stockpiling of wood waste. A permit is required for what is deposited on the mine site since 1989 to 1993, and over 100,000 yards still remain on the mine site and under WA 173.304.100 (54) it states "Permit" means an authorisation issued by the jurisdictional Health department which allows a person to perform solid waste activities at a specific location and which includes specific conditions for such facility operations. [Statutory Authority: RCW 70.95.215. 88.20.066 (Order 88-28) § 173.304.100,filed 10,128185.]also[Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.21A RCW. 85-22-013 (Order85-18),§ 173.304.100,filed 10128185.1 As far as to allow the site for the preparation of 8 residential lots, the land is classified under Forest Practice, (see attachment G) which bring up many other issues that may need to be considered. As far as the statement that a storm water pond would be on site. The many storm water ponds on site are not capable of controlling storm water now, the reason being that the site has been so denuded and has not been reclaimed in the last 14 years, no pond system is capable of containing the amount of drainage that occurs from rain water. What is occurring at this time and has in the past is the ponds fill with rain water, overflow, or are pumped onto adjacent properties, and causing huge amounts of damage to my property. ® Name of Proponent: Allen Shearer- Belfair Sand and Gravel. Though both businesses are legal entities ofthe State. Under RCW 78.44.081, Reclamation Permits required—Applications. After July 1, 1993, no miner or permit holder may engage in surface mining without first irst obtained a reclamation permit from the department. Captions—Severability—Effective date— 1993 c 518: See notes following RCW 78.44.010. It appears to me neither Allen Shearer or Belfair Sand and Gravel, have a plan to change, however, if one is allowed to be changed, it would not include Allen Shearer. ED Water: It is stated that water comes from a well. What it does not say is that the well located at the lower level, maybe contaminated. In the past, when ever work was being done on the well, a strong odor would come from the well. In my observation because wood waste leachate, and septic waste was being deposited in the 10,000 gallon tank and pumped into the lower settling pond, water from the well would be pumped into the lower pond on a continuous basis in order to try and keep the odor done, but never worked very well. ED Sewage Treatment: On-site septic system. To be brief on this statement, a 10,000 gallon underground storage tank does not qualify as a septic system. The underground tank does not comply with the following requirements in RCW 90.76.et seq. The tank does not have a "Facility compliance tag"defined in RCW 90.76.010 (3) The legislature finds that leaking underground storage tanks containing petroleum and other regulated substances pose a serious threat to human health and the environment. To address this threat, the legislature intends for the department of ecology to establish and 3 underground storage tank program designed, operated, and enforce in a manner that, at a minimum, meets the requirements for delegation of the federal underground storage tank program of the resource conservation and recovery act of 1976, as amended(42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901, et seq. Mason County Building Department has records of the permit process for allowing the installation of the 10,000 gallon tank. A permit was issued after the fact, and no inspection of the tank was ever done. I observed the entire installation. For environmental and human safety reason I believe the tank must be dug up and disposed of at a permitted site for disposal of contaminated tanks. A engineered septic system must be designed and installed as required by law. E> Environmental Features, states that a wetland area with category 3 wetland vegetation is found within 50 feet of the southeast corner of the mine property. This so-called wet land that is referred to is my property. The taking of my property you are calling a wetland, is damage caused by improper surface mining, which brings me to the illegal culvert in the lower level of the mine site. This culvert has been on the site for many years, with continuous complaints to DNR, Ecology, and especially the many letters and phone calls made to Allan Bordon, of Mason County Community Development, with no response. This culvert deposits on my property at an average of a million plus gallons of turbid drainage each year. It has been known to the Department of Natural Resources, and Mason County Community Development for quite a few years. Once again this can be referenced by a letter written by DNR. (see attachment B) FX> Comments under Environmental Checklist dated 3-17-98, signed by Robert Gatz. Item 6, page one. Mining in the past has not been performed as required in phases, but has been denuded to the extent that mining in phases at this time would not correct the damage that has already been done. Item 7, page one. The mine site can not be used as a wood waste recycling area, because of the following: t] Wood waste: Wood waste is defined in WAC 173.304.100 (91), "means solid waste consisting of wood pieces or particles generated as a by-product or waste form the manufacturing of wood products, handling and storage of raw materials and trees and stumps. This includes by is not limited to sawdust, chips, shaving, bark,pulp, hog fuel, and log sort yard waste, but does not include wood pieces or particles containing chemical preservatives such as creosote,pentachlorophenol, or copper-chrome-arsenate. ID Wood waste: Wood waste has been deposited on the mine site form 1989 to 1993 when the site was known as Anderman Enterprises, Inc., with loads brought onto the site and deposited in excess of 100,000 yards. The wood waste has been on site for over 10 years, and over 70,000 plus yards still remain on the site. 4 including but not limited to the issuance ofpermits and the establishment of minimum levels and types of service for any aspect of solid waste handling...Such regulations or ordinances may be more stringent than the minimum functional standards adopted by the department. RCW 70.95.160 On Page 9, section VI, it states, WAC 173.304, promulgated by Ecology, comprises the minimum functional standards for solid waste handling. WAC 173.304.300 (3) contains the provisions governing waste recycling requirements. Under WAC 173.304.300 (3) (a), "[0111 applicable solid waste recycling facilities shall apply for and obtain a solid waste permit under WAC 173.304.600, permits. " On page 9,section VII, it states, WAC 173.304.300 (3) (c) establishes specific standards for this permit requirement. It provides: (c) All facilities storing solid waste in outdoor piles or surface impoundment's for the purpose of waste recycling shall be considered to be storing or disposing of solid waste if.• (i)At least fifty percent of the material has not been shown to have been recycled in the past three years and any material has been on site more than five years. (ii) Ground water or surface water, air, and%r land contamination has occurred or will likely occur under current conditions of storage or in case of fire, or flood. Upon such a determination by the jurisdictional health that (c) (i) or (h) of this subsection are met, the jurisdictional health department may require a permit application and issuance of a permit under WAC 173.304.600 of these rules. On page 13,XVII, states that further testing of ground and surface waters are necessary, to ensure adequate protection of those important resources. On page l4, section Order 1) This matter remanded to County Health to require whatever additional information from the permit applicant that County Health deems appropriate. 2) County Health may impose conditions on the issuance of a permit as appropriate and necessary to comply with the minimum functional standards, its own solid waste ordinance and County's solid waste management plan. 3) County Health further may impose reasonable conditions in light ofpast solid waste violations by BS&C. © Wood waste: The above has been presented in some detail, because there has been a determination of what the above was interpreted to mean. Dan Watts, on June 25t1i of 1996, June 26, 1996, and August 5, 1996, sent letters to Peggy Johnson, State Representative, Department of Natural Resources, Warren Warfield, Department of Ecology, Mr. Backous, Pollution Control Hearings Board, Board Members, and myself Richard Medeiros. (see attachment D) Mr. Watts has misinformed the above, by making statements that Mason Count's position is that BS&G is not allowed to bring any more wood waste onto the site but is allowed to recycle what wood waste is currently there. BS&G is currently moving the remaining wood waste form a steep slope to better suited location on an upper level of the property. What Mr. Watts failed to state is that no previsions in the Pollution Control Hearings Board allowed recycling of the wood waste that still remain on the site. Mr. Watts also failed to state that the wood waste that he allowed to go from the lower level to the upper level approximately 50,000 plus yards was brought up to the upper level and buried. It still remains there to this day. Mr. F [R> Wood waste: Because wood waste has been on the site for over a period of three years it is classified as a solid waste under WAC 173.304.300 (3) (c) that states; the failure to move at least fifty percent of the wood waste material within a three year period designated the facility as storing or disposing rather than recycling. [Statuary Authority: Chapter 43.21 C RCW. 85-22-013 (Order 85-18), § 173.304.300,filed 10,128,185] E> Wood waste: Because wood waste still remaining on the mine site consist of over 70,000 plus yards, under WAC 173.304.462 (2) (e) (i) (ii),plus ('9 states; all wood waste landfills having a capacity ofgreater than ten thousand cubic yards at closure shall either: (i) have a ground water monitoring wywtem that complies with WAC 173.304.490 and the wood waste landfill meet the performance standards of WAC 173.304.460 (2) ; or (ii) have a leachate collection and treatment system. (f) owners or operators of wood waste landfills shall obtain a permit as set forth in WAC 173.304.600 from the jurisdictional health department. [Statuary Authority: Chapter 43.21 C RCW. 85-22-013 (Order 85-18), § 173.304.462,filed 10128185] ® Wood waste: On May 31, 1995, a order from the Pollution Control Hearings Board, PCHB No. 94-274, in the favor of Mason County Department of Health, (see attachment C) On page 2, section Ill it states that the Union River lies approximately 3,300 feet from the site, in the valley. It ultimately receives runoff from the site. On page 6, section XM,, states, that the wood waste pile is surrounded by a ditch; and that BS&G has placed a 10,000 gallon underground tank at the bottom of the pile,from which it periodically pumps leachate into the pond system. On page 7, section XVIII, it states, that Mason County Health Services, believes on its observations ofponding black water below the wood waste pile; of surface water going through the pile and traveling offsite; and the fact that there are still large quantities of wood waste piled on the site; that there is the likelihood that leachate will contaminate the ground and surface waters of the area. On page 7, section XIX, it states, the denial was for two reasons, one being the high potential for leachate to migrate into the ground and surface waters of the area, and the second for non-compliance history. On page 8, section II, it states, that it is the reWonsibilitj�o1 state, county and cin�governments to provide for a waste management infrastructure to fully implement waste reduction and source separation strategies to process and dispose of remaining wastes in a manner that is environmentally safe and economically sound. It is further the responsibilityofstate county and citesgovernments to monitor the cost-effectiveness and environmental safety of combusting separated waste,processing mixed waste, and recycling programs. (Emphasis added) On page 9, section V, it states that local government are required to adopt regulations or ordinances implementing the comprehensive solid waste management plan covering storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization,processing and final disposal 5 Watts also fails to state that a copy of a letter sent to me, dated.Tune 20, 1996, states that "The board ruled that Belfair Sand&Gravel was required to obtain a permit from Mason County, under WAC 173.304.300 (3) (c) (i) and(ii). RCW 70.95.240 makes it unlawful 'for any person to dump or deposit or permit the dumping or depositing of any .solid waste onto or under the surface of the ground or into the waters of this state except as a solid waste disposal site for which there is a valid permit. (see attachment E) A second letter was sent to me on August 7, 1996 after I wrote another letter to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. (see attachment T) where is states Mr. Watts letter makes no mention of the approximately 7,000 cubic yards of wood waste on the site,for which the Board concluded Belfair Sand and Gravel needed a solid waste permit under WAC 173.304.300 (3) (a) and 300 (3) (c). ED Wood waste: As there is more to add to the wood waste violations, 1 would conclude the wood waste by making this statement. Wood waste has been on the mine site for over 10 years, and makes it a solid waste issue. This waste has an order from the Pollution Control Hearings Board, requiring a permit. Leachate from the wood waste for the past 10 years has been coming onto my property and has caused irreversible damage. Leachate is being diverted into a 10,000 gallon tank along with septic waste, and is being pumped into the lower settling pond, and the settling pond is not lined, and contains superfund waste from Jackson Park without any required permits. The lower pond is diverted onto my property through a illegal culvert, and deposits over one million gallons per year. After entering my property the diverted drainage goes into the Union River. The lower pond is unstable and leeks on the east side and cannot contain the rain water and water from the screening machine at mid-level. The bottom line is the operation is an environmental hazard. E> On page 3, item d, are they any unstable soils. The entire south area below the mid- level pond are so unstable, that thousands of yards of material have entered my property from slide on the south side. The mid-level pond is so unstable from time to time it give way depositing material onto my property. ID On page 5, item 1, As far as the stream at the west side of the mine site, it should be quite obvious that it doesn't matter if a 65 foot buffer is maintained, the record shows that drainage has been diverted and most likely will continue to be diverted through pipes in order not to cause damage within the mine. ED On page 7, item 2,It is a fact that septic and lachate is being diverted into the 10,000 gallon underground tank, and then pumped into the lower settling pond, which has no liner. The lower pond also contains superfund waste that is not permitted for this site. E> On page 7, item c., was not answered which is very critical to the environmental impact statement. Water run-off is diverted to my property and has caused considerable amount of damage. Turbid water is diverted from the site, lower settling pond, and what fails to go into the 10,000 gallon underground tank. ® On page 9, item 3, off-site water routed away from the mine site. What off-site water?? D On page 9, item 4,c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Union River and tributary is listed with two threatened species. Puget Sound Chinook(threatened) Hood Canal Summer Chum (threatened) Millions ofgallons ofdrainage from the mine site enters the Union River, and is a danger to both the species listed. [E> Culvert: A culvert is located just inside the mine gate entrance, approximately 50 feet on the left after entering the site. This culvert is has never been approved, and is referenced by a letter written to me by the Department of Natural Resources, on November 1, 1996. This culvert is and continues to cause damage to my property, and the Union River. Through this culvert waste has continuously deposed contaminated waste onto my property. Records are on file at the Department of Health. Mason County as done a test for heavy metals, as well as Evergreen Collage, and several individual testing have been done for grades at Evergreen Collage on my property. Each test has come up with high concentrations of heavy metals, and have been confirmed to come from the Anderman or Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site. This contamination is in the front section of my property that you claim contains wetland vegetation. So there is no confusion, there is no wetlands on my property, only massive amounts of flooding from the mine site. FA> Environmental Health: On page 11, item 7 a. Are they any environmental health hazards. Answer given: NONE. The answer should have been yes. The roadway from the entrance of the gate to the mid-level should be asphalt, because so much dust is created when trucks go in and out. My wife, my neighbor, who lives on my property, and Mr. Hoovers youngest child, has asthma and emphysema and have trouble breathing. My daughter who also lives on my property has a lung problem, and has a very hard time breathing with the dust created by the trucks. Prove of the health problems can be verified upon request. Hazard waste is located in and around the lower settling pond from Jackson Park Housing Complex, ammunition bunkers 103 and 104, a superfund site. . The settling pond does not contain a liner, and the superfund waste is being mixed with leachate, and septic waste. R f] On page 11, item 7 a 1. Asked to describe special emergency services that might be required. Answer NONE. Emergency services would be ambulance, or paramedic's required to assist in breathing. On page 11, item 7 a 2, Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards. Answer NONE. As far as the dust control, an asphalt driveway from entrance gate, up to the mid-level of the site would help. As far as the superfund material in and around the lower pond, should be removed and placed in a permitted and approved site. 2> Waste from City of Bremerton: Records in your file, will confirm that a permit was required by the City of Bremerton at the place of disposal. No permit was ever issued but was allow to be buried on the site. The waste consisted of one inch asphalt, and concrete from the 4rh Street in down town Bremerton. Approximately 68 plus loads were brought onto the mine site, and buried for the use of building a roadway to the mid-level of the mine site. The above is a matter of record, and can be given upon request. ED Tires: Over 5000 tires are buried on the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site, and are an environmental hazard. I have submitted photo's of the locations of where the tires are buried, and were the wood waste is buried within the mine site. All this is an environmental hazard. In conclusion, I would like to say that so much damage has occurred from the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site, and the past records assures it will continue. Before any consideration of a revised plan should be considered, it is my opinion that a complete shut-down of the mine should be enforced. Once the mine is shut-down, together the agencies can assist the miner on how to achieve complete compliance. Some suggestions could be the removal of the 10,000 gallon underground tank, and a engineered septic system installed. The removal of the superfund material in and around the lower settling pond and placed in an approved and permitted site. The lower settling pond can be drained and a approved liner installed to protect ground water. The wood waste removed from within the mine site, located at three places that 1 know of, and exceed 70,000 yards, and placed at a approved and permitted site for the disposal of what would now be classified as a hazard material. The removal of the City of Bremerton waste used in the roadway, and placed in an approved and permitted site. The removal of the buried tires, and disposed of at an approved and permitted site. Drainage has caused so much damage and must be required to remain on-site. Erosion control on the south side of the mine site maybe difficult, but must be dealt with. So much fill was brought into the site for the construction of the mid-level south side pond, that it is very unstable and is almost eroding on a continuous basis, and has deposed thousands of yards of material onto my property. 9 I hope you understand why this letter is lengthy, it has been reduced from 17 pages. Si ely, Richard Medeiros cc: Randy Loun cc: County Commissioners cc: Allen Bordon cc: Department of Natural Resources cc: Department of Ecology 10 Washington State Department of Revenue State Business Records Database Detail TAX REPORTING NUHBER: 601916325 LEGAL ENTITY NUHBER: 601916325 LEGAL ENTITY: AI_LEM SHEMPLR SOND AND GROVEL LLC DOING BUSINESS AS: HAILING ADDRESS: BUSINESS LOCATION: PO BOX 1880 2493 NE OLD BEl FATR 1114Y BELFAIR, Pfl 98528-000o DELFS-ER, }ID '�f3528-0(►00 ORNER TYPE: LIH1iLD LIABILITY COMPANY ACCOUNT OPENED: 11/11/1999 ACCOUNT CLOSED: OPLN STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CODE: 5999 2/22199 17:3 FOR PION-COMMERCIAL USE ONLV REVENUE A° ACOMCNT- A RFP -► '-. JUN 0 0 MASON Co, XrAv< KV1 ROh-iME CRCCt<Lt 7- -Pc=' S =#� f2 l , Val �4T E R � l�l�4 u�. i_1 ��d� ��,•� 'Tln iE c�L.D �C t_F r�i �. 1-�uJ� SING 1 �'lCoCo /aD,WCC v�"� THE STeF-4 n N4T- FZOtc�S AL-ov1C-, ThE N lOveTli Stc1E c)(=- -y-kE FxtsT-10G l_ 0PEi�!Na-IloYN , i�P L1CY-t✓t 'T" FK�lLF_b T� /_IS% i h/5 5 TIE'Et41N1 UN 7"/4E ti/�V� wr�rE� /�IShTS 6N i y1_5 Al ,o AIy4wE 7-21) i f�E L14i iG�YI LI�r� h E 114s r- /'Ecc-9 o f , Si'�1 t�o�./ [`��ho - �iC u��c° CG►u� �l16>E' riot C� uF I'T 72:) �JouLr.� h vE 7-6 1-9Ur Ld eS T dF sine PIPd,0,ewTX v� - I.I 5 i4'l�L � Fa � I-�u wi l�� �_ Cd� S cc wt {'�'I c� ✓� , MaSF I F 1\46Y' ill-LL_ PFvPLF- Who (�1sE� ujATc F46 y" "F( , E Ins A WELLS TDB i LL i�s e I hy;uE NaR SEE�-i V 5 aLw►ov,\ W� ,gyp srleeww\ -T-r v x E>A-R.s PC t� \ �, ,� -� 3 N1 i4y13 E wt�E,� ►1•�t vvt i�F -► s C cis E� , � 14 x��res M 1 CS-.;tN4T E ,�A v-k d SPwu� vt t�Gt�tv� , !SPECIES i/tE SITE ? In C UESTIO v� = S5/1oU&I A)ZT / Si T, ?T Sh m A N c T` S to LM v vt U 5 p f( rag E MAY Y STt LL ED ? PA ve 44 }� � �� z , ����1 (-ZU� i�i r✓�'r Lr l-E 191��L1Ci4t,T5 V\sw.Eve 'REDuc E lS F_ NIC �AE O I}�E F_�t�sriv►C-c Nc�IS� GF1/�L S�iouL� iUDT B� i¢LIIJLU�t� rc� C'4h �iNuE IDS >s uJhCr, you OAP nVor Dlk9ieeY vnl YDL//C )0,47-16 ► hEO)4NSE i h E �r,�'Y�vEL a�E,� riD✓� i`✓Dls)c CErrEL is UN13E�s,Pr�13c� , !°F_Lar_ v4'r-F_ 7WE 12oc j ' 'Usl�► 1hG l�'4-Sl4ihG lOi'�1�J h G Tv T1f-F_ 1NEST�►�'YI S%c� f4li)c� d UL�1� �h� IILG R)5�4 S dF h"ES/p�Ey� T/ice} L /�D/�NES, 1°P L I L'iA ✓1 S uj Er✓ Z 1-0 Cc�✓�T t�c� l_ V,c� l E -t 1M MI 11T r4)vt -7j�;u Fr=F !L Uuv�c� 1�c�2 i t v► E'rE. o `r(n 1M 10'C T141 S h 1+S 1/1 to t<F n i V-\ 'i IA e pyV t" t4v>d t T `_�In o f.l>_� '}.�0 t� S� �-In E v4 ti��I.t,l>✓� Tit.0 u1 rAC �I�ivi�G C1�Eti°,Y9 770,E iF 141COLv�/� r d C`a�l�N�l�, ShdULd 7D 7-IiE I,c1'Es,rf_,i'L X s'/dam vim' T.�� I�IPOr"E�'TY )4d_r40&r74' fWvk:�l /VLL 7-1f,e oelS 11,044 Y /-,'ESid F_vICC 1 hl 'ice E w) 14Z tC i`lnL V\�G(-t i `Tv SLEEP C�ctletilc� 1,I E �V4-K . l� Tt F_ \MIutIvtC-'S CJevPLE UJriee Gooj VI C1C-�1-li Oi o ut �, Wl0 V 1= E R EVE_vA 51 h c 0 F 14 , PA ev4 i c , C , lp �l c I-4 C T'fL' C��T2 a vLl Pt�4 c~ram T-I t f_ r c i 10►�:4 i2 7 E F f N\ r�v �� o r= ►/� 5'r��c r� = Gp OR T-"C-kr w\ lAQn �c� 'T'NG SCi.ISE olC ►ram �- EFlf,� iIFUL► 14VAU1AG Or LUtJF- c� � t`SEfPrUlT�► W ln Y1-"t- IS "6 C,4 u'1'I Fu L ;A'��c�uT' i_�o i-Cl v�r fl L(s i E c� yj 'P3 OPER TICA I v1 �t`HC i �-�����s �� ►e �rtn � �P��r��u_« ��zy •7'a �x�P��s s M r' COV\C E e vt 5 ACC-���� f v� � i h l�L�LF✓�I�/ `�W✓�c� LQ vt c� 17-A v I P2o V-N vv\ ✓,C3 �1 Cif,- IccC-Y" J©I�•n��� L)r' �\ -56U- ?-75--loL30 GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR �pN.STgTFO o A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT U p T i PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES z� N y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5 Y T" ST. • P.O. BOX 578 of o 1e64 SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 DETERNIINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 May 10, 1999 In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the Mason County Department of Community Development is notifying the public that this department has made a Determination of Significance for the following development proposal. After the scoping period of 21 days, the applicant will be required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the impacts to the environment associated with this proposal, in accordance with RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This Scoping Notice is being sent to give the public the opportunity to share written comments with this department and those comments will be used to help define the final scope of the applicant's EIS. Description of the Proposal: The applicant has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation Plan for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre property. The plan calls for the removal of gravel materials (2,261,000 cubic yards) over a period of 14 years (between 10 to 100 foot depths), the processing of wood waste materials to be ground and mixed with soils to create blended topsoil, and the recontour of the site to allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and stormwater pond on site. Name of Proponent: ALLEN SHEARER - BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL Location of Proposal: 2493 NE Old Belfair Highway, Belfair, WA.; in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Parcel Number: 12317-11-00000. Proposed use: Revision of surface mining reclamation plan for existing gravel mine; area will be subject to material extraction and eventual site preparation of eight residential lots. Site acreage to be developed: 41 acres Proposed lifetime of use: 14 years Water: Well Sewage Treatment: on-site septic system Access: existing drive to Old Belfair Highway Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Environmental Features: The site lies within the Union River watershed. A type 3 stream flows north to south near the west boundary of the property and a type 4 stream is within 125 feet of the northeast corner of the property; a wetland area with category 3 wetland vegetation is found within 50 feet of the southeast corner of the property. The Union River Critical Aquifer Recharge Area bounds the east property line [designated by Mason County Resource Ordinance Chapter 17.01.080]. Nearly 90 percent of the property has been altered by past development and mining activities. Recycled - �'� .^�")v�. �'�"�' ^'�, ��.g -or.- ^My�..y ii. 'fib- ::i" .. s'•�,"� "T 4�. 7�.� :F- -� "". -. .. M1 Won Al ITS 1 two'� r Too - S _ r tI 41 WAWA WON } 3 s f < < l - j _ nit t Lead Agenu: Mason County Department of Community Development. Areas of Environmental Concern: Thus far, the following areas have been identified as meriting further study in the EIS: 1. Adequacy of stormwater management on the property: how water volumes are handled (routing to ponds, size and number of ponds, conveyance of pond water to areas of the property); how quality is managed (NPDES pollution control strategies and monitoring). 2. Impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, including impacts to ground water quality and quantity of area streams and Union River; risk of contamination of the aquifer by petroleum products and other pollutants used in operations. 3. Impacts to type 3 stream on west side and type 4 stream on the northeast side of the mine site, including changes in vegetation buffer and introduction of water volumes and solid and dissolved materials by current stormwater management system. 4. Impacts to area resources by exposure of metal, organic, and inert materials buried on this site by previous operation activities, including wood waste, building materials, equipment, and chemicals used or brought on site. 5. Impacts to the surrounding environment resulting from traffic related to the proposal. 6. Impacts on public services related to the proposal, such roads and utilities. 7. Impacts on noise levels related to this proposal. 8. Impacts to air quality related to the proposal from mining, processing, handling, storage and transporting of soils and earth materials. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this proposal by writing to the responsible official listed below. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. A copy of the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11), specifying the EIS scoping process is available upon request. Responsible O icial Date Responsible Official: Gary Yando, Director Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 578, Shelton WA. 98584 (360) 427-9670 or 275-4467 Written correspondence on this matter should be sent to the Department at the above address, attention Allan Borden, and received by Tuesday June 1, 1999. STATE 0� 04 t .h q O 1889 t 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON r rrEIVED DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY JUN 01 1999 P.O. Box 47600 • Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 MASON 00.PLANNING DEPT. (360) 407-6000 • TDD Only (Hearing Impaired) (360) 407-6006 May 28, 1999 Allan Borden Dept of Community Development PO Box 578 Shelton WA 98584 Dear Mr. Borden Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scope of the environmental impact statement for the Belfair Sand and Gravel reclamation plan for an existing 41-acre gravel mine. We have reviewed the document and have the following comments. All plans and reports required by the general NPDES permit for sand and gravel facilities must be updated to meet permit requirements and reflect changes in operations. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Scott Morrison with our Water Quality Program at (360)407-6292. Sincerely, t Rebecca J. Inman RI: S #99-3047 cc: Scott Morrison, SWRO Abbe White, SWRO �a6 STA < s VV 9= 18 it apY State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Region 7 Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N-Olympia,Washington 98501-1091 -(360)902-2808 Region 7 Office location: Natural Resources Building-1111 Washington Street SE-Olympia,Washington June 2, 1999 RECEIVED Mason County Department of Community Development JUN 0 3 1999 411 North Fifth Street Post Office Box 578 MASM 00.PLANMNG DEPT ATTENTION: Gary Yando Shelton , Washington 98584 Dear Mr. Yando: SUBJECT: State Environmental Policy Act Document, Determination of Significance; Allen shearer- Belfair Sand and Gravel Proponent, Revision of Surface Mining Reclamation Plan, Unnamed Tributaries to the Union River, Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 01 West, Mason County, WRIA 15.0503, WDFW Log# 00-D5993.01S The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) document received on May 14, 1999, and offers the following comments at this time. Other comments may be offered as the project progresses. A Hydraulic Project approval (HPA) will be required to construct the proposed storm water system. We will require the design criteria and flow calculations for the storm water system. The system must provide for water quality and quantity. This may require detention, retention, and infiltration. The areas of environmental concern identified in the above referenced documents appear to be complete. Our concerns include the adequacy of stormwater management for the mine proposal. The plans included indicate that during mining, the existing stormwater system would be used. This system has proved inadequate in the past,and runoff from this site has negatively impacted two tributaries to the Union River, and the Union River itself. The Union River in the reach where stormwater from this proposal would be routed is habitat for summer chum and chinook salmon listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). An additional concern is the possible negative impacts from the mining proposal on groundwater that is in continuity with the Union River. Mr. Yando June 2, 1999, 1999 Page 2 Our final concern is for any negative impacts to the tributaries of the Union River and their buffers. The proposed 65 foot buffer is inadequate to provide a full range of functions and values vital to the heath of stream channels. The stream identified as a type-4, is a type-2 or type-3 stream and will require adequate riparian buffers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at(360) 895-6123. Sincerely, Chris Byrnes Area Habitat Biologist CB:cb: 135993.01 S cc: SEPA Coordinator, WDFW SEPA Coordinator, DOE Union River Basin Protection Association 10195 West Old Belfair Highway Bremerton,Washington 98312 USA Phone(360)275-3011 Fax(360)275-9294 May 28, 1999 Allen Borden Department of Community Development V E D 411 North 5th Street PO Box 578 J U N 0 1 1999 Shelton, Washington 98584 •• �^��ti1.RE: SEPA# SEP99-0036 Determination of Significance FuirirvlNG DEFT. Revised Reclaimation Plan for Belfair Sand&Gravel No. 70-012066 Application for Surface Mining Reclaimation Permit Dear Mr. Borden : Thank you for the opportunity for us to be able to make some comments on this permitting process. However we have some great concerns regarding this process. As you are aware this is a long standing problem for the river and the people of the Union River Valley. We have some continued questions that should be addressed in this process. Does Mason County have a surface mining ordinance which addresses this site? Is it Allen Shearer doing business on this site or is it Belfair Sand and Gravel? If the reclamation plan of 1988 was not accepted and approved--- What plan are they operating under? What is to be done about the Navy Yard superfund material,the contaminated soil from the City of Bremerton's 4th Street Project and all of the Wood waste that has been dumped at this site?How are these problems going to be addressed? What provisions are being taken to address the Endangered Species Act with regards to the Chinook and Hood Canal Summer Chum? Are we permitting Anderman or Belfair Sand&Gravel or Shearer? Who is the responsible party,the permitee or the County or the State DNR or DOE? If you would be so kind as to address all of the above questions,then we could prudently proceed to address the water quality and quantity of the water on this site,the leachate and run-off which threatens the Union River, it tributaries and the salmon,their habitat and very existence. We feel that prior to any permitting and or operation of any kind at this site these questions should be addressed. Further that any operation must keep all of its pollutants on site so that the rest of us do not have to deal with the resulting harm now or in the future. We request that all of the above be addressed in the SEPA process and that Mason County accept the responsibility for any failure herein. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and express our concerns, Sincerely, Elaine Manhefrner President BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL SITE PROPOSAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION GUIDANCE The purpose of the following outlines is to give guidance to the applicant and a format to be used in completing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) . These outlines identify areas of specific concern that are to be addressed to the satisfaction of the lead agency (Mason County) . These outlines are not intended to limit or restrict other items or subjects from being discussed. There are elements that the applicant will find in the SEPA Rules that must be addressed that are not included here . These elements are to be found in WAC 197- 11-440 through 444 . PART I - - GENERAL OUTLINE FOR DEIS 1 . Cover letter 2 . Fact Sheet 3 . Table of Contents (followed by a list of elements of the environment as indicated in WAC 197- 11-444) 4 . Summary S . Alternatives (including proposed action if determined) 6 . Affected Environment including: significant impacts and mitigation measures . 7 . Appendices (distribution list of parties receiving the DEIS and other technical reports and supporting documents) PART II - - DEIS DETAILED OUTLINE The Draft EIS shall contain the following: 1. Cover Letter. -As required in WAC 197-11-440 (1) -Not over two pages -Brief overview of the proposal -Highlights key environmental issues and alternatives 2 . Fact Sheet . -As required in WAC 197-11-440 (2) -All of this information must be included unless specified by the lead agency. 3 . Table of Contents . -As required in WAC 197-11-440 (3) -Outline major sections 4 . Summary. -As required in WAC 197-11-440 (4) -The summary shall briefly include: -Description of the proposal -Alternatives -Impacts -Mitigation measures -Major conclusions -Significant adverse impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated 5 . Project Description -As stated in WAC 197-11-440 (4) - The project description shall include: -Size and location of property -Past operations and history of past mining permitting on the property -Present operations narrative, including the current permits of operation, the kinds and areas of on-site activities, and on-going and ultimate reclamation of the property -plans of erosion-sediment control and stormwater management for the operation SLOPING ISSUE: concerns of past and present State permits (Properly approved and meeting of standards) were noted in comment letters from Union River Basin Protection Association, Richard Medeiros, and Allan Hoover. 6 . Alternatives . -As required in WAC 197-11-440 (5) -The alternatives to be delineated include: A. The "no action" alternative; 2 B. The proposal as presented in the Determination of Significance C. An alternative that could feasibly attain or approximate the proposal 's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation to the areas of the environment identified in the Determination of Significance as being areas of concern. -Identify phases of the proposal, their timing, and previous or future environmental analysis on this or related proposals, if known. -Devote sufficiently detailed analysis to each alternative to permit a comparative evaluation of the alternatives . The DEIS may indicate the main reasons for eliminating alternatives from detailed study. -Present a comparison of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, including the no action alternative. -Include locations (maps) for each alternative, if applicable. -Include mitigation measures proposed for each alternative. -Include a discussion of the benefits and disadvantages of reserving for some future time the implementation of the proposal, as compared with possible approval at this time. Particular attention should be given to the possibility of foreclosing future options by implementing the proposal . 7. Affected Environment, Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures . -As required in WAC 197-11-440 (6) , including but not limited to: -Describe the existing environment that will be affected by the proposal, analyze significant impacts of alternatives, and discuss reasonable mitigation measures to these impacts. -This section is not, to the extent possible, intended to duplicate section five (5) . -Succinctly describe the principle features of the environment that would be affected, or created by the alternatives . -Describe and discuss significant impacts that will narrow the range or degree of beneficial uses of the environment or pose long term risks to human health or the environment. -Clearly indicate mitigation measures. 3 -Indicate what the intended environmental benefits of mitigation measures are for significant impacts . If there is a concern about whether a mitigation measure is capable of being accomplished there should be a discussion of its technical feasibility and economic practicability. -Summarize significant adverse impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated. -Summarize existing plans, policies and regulations (for example land use plans) applicable to the proposal, and how the proposal is consistent or inconsistent with them. -Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures, including more efficient use of energy, alternate and renewable energy resources. -Urban quality, historic and cultural resources, and the design of the built environment, including the reuse and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures. -Significant impacts on both the natural environment and the built environment must be analyzed, if relevant (WAC 197-11- 444) . This involves impacts upon and the quality of the physical surroundings, whether they are in wild, rural, or urban areas. Discussion of significant impacts shall include the cost of and effect on public services, such as utilities, roads, fire, and police protection, that may result from the proposal . The DEIS shall also discuss significant impacts upon land and shorelines, which includes housing, physical blight and significant impacts of projected population on environmental resources, as specified by RCW 43 .21C. 110 (d) and (f) , as listed in WAC 197-11-444 . Impacts to natural environment should also include a discussion of potential for wildfires and address the urban and wildland interface. 4 PART III - - DEIS DETAILED OUTLINE: ELEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT (As per WAC 197- 11-444 , including) I . Natural Environment A. Earth 1 . Geology: a) Give a general description of the geology of the site. b) Include any analysis or tests that are done (i .e. site reconnaissance, drilling logs and core samples . ) c) Provide detailed soils and geological study addressing the entire project site. Report should address existing conditions; projected impacts; short term and long term erosion control measures; and the amount and type of material to be excavated on-site and exported, or imported from off-site . d) Provide proposed excavation plan and measures during operations recommended to stabilize the site and to minimize erosion and off-site impacts . Include discussion of post-project site treatment . e) Include discussion of the types of vegetation found on the site and future types of vegetation to be used. 2 . Topography: a) General discussion of current topography of the site. b) Discussion of the topography during the phases of excavation, and after completion of project (post- reclamation) . 3 . Unique Physical Features : General discussion of unique physical features of the area. 4 . Impacts : Include a discussion of all possible significant impacts on the above mentioned and other appropriate elements of the earth environment . 5 . Mitigation Measures : Include a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to minimize impacts . 6 . Unavoidable Adverse Impacts : Include a discussion of all impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated. B. Air 1 . Air Quality: SLOPING ISSUE: Impacts to air quality related to the proposal from mining, processing, handling, storage and transporting of soils and earth materials. (see also Allan Hoover comment letter) a) Discuss air quality impacts including dust and particulate matter. b) Describe mitigation measures . c) Include a discussion of all impacts that cannot or will not be mitigated. 5 C. Water 1 . Surface Water Movement/Quantity/Quality: SCOPING ISSUES: A) Adequacy of stormwater management on the property: how water volumes are handled (routing to ponds, size and number of ponds, conveyance of pond water to areas of the property) ; how quality is managed (NPDES pollution control strategies and monitoring) . (See also comment letters of Washington Department of Ecology_ , Richard Medeiros and Allan Hoover) B) Impacts to type 3 stream on west side and type 4 stream on the northeast side of the mine site, including changes in vegetation buffer and introduction of water volumes and solid and dissolved materials by current stormwater management system. (See also comment letter of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) a) Include a discussion of existing surface water movement/drainage, its quality, quantity, and velocities . b) Discussion of proposal ' s impacts to wetlands, streams, springs and other surface waters, in terms of quality, siltation and drainage patterns due to project, as well as potential impacts and mitigation measures relating to toxic spills, including but not limited to petroleum products . Provide a discussion of programs aimed at preventing contamination from normal operation and/or spills . At a minimum, the programs should discuss containment procedures and post-spill monitoring requirements . c) Discussion of on-site wetlands, their function in the hydrologic system of the area and any unique plant life, animal habitat, etc . d) Discussion of the anticipated long term percolation rates of detention basins , potential for impact, contamination. e) Discussion of alternative methods of stormwater control and locations . f) Discussion of impacts to surrounding surface and ground water. 2 . Ground Water Movement/Quantity/Quality SLOPING ISSUE: Impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, including impacts to ground water quality and quantity of area streams and Union River; risk of contamination of the aquifer by petroleum products and other pollutants used in operations. Determine the following: a) Potential downstream impacts of proposal on surface and ground water. b) Location of area groundwater and its direction and flow. d) Describe method of wastewater treatment and resulting impact on areas ground water. e) Provide a detailed study of on-and off-site impacts to the aquifer, including but not limited to impacts to water quality, quantity and availability, both on- and off-site . 6 3 . Private/Public Water Supplies: a) Identify the number of existing wells in and around the project area. Include location and depth information for each well . b) Provide an analysis of the necessary capacity and volume to provide water to the proposal 's operation. c) Provide a detailed analysis of impacts to surrounding wells, the ground water table, aquifer, and drawdown effects . 4 . Mitigation Measures and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts : Discuss mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts to water resources that will result from this proposal . D. Plants a) Describe site conditions of plants and tree, and the change in these conditions as property is developed. b) List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near this site. Describe measures, if any, to be taken to mitigate impacts . c) Discuss Priority Plant Habitat and Species on site as defined by the State. d) Discuss impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts to plants that will result from this proposal . E. Animals a) Provide a general discussion on the species wildlife at this site and the impact to these species as a result of habitat loss. b) List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or in the vicinity of this site. Describe measures, if any, to be taken to mitigate impacts. c) Discuss Priority Animal Habitat and Species on site as defined by the State. d) Provide detailed analysis of wildlife habitat and the impact that the proposal may have on habitat . e) Discuss measures to help with habitat restoration for wildlife. f) Provide detailed analysis of impacts to wetland and streamside habitats, functions, and related plant and animal species that will be affected both on- and off- site as a result of this proposal . g) Discuss impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts to animals that will result from this proposal . F. Energy and Natural Resources a) Discuss what kinds of energy needs there will be for the completed project and what conservation features will be included in the development proposal . b) Discuss impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts to energy and natural resources that will result from this proposal, including the rate and impact of removal of non- renewable resources. 7 II . Built Environment A. Environmental Health: SCOPING ISSUES: A) Impacts to area resources by exposure of metal, organic, and inert materials buried on this site by previous operation activities, including wood waste, building materials, equipment and tires, and chemicals used or brought on site. (see also the Union River Basin Protection Association Richard Medeiros and Allan Hoover letters) B) Impacts on noise levels related to this proposal. (see also the John Byerly letter) a) Describe impacts caused by the proposal relating to construction, land fill and excavation of materials (construction debris, soils, wood and logs, and chemicals) brought on the property in the past, and ongoing mining activity during the life of the project . b) Describe impacts caused by the proposal relating to septic system(s) needed for the ongoing mining activity during the life of the project . c) Describe noise impacts caused by the proposal relating to increased traffic, construction, and ongoing mining activity during the life of the project . c) Identify proposed hours of operation both during and following construction. d) Discuss impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts on environmental health that will result from this proposal . B. Land Use: 1 . Describe the Relationship to Existing Land Use Plans and to estimated population a) Identify the proposal ' s consistency or inconsistency with all local, state, and federal land use plans , policies and standards . Specifically including, but not limited to, the following: -Mason County Resource Ordinance -Growth Management Act -County-wide Planning Policies -Development Regulations b) If applicable, include discussion of population projections for this area. 2 . Housing/structures : a) If applicable, discuss any additional housing or other structures and impact on the surrounding area. b) Discuss consistency or inconsistency of proposal with surrounding land development patterns in terms of proposal size, scale, configuration, land use, etc. 3 . Aesthetics : a) Discuss the aesthetic compatibility of the proposal with surrounding environments, including light and glare, noise, removal of vegetation, view impact from surrounding area including county roads, and state highways . Address proposal ' s visual impact and mitigation. 8 4 . Recreation: a) Discuss recreational opportunities (either current, proposed during the life of the project or post- project) around the site and any additional opportunities created as a result of the proposal . b) Discuss and show on site plan development any recreation access/easements including roads, parking areas . c) Discuss impacts to recreational facilities in the immediate area including campgrounds, parks, and recreational areas . 5 . Historic and Cultural Preservation: a) Discussion of existing cultural or historic areas at/near the site including archaeological sites, burial sites, etc . b) Present mitigation measures if historic sites are located on site or discovered during construction. c) Discuss unavoidable adverse impacts . 6 . In each case, provide discussion and analysis of any impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable impacts that will result from this proposal . C. Transportation SCOPING ISSUE: Impacts to the surrounding environment resulting from traffic related to the proposal . 1 . Transportation System: Identify the major transportation system of the surrounding area serving the site including highways and roads . 2 . Vehicular Traffic : Discuss impacts to all Federal , State, County, and Private roads. 3 . Movement/Circulation: a) Provide traffic analysis report identifying projected traffic flow patterns, volumes and impacts to existing systems; and new on-site or off-site roads proposed to serve this project . b) Traffic analysis report should also address road closures, pedestrian traffic, ingress and egress from all roads that will be used to reach the proposal and any other traffic concerns that may be affected by this proposal . 4 . Traffic Hazards : a) Discuss any traffic hazards that exist around the proposal and those that might be created during the life of project . In particular address impacts of project generated traffic on Old Belfair Highway and nearby intersections with State Highway 3 , Bear Creek Dewatto Road, and Old Belfair Valley Road (Kitsap Co. ) . 5 . Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Unavoidable Adverse Discuss impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable adverse impacts related to traffic movement and circulation. D. Public Services and Utilities 1 . Fire, Police, Schools, Parks and Recreation: a) Discuss existing demands and conditions and the additional burden that the project may have on these services . 9 2 . water/Stormwater: See: criteria included in "Water" under Natural Environment category. 3 . Other Governmental Services or Utilities: SCOPING ISSUE: Impacts on public services related to the proposal, such roads and utilities. Discuss other governmental services or utilities that may be affected by the proposal (mining and eventual reclamation of property) . To simplify the EIS format, reduce paperwork and duplication, improve readability and focus on the significant issues, some or all of the elements of the environment in WAC 197-11-444 may be combined. E. Appendices 1. Include distribution list of everyone who received a DEIS (this information is to be released in the FEIS) . 2 . Other technical reports and supporting documents. 10 PART IV - - - STUDIES/ANALYSIS REQUIRED I. Aquifer/Hydrologic Study A. Aquifer Study Due to the location of the site within the Class II - Highly Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Area of the Union River, an aquifer study by a qualified hydrogeologist which includes and provide analysis of the following: 1 . The potential for aquifer contamination - - (a) as a result of this proposal, both during construction, excavation, and post-project contamination risk potential . (b) from proposed or future septic system, stormwater pollutants, contaminants and spills . Analysis should include recommendations for programs aimed at preventing contamination from normal operation and/or spills, both during site preparation, project operation, and post project. The programs should discuss containment procedures and post spill monitoring requirements and mitigation. 2 . The impact of the proposal on the aquifer in terms of groundwater quality, quantity and availability. 3 . Investigate the depths and size of aquifers affected by this proposal, and the impacts of excavating through the upper aquifer. 4 . Provide site specific information on static water levels, and on the depths of neighboring wells, and analysis of the impact of the proposal on well levels . 5 . Analysis of the ability of any proposed water system to meet Mason County Fire Code requirements for volume and flow for the operation and future development of the property. 6 . Additional study as necessary to meet the requirements for a Site Evaluation Report as defined in the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area chapter 17. 01. 080 M 2, of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. The aquifer study must be completed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington who has a specialty in hydrogeology with demonstrated expertise in this field. B. Hydrological Analysis In conjunction with the aquifer study and noted in the scoping response letter of Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, an analysis of existing surface/ground water hydrology on the proposal site will be completed. The purpose of the analysis is to determine the following: 1 . Impacts of the proposal on surface and ground waters . 2 . Analysis of impacts of proposal on- and off-site wetlands and streams . 3 . Provide appropriate recommendations for stormwater treatment . This analysis must be completed by an engineer certified in the State of Washington with a specialty in hydrology. 11 II. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Survey A survey, of existing wildlife and wildlife habitat for the proposal site and its immediate surroundings will be completed. The purpose of the survey is to document the following: 1 . The quantity and diversity of wildlife on the proposal site and in the immediate vicinity. 2 . The quality and quantity of' wildlife habitat on the proposal site and in the immediate vicinity. 3 . The existence of wildlife or wildlife habitat on the proposal site or in the immediate vicinity that merits special protection, such as wildlife corridors, or habitat with a notable abundance or diversity of species . The wildlife and wildlife habitat survey must be completed by a qualified wildlife biologist . III . Wetlands and Streams Study In conjunction with the wildlife/habitat survey, a wetlands and streams study will be carried out to determine the project 's impacts to the wetlands and streams in terms of their function within the greater landscape, including: 1 . A wetland functional assessment. 2 . Analysis of the value of the habitat ,of the wetland and streams and the existing undeveloped landscape, and examination of how project implementation will affect the wetland and stream resource functions. The wetlands and streams study must be completed by a qualified wetlands and/or fisheries consultant in conjunction with a qualified wildlife biologist. IV. Traffic Study 1 . A traffic study shall be undertaken to assess the number of vehicle trips per day and the vehicular capacity of existing roads in the area. 2 . The traffic study shall assess the impacts on level of service standards at the intersections of the mine access road and Old Belfair Highway, and nearby intersections with State Highway 3 , Bear Creek Dewatto Road, and Old Belfair Valley Road (Kitsap Co. ) , as well as addressing impacts at other applicable intersections as necessary to provide a complete scope of impact . 3 . The traffic study shall also contain recommendations for reducing significant impacts to existing roadways and intersections. 12 PART V - DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Each alternative that is presented in the EIS shall present a realistic and detailed discussion of the impacts that can occur as a result of choosing that alternative. The minimum content of the EIS is determined in the SEPA Rules under WAC 197-11-440 through 444 . The section titled "Elements of the Environment" shall be used as a format for organizing the analysis of each alternative. The potential impacts that are expected to result from the current proposal have been identified in the SEPA Determination of Significance, and within the Belfair Sand and Gravel Site Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines, for special consideration in the EIS . Neither the impacts nor the possible mitigation are necessarily complete. In each case the EIS shall discuss and analyze in detail the nature of the potential impacts and mitigation, including analysis of impacts which cannot be mitigated. PART VI - ALTERNATIVES In addition to the proposal of the applicant, the EIS format requires that alternatives to the proposal be examined. The following alternatives shall be examined as part of this EIS . 1. The "no action" alternative. 2 . The proposal as presented in the Determination of Significance. 3 . A project alternative that could feasibly attain or approximate the proposal 's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation (define preferred alternative if determined) . 13 GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR �oN.S TAA o A U u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r T o Z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES z� N Y Y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 rasa SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 July 27, 1999 Jeffrey Hartman 4 Corporate Plaza, Suite 215 Newport Beach CA. 92660 RE: BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL SURFACE RECLAMATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Dear Mr. Hartman: Mason County Department of Community Development has reviewed the comments and issues raised in the Determination of Significance that was circulated for public review on the proposed surface reclamation plan for the sand and gravel operations at 2493 NE old Belfair Highway, Belfair, Washington. As a result of the comment and review, certain issues became important as being evaluated through the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. These issues are printed in bold typeface in the enclosed Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Guideline. Please review this preparation guideline, as it is the format for the draft EIS and all topics detailed need to be presented in the draft and final EIS document. In early August, a meeting between you (the property owner) and Mason County will need to take place to discuss the EIS review of the project and the securing of a qualified consultant to prepare elements of the EIS through a three-party agreement (applicant, Mason County and the selected consultant). This meeting will include Gary Yando (Dept. of Community Development Director) and other Community Development staff, and the meeting is an opportunity to clarify roles in the environmental and resource review of the proposed surface reclamation plan. If you have questions, you may contact Allan Borden at extension 365 or Gary Yando at extension 270 by telephone at (360)427-9670 or 275-4467. Sincerely, Allan Borden Senior Planner DEC 13 1999 AhH6UN Co .F'L,11i�f�IfP1(�OIE�'�l BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL, INC. Telephone (949) 644-2002 4 Corporate Plaza, Suite 215 Fax (949) 721-8316 Newport Beach, CA 92660 December 10, 1999 ALLEN BORDEN SENIOR PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Belfair Sand & Gravel, Inc. Reclamation Plan Environmental Impact Statement Review Dear Mr. Borden, The following are the three (3) engineers selected by Belfair Sand & Gravel, Inc. in connection with the Environmental Impact Statement Review required by the county. 1. Robert B. Gatz, P.E. A.D.A. Engineering, LLC P.O. Box 847 Poulsboro, WA 98370 360-779-6633 2. Ed Donahue, P.E. Fish Pro, Inc. 3780 SE Mile Hill Dr. Port Orchard, WA 98366 360-871-2727 3. Norm Olson, P.E. N.L. Olson & Associates, Inc. 2453 Bethel Ave. Port Orchard, WA 98366 360-876-2284 Please call me after "review of qualifications of those listed" has occurred. I look forward to completing this process. Very Truly Yours, Jeffrey A. Hartman JAH:kla cc: Stephanie Zurenko, Geologist/Reclamation Specialist GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR �oN_STA o A u U N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 O T , z PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES �o N Y oy BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 1864 SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 December 28, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO Gary Yando, Director FROM Allan Borden, Senior Planner*I(At RE: SUBMITTAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS FOR.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL I have attached the list of consultants that are proposed by Jeffrey Hartman (Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc.) to be used for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the revised surface reclamation plan. We need to review this list within the first two weeks of January and come up with any questions of qualifications. Then Jeffrey Hartman (Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc.) can be contacted as a means of otifying him on the adequacy of the list. /Wtf Id ® Al-� � . - - � Recvcled I-VASHINGTCN STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources v JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands December 6, 1993 KALEEN COiiiNGHAM Supervisor Walt Goit, President Belfair Sand & Gravel , Inc. 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Revised Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Dear Mr. Goit: Enclosed is Revised Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-01206o confirming the permit transfer from Anderman Enterprises, Inc. to Belfair Sand & Gravel , Inc. authorizing continued surface mining within a portion of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. , Mason County. Please refer to the above permit number when submitting inquiries or reports. Also enclosed are additional conditions of the revised permit (EXHIBIT "A") . Compliance with all conditions of the permit, the law (RCW 78.44) and rules and regulations (WAC 332. 18) is mandatory. RCW 78.44 requires that reclamation of each segment of the permitted area shall be completed within two years of cessation of mining in that segment. We strongly recommend, however, that reclamation of each segment occur concurrent with removal of the minerals. We hereby acknowledge approval of Reclamation Bond No. 9�47188 issued by American Bonding Company in the amount of $105,000. An executed copy of the Reclamation Bond is enclosed. This Reclamation Bond is conditioned upon compliance with RCW 78.44. A Permit Invoice and Operating/Reclamation Report I(SM-7) will be mailed to the above address annually and must be completed and returned to this office with the $650 annual fee, prior to the permit anniversary date. Sincerely, Bonnie B. Bunning Region Manager BBB/bh DEC93.27 Enclosure bc: Geology & Earth Resources 70-012066 Region File 770-012066 Ir David Pierce REVSMPER.FRM Revised 8/25/93 SOUTH P!GET SOUND REGION 128329 SE 448 ST 1 PC BOX 68 ! ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068 to Equal Opporn:rnty/Affirmative Action Employer rec+c:ea cage.�� SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION PERMIT STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES OLYMPIA, WA 98504 Operator: Belfair Sand & Gravel irc. Address: 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair, WA 98528 Pursuant to RCW 78.44 (Chapter 64, Laws of 1970) a reclamation permit is hereby granted to the above-named operator to engage in surface mining on the property described in the application and material on file under this permit. The total area to be disturbed by surface mining, including the deposition of surface mining refuse, shall be in accordance with the reclamation plan filed with and approved by the Department of Natural Resources under this permit, and in accordance with conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. TERM This permit shall be in effect from the date of issuance and shalt remain in effect so long thereafter as the operator pays the annual basic fee of $650.00 per site and the additional acreage fee if applicable, complies with the Surface-Mined Land Reclamation Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, complies with the reclamation plan, and maintains a performance bond as required by the Act. CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OF RECLAMATION PLAN The operator shall obtain written approval from the Department prior to any change or departure from the approved reclamation plan. The reclamation plan may be modified as provided in RCW 78.44.100 at any time during the term of the permit after timely notice and opportunity for hearing. TRANSFER OF PERMITS The transfer of this permit to another operator through sale, assignment, lease or otherwise shall not be made unless approvea in writing by the Department. A transfer shall not be approved unless the successor operator assumes all duties of the former operator to complete the reclamation on the land and the Department approves the successor operators bond. BONDS A performance bond in the amount of one hundred five thousand ($105.000) Dollars shall be submitted to and approved by the Department prior to commencement of surface mining. The operator may submit a cash deposit or an assignment of a savings account in the amount specified in lieu of a performance bond. The amount of the bond shall be subject to adjustment annually, based on the number of acres to be surface mined and the number of acres to be reclaimed. PENALTIES This permit may be suspended, cancelled, or revoked if the operator violates any of the applicable requirements set forth in the Act or the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, or if the operator fails to conduct his operations as specified in the approved reclamation plan. The operator shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor for conducting surface mining without a valid operating permit. Each day of operation without a valid operating permit constitutes a separate offense. Issued this 1st day of July 1980. Revised this 3rd day of December, 1993. A 40 Acre Mine. Sec. 17 T. 23 N. R. 1 West JENNIFER M. BELCHER, Commissioner of Public Lands Department of Natural Resources BY3. Permit No. 12066 South Puget Sound Region Manage SMPERMIT.FBM 8/93 DEC93.28 Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 EXHIBIT "A" ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT (1) This Surface Mine Reclamation Permit applies to the following property: A 40 acre portion in part of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W. M. , Mason County, Washington. (2) Natural screens are to be maintained within the setback. No stockpiling will be allowed around the base of trees for.—ning screens. (3) In no event shall stagnant water be allowed to collect or remain on the surface excavation area. Suitable drainage systems shall be constructed or installed to avoid such conditions if natural drainage is not possible. (4) Reclamation activities shall , to the extent feasible, be conducted simultaneously with the surface mining and in any case shall be initiated at the earliest possible time after completion of mining. (5) Permanent field reference markings of permitted area property lines, set back, etc. , are to be installed to enable operator, permittee, and the Department of Natural Resources to monitor the progress of mining and reclamation (6) Compliance with this permit does not ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act, other federal , state or local laws. (7) The reclamation plan by Tritec Associates, Inc. for Anderman Sand & Gravel , Sheet 1 , dated 6/11/88 and Sheet 2, dated 6/13/88, is approved for this permit. Backfilling has not been approved for this site, therefore, the horizontal and vertical limits illustrated on the Reclamation Plan are the limits to which the site may be mined. Any modification, cr revision requires written approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Any modification or revision requires written approval from the Department of Natural Resources. 8 12 9- 93 Bonnie B. Bunning Date Region Manager South Puget Sound Region Office EXHIBITA.FRM DEC93.29 d e� , • •- - ' _ t''a� -ti!Q'w� /�+'�.. fit:._- ,�� I_ Yl r 1 � I Associated 000 't' auk Associated Sand&Gravel Company Inc. 6300 Glenwood Ave. P.O.Box 2037 Everett,WA 98203 Everett(206)355-2111 -Seattle(206)624-0301 1 August 25, 1993 ' ( : �; -3 Mr. Mike Byrne Director of General Services P. O. Box 186 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Mike: Enclosed is a copy of our proposed reclamation plan for the mining of the Pope Resources lease near Belfair, Washington. Please review and, if you concur, sign the enclosed form SM-6 (12/85) so that we may proceed with our DNR permit. Very truly yours, Ge R. C , P.E. Manager Property & Engineering GRC:vb Enclosures Contractor's Registration No. (WASH.)223-01-AS-SO-CS-G37250•(ALASKA)AA3625 COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY State of Washington RECOMMENDATIONS Department of Natural Resources Olympia,WA 98504 SURFACE MINING TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Applicant (type or print) Description of site Address Sec T Rge County E N W Distance Direction from Nearest community Telephone No.: Indicate proposed subsequent use of site upon completion of reclamation Signature (applicant's) Title Date TO BE COMPLETED BY APPROPRIATE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY To: Department of Natural Resources Subject: Recommendations on surface mining permit application for a new operator commencing operations Yes No 1. Is the proposed subsequent use legal under current local zoning regulations? 2. Does the applicant have an appropriate permit to conduct surface mining if required by local regulations? (Please attach a copy of the permit,written order or ordinance.) 3. Recommendations and comments: Address Signature (planning director or administrative official) Telephone No.: Date: INCITE: RCW 78.44 requires evidence that the proposed subsequent use would not be Permit No. illegal under local zoning regulations. Copy Distribution: White- Olympia, Yellow- District, Pink - Operator, Grod- County or Municipality SM-6 (12/85) MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 BUILDING PARKS& RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION June 13, 1994 Jeffrey & Lucinda Hartman Hartman Family Trust 567 San Nicholas Dr #308 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Uniform Building Code Violation Parcel No.: 12317-11-00000 Belfair Sand & Gravel Inc. Site Address: NE 2493 Old Belfair Hwy, Belfair, WA Dear Mr. Hartman, As a result of a complaint received by our office on 5-1 1-94, an on-site investigation was done at the above property on May 23, 1994 of which the Mason County Assessors office shows you to be the taxpayer and contract owner. The violations as listed within the complaint are as follows: 1 ) Existing non-permitted log cabin and addition on site since 1989/1991 . 2) Non-permitted 10' x 10' building since 1991 3) Camper located at mid-level and being occupied, no permit obtained. 4) Office trailer brought to site, non-permitted 5) Warehouse constructed 1990, 1500 sq ft with no permit 6) Tires, stumps, drainage culvert and misc. debris A thorough investigation was not possible due to the hostility displayed by Mr. Walt Goit. However, we were able to make an assessment based on the information Mr. Goit did provide and the structures we were able to observe while there. Page 1 of 3 Our response to the above complaints as listed numerically are: 1 ) Log cabin structure with addition is present on site and verified by Mr. Goit to be an occupied residence. The history on this structure as discovered during a file search shows that on September 7, 1989 a preinspection of this structure was done at its then location of 6721 North Shore Rd for the purpose of moving it to it's present location. The permit was secured to use this structure for storage only and the conditions to allow for the storage use were to 1 ) replace all rotted material, 2) have complete foundation of approved design and 3) obtain permit to place at the new location. The permit was obtained and has since expired with no inspections being done. The current use of the structure is in violation of the Uniform Building Code, Section 205, 305 and Section 308(a). Additions added to this structure are in violation of Uniform Building Code, Section 205. This structure is hereby ordered to be immediately vacated. 2) Pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, Section 301 (1 ): One story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet is exempt from a building permit. 3) Camper at mid-level not inspected due to denial of access. Presently, Mason County does allow for RV units to be located on site and used as a seasonal residence, up to 6 months, with the required building permit obtained. Further inspection is necessary to determine validity of complaint. 4) Office trailer is on-site and no permit is on file. This structure is in violation of Uniform Building Code, Section 205 and 308(a). After the fact permit is required to retain on site. 5) No records for warehouse permit in file. If this structure exists, it is also in violation of UBC Section 205. Further inspection is necessary to determine validity complaint. 6) These complaints have been referred to the applicable departments for validation and compliance action. Page 2 of 3 Enclosed you will find the necessary applications to complete and submit. The Miscellaneous application can be used for the camper. It will be necessary to indicate whether this is a self contained unit or if it is hooked up to a septic system. If connected to septic, records of the system will need to be submitted. The building permit applications must be completed for the warehouse structure, if it exists, and the office trailer. Both of these permits will be AFTER THE FACT permits and the warehouse application should be accompanied by two sets of structural drawings as to how it was constructed. The log structure will need to be permitted for it's intended use, whether it will be living area or storage and can not be used or occupied until the permit has been obtained and the structure has received the final inspection. The storage permit issued in 1989 is null and void by expiration. Pursuant to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings as adopted by Mason County Ordinance No. 138-92, this office will move to abate those buildings under Sec 302(13) that permits are not submitted for prior to June 30, 1994. Sin rely, T mi Griffe Building Inspector cc: Mike Byrne, Building Official Mike Clift, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dave Salzer, Fire Marshal Mike Tokos, Environmental Health Dept. John Denison, Environmental Health Dept. enclosures: Notice and Order to Vacate Permit Applications Page 3 of 3 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 BUILDING PARKS& RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION July 25, 1994 Jeffrey Hartman Hartman Family Trust 567 San Nicholas Dr #308 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE; Belfair Sand & Gravel Inc. site NE 2493 Old Belfair Hwy, Belfair, WA Dear Mr. Hartman, On June 21 , 1994, 1 sent notification that this office would conduct a site inspection on July 22, 1994 to verify progress to meet compliance. The inspection was done and the following progress has been noted as being made: 1 ) The addition to log cabin is in the process of being demolished with all power and water supply disconnected. Information received on site indicated the cabin itself would be demolished as well. 2) The camper at mid level has been removed 3► Pole building has been removed with only one pole remaining for lighting purposes and 4) After the fact permit for office has been received. Thank you for your cooperation and efforts in making progress towards achieving compliance on these items. Once the addition and cabin are completely demolished and the office permit has been issued and inspected, we can then mark this file regarding building department related issues resolved. 7Sinc ely, ami Griffe Building Inspector cc: Property File Belfair Sand & Gravel, attn: Walt Goit Larry Waters, Building Inspector Mike Clift, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mike Tokos, Environmental Health Dept., Solid Waste Division MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 BUILDING PARKS & RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION June 21 , 1994 Belfair Sand & Gravel ATTN: Walt Goit NE 2493 Old Belfair Hwy Belfair, WA 98528 RE: Site Inspection Dear Mr. Goit, Our office has received permission from Jeffrey Hartman, taxpayer and contract owner of the above property, to conduct a site inspection that initially was attempted on May 23, 1994 however, access was denied at that time by you. Mr. Hartman has assured that we will be given full cooperation at the time of our next inspection which has been tentatively rescheduled for July 22, 1994. If you should need to reschedule for another date, please contact me at (206)427-9670 ext 356. Since ly, Tami Griffey Building Inspector cc: Mike Byrne, Building Official Mike Clift, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Jeffrey Hartman, Taxpayer & Contract Owner Larry Waters, Building Inspector Property File r MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 BUILDING PARKS& RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION June 13, 1994 Jeffrey & Lucinda Hartman Hartman Family Trust 567 San Nicholas Dr #308 Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: Uniform Building Code Violation Parcel No.: 12317-11-00000 Belfair Sand & Gravel Inc. Site Address: NE 2493 Old Belfair Hwy, Belfair, WA Dear Mr. Hartman, As a result of a complaint received by our office on 5-1 1-94, an on-site investigation was done at the above property on May 23, 1994 of which the Mason County Assessors office shows you to be the taxpayer and contract owner. The violations as listed within the complaint are as follows: 1 ) Existing non-permitted log cabin and addition on site since 1989/1991 . 2) Non-permitted 10' x 10' building since 1991 3) Camper located at mid-level and being occupied, no permit obtained. 4) Office trailer brought to site, non-permitted 5) Warehouse constructed 1990, 1500 sq ft with no permit 6) Tires, stumps, drainage culvert and misc. debris A thorough investigation was not possible due to the hostility displayed by Mr. Walt Goit. However, we were able to make an assessment based on the information Mr. Goit did provide and the structures we were able to observe while there. Page 1 of 3 Our response to the above complaints as listed numerically are: 1 ) Log cabin structure with addition is present on site and verified by Mr. Goit to be an occupied residence. The history on this structure as discovered during a file search shows that on September 7, 1989 a preinspection of this structure was done at its then location of 6721 North Shore Rd for the purpose of moving it to it's present location. The permit was secured to use this structure for storage only and the conditions to allow for the storage use were to 1 ) replace all rotted material, 2) have complete foundation of approved design and 3) obtain permit to place at the new location. The permit was obtained and has since expired with no inspections being done. The current use of the structure is in violation of the Uniform Building Code, Section 205, 305 and Section 308(a). Additions added to this structure are in violation of Uniform Building Code, Section 205. This structure is hereby ordered to be immediately vacated. 2) Pursuant to the Uniform Building Code, Section 301 (1 ): One story detached accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds and similar uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet is exempt from a building permit. 3) Camper at mid-level not inspected due to denial of access. Presently, Mason County does allow for RV units to be located on site and used as a seasonal residence, up to 6 months, with the required building permit obtained. Further inspection is necessary to determine validity of complaint. 4) Office trailer is on-site and no permit is on file. This structure is in violation of Uniform Building Code, Section 205 and 308(a). After the fact permit is required to retain on site. 5) No records for warehouse permit in file. If this structure exists, it is also in violation of UBC Section 205. Further inspection is necessary to determine validity complaint. 6) These complaints have been referred to the applicable departments for validation and compliance action. Page 2 of 3 � � � iill 'll i l III i � - I Z I I �I i �I � � � I I I II I„ � I l i III '', it � II I , , ICI , , . ill ��:� �. li � I� il, November 21, 1994 Richard Medeiros UP NE2481 Old Belfair Hwy t4 o v N 19°4 Belfair, Wa. 98528 Department of Ecology ;ENERAL SERVICES Southwest Regional Office Post Office Boa 47775 Olympia, Wa. 98504-7775 Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel (formerly Anderman Enterprise, Inc.) Dear Mr. Morrison: I am writing this letter to emphasize several points of concern at the Belfair Sand and Gravel mining operation. The first point is that D.O.E. should do soil and water testing on the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site in order to determine the amounts of pollutants that have the potential to cause or contribute to a violation of standards for surface or ground water quality or sediment management. Wood waste products that have been brought on to the mine site for years, stockpiled and mixed with other materials that may have a chemical reaction. This leachate was collected in a area at the lower level of the mine site. On Oct. 16th 1994, Belfair Sand and Gravel installed a underground tank:, and on Oct. 18th a stop work order was placed on that tank by Mason County Health Dept. This stop work order has been violated many times since the stop work order was put in place. Drainage will now be collected in a 10,000 gallon tank, pumped into a settling pond without a liner(recharge area)pumped up to the upper level of the mine site and be used for washing of rock. You must take into consideration that the drainage along with leachate is entering adjacent properties, and waters of the state. Evidence of this is on file at the Clean Water District of Mason County. Because violations in the past, and still continue today, it is your duty as a public servant to ensure the health and safety of the people of Mason County by testing the waters and soil of the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site. hard Medeiros cc: Mason County Building Dept. - Dept. of Natural Resources Mason County Clean Water District Mason County Environmental Health Rand'Loun (attorney) MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 BUILDING PARKS& RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION NOVMEBER 4, 1994 MEMO TO BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL STOP WORK VIOLATION FILE RICHARD MADARIS TELELPHONED TODAY AND INDICATED THAT BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL PERSONNEL WERE WORKING ALL DAY ON THE POND AND PUMPING INTO THE LOWER POND. HE HAS TAKEN PHOTOS . M. BYRNE, BUILDING OFFICIAL MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg:III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 BUILDING PARKS& RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION NOTICE AND ORDER TO VACATE STRUCTURE Issued: June 13, 1994 Parcel: 12317-1 1-00000 Site Address: NE 2493 Old Belfair Hwy, Belfair, WA, situated in Mason County Taxpayer/Contract Owner: Jeffrey & Lucinda Hartman Title Owner: Donald Knudsen Pursuant to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, Section 302(8), 302 (9), 30203), the wood frame structure located at the above site and presently being occupied as a permanent residence must be vacated within 10 days from the date of this notice and order. Due to the deficiencies as given, the Building Official has deemed this structure a Dangerous Building. FURTHER USE OR OCCUPANCY OF THIS STRUCTURE IS PROHIBITED AND UNLAWFUL UNTIL INSPECTED AND APPROVED FOR OCCUPANCY/USE BY THIS DEPARTMENT. A permit is required to retain this structure on site for any continued usage. Failure to apply for the permit prior to June 30, 1994 will result in the issuance of an abatement order on the structure. Be advised that any person having any record title or legal interest in the building or structure, may appeal from the Notice and Order or any action of the building official to the Board of Appeals, provided the appeal is made in writing as provided in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and filed with the building official within 30 days from the date of service of such Notice and Order; and that failure to appeal will constitute a waiver of all rights to an administrative hearing and determination of the matter. Mi Byfne it .� Official �. Mi Griffe yI pector Larry Wit rs, Building Inspector cc: Property File Posted on site 6-13-94 Mike Clift, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Donald Knudsen, Title Owner First Class & Certified to Jeffrey/Lucinda Hartman Dave Salzer, Fire Marshal May 5, 1994 Mason County Department of General Services 1,1 AY 1 01994 Mason County Bldg. lll 426 W. Cedar ;ENER&SERVICES P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Wa. 98584 Re: Occupancy Violation Dear Tami Griffey Thank you for your letter pointing out an occupancy violation on my property. In our phone conversation you informed me of the complaint, and you acted swiftly. And this was a complaint done by phone, without a written investigation report form. I told you of many complaints that I have submitted on the Anderman Enterprises, Inc., and the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site located at NE 2493 Old Belfair Hwy. Owner name Jeffrey A. Hartman(Hartman Family Trust) 200 Newport Cntr Dr. #301, NewPort Beach, Calif.92660. Operator of the mine site Walter J. Gait, President of Belfair Sand and Gravel. I have reported numerous violations at that site, and no action that I am aware of has been taken. Your reply to me was if I had a violation to report I would have to fill out a investigation report form. What makes me different then the above gravel operation? Once again I will ask Mason County to address my complaints as follows: 1. In 1986, Anderman Enterprises, Inc. raised the south section of their property line 16 to 20 feet in height, with fill. This section is part of the reclamation plan for surface mining, and is a 50 foot buffer zone. 2. Log Cabin brought to mine site in 1989. Set on top of fill. ( no permit. ) 3. Log Cabin in 1991 added room addition. 4. Septic tank not properly operating( smell coming from drainage onto my property. 5. 1Ox10 building( no permit) 6. camper mid-level ( one man living in camper) 7. Office trailer. (no permit) 8. Over 800 tires on site. (no permit ) 9. Trash dumped and burned ( D.N.R. files ) 10. Stumps dumped and burried. ( approx: 30 truck loads Butches, Bull dozing ) 11. Stockpiling and producing woodwaste material without permits. Woodwaste permit applied for over two years ago, and still has not been issued. But Anderman and or Belfair Sand and Gravel have been allowed to run material thin the plant and sell that material for profit, without a permit in place. Why is that? 12. Illegal Drainage culvert for mine site that is directed onto my property. ( south property just inside the entrance gate of the mine site. ) This culvert has not been approved by anyone, and must be removed. They have more violations, but if you could address the above with some satisfaction I think not only I would appreciate it, but everyone in Mason County would too. If you find that the above items are not a violation, please send me a letter stating why you find it not to be a violation. Please send this information to the proper dept. if it does not pertain to your dept. I have all the information needed for the above complaint, such as video's photo's and other documents that I can make available to you, if needed. Sin lv Richard Medeiros cc: Loura Porter (Mason County Commissioner ) Bill Hunter ( Mason County Commissioner) Mary Faughender ( Mason County Commissioner ) Randy Loun: ( Attorney ) MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg. III 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 BUILDING PARKS& RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION Date: October 28, 1994 TO: MIKE CLIFT FROM: TAMI GRIFFEY RE: JEFFREY HARTMAN, BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL After receiving numerous complaints regarding an underground storage tank being installed at the above location without the required permits, our office posted a stop work order on site on 10-18-94. On 10-19-94 another complaint was received that work was proceeding. I contacted the owner, Jeffrey Hartman, in California and he was aware of the stop work order as the manager of the pit had already called him. I have enclosed a case history. Verification was made today by Larry Waters, Building Inspector, that the area of the tank had been covered and a pump had been hooked up to the tank in violation of the stop work order. Also, please refer to the telephone call dated 10-21 -94 on Page 2 with Jeff Hartman. Mr. Hartman has applied for the after the fact permit as requested and it is presently being routed through the applicable departments.. The Dept. of Ecology has not responded but my initial conversation was that a permit was also required from that agency. There is a concern that the tank is being used for the woodwaste leachate from the woodwaste landfill also on site and Mike Tokos is investigating that portion and as a result will be reviewing the tank permit also. I have had previous violations on site with Mr. Hartman but have resolved those with his cooperation. The failure to stop work after the posting and verbal conversation is the portion of this complaint that we would like for you to pursue as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please contact myself or Mike Tokos. I will be gone from Nov. 1 through Nov. 7. Thank You. Page No. 1 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 10/28/94 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFA010 Complaint received / / / / 10/17/94 10/17/94 TLG ENFA011 Additional complaint received / / / / 10/19/94 COMPLAINANT SAYS STOP WORK ORDER BEING TLG 10/20/94 TLG VIOLATED, TANK BEING COVERED ENFA011 Additional complaint received / / / / 10/21/94 Allan Hoover called to say work is TLG 10/21/94 TLG continuing on the tank and questioned if the stop work had been rescinded. ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 10/17/94 SCHD TLG 10/17/94 TLG ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 10/25/94 to mike tokos DONE JEM 10/25/94 MHT ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 10/28/94 given to Larry to determine if Stop Work TLG 10/28/94 TLG Has been violated. He called and indicated pump is hooked up and tank is covered. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 complainant called and said they were TLG 10/19/94 TLG bulldozing in area of tank today ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 called Jeff Hartman at 714-644-2002 and TLG 10/19/94 TLG Left message on recorder ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 Mr. Hartman called and said he didn't TLG 10/21/94 TLG know that they needed a permit. They will be using tank for collection of woodwaste leachate and said in past they dug holes but decided to put in tank this year instead. They will drain tank to another discharge area across road by piping it. I informed him that I referred this to DOE. At first he said he had a permit from them and then said that was for another issue. He will send Jan Chrey? in to get permit application form completed He said that Walt contacted him this morning and no further work will happen until permit is issued ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 spoke with Sue Simms at DOE. Someone TLG 10/19/94 TLG will be routed to site today. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 contacted Belfair Sand & Gravel. Jan was TLG 10/21/94 TLG gone but another woman answered and said that the only work at this time was regraveliing of the road and some digging for power lines because there has been some trouble with the power Lately. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 called Jeff Hartman in California and TLG 10/21/94 TLG Left message regarding the other complaints received and to verify again, that Walt is not up there doing anything to the tank,. Page No. 2 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 10/28/94 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 called Sue Simms at DOE to check status TLG 10/21/94 TLG and left message on voice mail 407-7170 ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 Jeff Hartman returned call and said tank TLG 10/21/94 TLG was 1/2 full and Walt has done some work and he was informed by Hartman that he would go to jail for disobeying a stop work. Hartman is concerned about pumping the tank now. I informed him that any use of the tank is prohibited and at the time of inspection it was capped off and should have remained so. I told him to cap it off immediately and deal with the run off as they have in the past priro to the installation of the tank. I also informed him that the property owner is responsible for the property and work being done to that property and that it wouldn't necessarily be Walt that would be cited. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/24/94 Sue Simms at DOE returned my call and TLG 10/25/94 TLG said Scott Morrison at 407-6292 is handling the complaint and she would complete another one and forward to him ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/24/94 left message on Scott Morrison's voice TLG 10/25/94 TLG mail re: status 407-6292 ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/27/94 received call from Mr. Medieros, work TLG 10/28/94 TLG continued on the tank past dark last night. Piping and pump have been installed and they are using the tank. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/27/94 Mr. Hartman left a message for me that TLG 10/28/94 TLG he would be in town for one week. ENFA910 Meeting / / / / 10/19/94 JAN FROM BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL DROPPED TLG 10/21/94 TLG OFF PERMIT TODAY AND SAID THIS WILL BE FOR COLLECTION OF WATER ONLY AND NOT LEACHATE AND THAT MR. HARTMAN JUST ISN'T AWARE AND MADE AN ERROR WHEN HE SAID WHAT HE SAID ENFB002 Site investigation 10/17/94 10/18/94 10/18/94 SITE INVESTIGATION: DONE LW 10/18/94 LAW AN UNDER GROUND TANK IS BEING INSTALLED ON THIS SITE, A STOP WORK NOTES WAS POSTED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. ENFB003 STOP WORK POSTED / / / / 10/18/94 TLG 10/18/94 TLG ENFC002 Referred to Appropriate Dept. / / / / 10/17/94 referred to Dave Salzer and Jason TLG 10/17/94 TLG Manassee. Page No. 3 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 10/28/94 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFC005 File sent to PA. / / / / 10/28/94 sent to Mike Clift for failure to Stop TLG 10/28/94 TLG Work after Jeff Hartman acknowledged that it was posted and claimed that Walt Goit contacted him the morning after it was posted. Page No. 2 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 10/21/94 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/ Jeff Hartman returned call and said tank G 10/21/94 TLG was 1/2 full and Walt has done some work and he was informed by Hartman that he would go to jail for disobeying a stop work. Hartman is concerned about pumping the tank now. I informed him that any use of the tank is prohibited and at the time of inspection it was capped off and should have remained so. I told him to cap it off immediately and deal with the run off as they have in the past priro to the installation of the tank. I also informed him that the property owner is responsible for the property and work being done to that property and that it wouldn't necessarily be Walt that would be cited. ENFA910 Meeting / / / / 0/19/94 JAN FROM BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL DROPP TLG 10/21/94 TLG OFF PERMIT TODAY AND SAID THIS BE F OF Y AND NOT LEACHATE AND THAT MR. HARTMAN JUST ISN'T AWARE AND MADE AN ERROR WHEN HE SAID WHAT HE SAID ENFB002 Site investigation 10/17/94 10/18/94 10/18/94 SITE INVESTIGATION: DONE LW 10/18/94 LAW AN UNDER GROUND TANK IS BEING INSTALLED ON THIS SITE, A STOP WORK NOTES WAS POSTED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. ENFB003 STOP WORK POSTED / / / / 10/18/94 TLG 10/18/94 TLG ENFC002 Referred to Appropriate Dept. / / / / 10/17/94 referred to Dave Salzer and Jason TLG 10/17/94 TLG Manassee. v\ � 1 Page No. 1 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 10/21/94 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFA010 Complaint received / / / / 10/17/94 10/17/94 TLG ENFA011 Additional complaint received / / / / 10/19/94 COMPLAINANT SAYS STOP WORK ORDER BEING TLG 10/20/94 TLG VIOLATED, TANK BEING COVERED ENFA011 Additional complaint received / / / / 10/21/94 Allan Hoover called to say work is TLG 10/21/94 TLG continuing on the tank and questioned if the stop work had been rescinded. ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 10/17/94 SCHD TLG 10/17/94 TLG ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 complainant called and said they were TLG 10/19/94 TLG bulldozing in area of tank today ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 called Jeff Hartman at 714-644-2002 and TLG 10/19/94 TLG Left message on recorder ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 Mr. Hartman called and said he didn't TLG 10/21/94 TLG know that they needed a permit. They will be using tank for collection of woodwaste leachate and said in past they dug holes but decided to put in tank this year instead. They will drain tank to another discharge area across road by piping it. I informed him that I referred this to DOE. At first he said he had a permit from them and then said that was for another issue. He will send Jan Chrey? in to get permit application form completed He said that Walt contacted him this morning and no further work will happen until permit is issued ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 spoke with Sue Simms at DOE. Someone TLG 10/19/94 TLG will be routed to site today. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 contacted Belfair Sand & Gravel. Jan was TLG 10/21/94 TLG gone but another woman answered and said that the only work at this time was regraveliing of the road and some digging for power lines because there has been some trouble with the power lately. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 called Jeff Hartman in California and TLG 10/21/94 TLG left message regarding the other complaints received and to verify again, that Walt is not up there doing anything to the tank,. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 called Sue Simms at DOE to check status TLG 10/21/94 TLG and left message on voice mail 407-7170 Page No. 1 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 06/15/95 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFA010 Complaint received / / / / 10/17/94 10/17/94 TLG ENFA011 Additional complaint received / / / / 10/19/94 COMPLAINANT SAYS STOP WORK ORDER BEING TLG 10/20/94 TLG VIOLATED, TANK BEING COVERED ENFA011 Additional complaint received / / / / 10/21/94 Allan Hoover called to say work is TLG 10/21/94 TLG continuing on the tank and questioned if the stop work had been rescinded. ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 10/17/94 SCHD TLG 10/17/94 TLG ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 10/25/94 to mike tokos DONE JEM 10/25/94 MHT ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 10/28/94 given to Larry to determine if Stop Work TLG 10/28/94 TLG Has been violated. He called and indicated pump is hooked up and tank is covered. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 complainant called and said they were TLG 10/19/94 TLG bulldozing in area of tank today ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 called Jeff Hartman at 714-644-2002 and TLG 10/19/94 TLG Left message on recorder ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 Mr. Hartman called and said he didn't TLG 10/21/94 TLG know that they needed a permit. They will be using tank for collection of woodwaste leachate and said in past they dug holes but decided to put in tank this year instead. They will drain tank to another discharge area across road by piping it. I informed him that I referred this to DOE. At first he said he had a permit from them and then said that was for another issue. He will send Jan Chrey? in to get permit application form completed He said that Walt contacted him this morning and no further work will happen until permit is issued ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/19/94 spoke with Sue Simms at DOE. Someone TLG 10/19/94 TLG will be routed to site today. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 contacted Belfair Sand & Gravel. Jan was TLG 10/21/94 TLG gone but another woman answered and said that the only work at this time was regraveliing of the road and some digging for power lines because there has been some trouble with the power lately. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 called Jeff Hartman in California and TLG 10/21/94 TLG Left message regarding the other complaints received and to verify again, that Walt is not up there doing anything to the tank,. Pad: No. 2 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 06/15/95 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 called Sue Simms at DOE to check status TLG 10/21/94 TLG and left message on voice mail 407-7170 ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/21/94 Jeff Hartman returned call and said tank TLG 10/21794 TLG was 1/2 full and Walt has done some work and he was informed by Hartman that he would go to jail for disobeying a stop work. Hartman is concerned about pumping the tank now. I informed him that any use of the tank is prohibited and at the time of inspection it was capped off and should have remained so. I told him to cap it off immediately and deal with the run off as they have in the past priro to the installation of the tank. I also informed him that the property owner is responsible for the property and work being done to that property and that it wouldn't necessarily be Walt that would be cited. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/24/94 Sue Simms at DOE returned my call and TLG 10/25/94 TLG said Scott Morrison at 407-6292 is handling the complaint and she would complete another one and forward to him ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/24/94 left message on Scott Morrison's voice TLG 10/25/94 TLG mail re: status 407-6292 ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/27/94 received call from Mr. Medieros, work TLG 10/28/94 TLG continued on the tank past dark last night. Piping and pump have been installed and they are using the tank. ENFA900 Telephone call / / / / 10/27/94 Mr. Hartman left a message for me that TLG 10/28/94 TLG he would be in town for one week. ENFA910 Meeting / / / / 10/19/94 JAN FROM BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL DROPPED TLG 10/21/94 TLG OFF PERMIT TODAY AND SAID THIS WILL BE FOR COLLECTION OF WATER ONLY AND NOT LEACHATE AND THAT MR. HARTMAN JUST ISN'T AWARE AND MADE AN ERROR WHEN HE SAID WHAT HE SAID ENFB002 Site investigation 10/17/94 10/18/94 10/18/94 SITE INVESTIGATION: DONE LW 10/18/94 LAW AN UNDER GROUND TANK IS BEING INSTALLED ON THIS SITE, A STOP WORK NOTES WAS POSTED FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT. ENFB003 STOP WORK POSTED / / / / 10/18/94 TLG 10/18/94 TLG ENFC002 Referred to Appropriate Dept. / / / / 10/17/94 referred to Dave Salzer and Jason TLG 10/17/94 TLG Manassee. ENFC004 Complaint Resolved / / / / 06/15/95 MIS94-0877 issued 1-26-95 TLG 06/15/95 TLG Pala No. 3 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0170 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 06/15/95 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFC005 File sent to PA. / / / / 10/28/94 sent to Mike Clift for failure to Stop TLG 10/28/94 TLG Work after Jeff Hartman acknowledged that it was posted and claimed that Walt Goit contacted him the morning after it was posted. Page No. 1 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: ENF94-0058 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 06/15/95 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- ENFA010 Complaint received / / / / 05/19/94 05/19/94 WLC ENFA012 Routed for Investigation / / / / 05/23/94 SENT LW 05/19/94 WLC ENFB002 Site investigation 05/23/94 05/23/94 05/23/94 I spoke to Walt Goit on site. I asked LW 06/07/94 TLG if the log building was being used as a residence, he said yes. I requested he obtain a change of use permit (office to residence) he said he would not and request I contact his attorney with any further issues concerning this and all other violations. Mr. Goit was extremely hostile and it is suggested not to go to the site without the Sheriff's accompanying you ENFB006 Notification of owner / / / / 06/07/94 will send letter to title owner, TLG 06/10/94 TLG contract owner/taxpayer and Notice and Order to Vacate on 6-14-94. This is the date that I will post the property with the Sheriffs Dept. ENFC004 Complaint Resolved / / / / 06/15/95 all issues applicable to bldg dept on TLG 06/15/95 TLG this particular complaint have been taken care of Page No. 1 CASE HISTORY FOR CASE NO.: BLD94-0980 JEFFREY A HARTMAN NE2493 OLD BELFAIR HWY BELFAIR 02/09/95 Action Description Req/ Schd/ End/ Action Notes Disp By Update Upd Code Sent Done Done Date By ------- ------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------------------------- ---- --- -------- --- BLDA010 Application received / / / / 07/05/94 07/05/94 KW BLDA011 WARNING!! SEE PARCEL FLAG / / / / / / 07/27/94 HLS BLDA600 File Possession / / / / 10/18/94 I have folder TLG 10/18/94 TLG BLDB009 Fire Marshal Review / / / / / / 07/05/94 KW BLDB110 Structural Plan Review 07/13/94 / / 07/25/94 DONE TLG 07/25/94 TLG BLDB130 Planning Review 07/05/94 / / 07/13/94 DONE MMM 07/13/94 MMS BLDB134 RLC Checklist Review / / / / / / N/A 07/13/94 MMS BLDB135 Addressing / / / / 07/06/94 DONE GMM 07/06/94 GMM BLDB200 Environmental Health Review 07/25/94 / / 07/25/94 Commercial site with employees,requires HOLD HLS 07/27/94 HLS toilet facilities. no records provided with bLd permit application. letter sent. BLDB210 Water Adequacy 07/27/94 / / 07/27/94 replacement bldg., no water adequacy DONE HLS 07/27/94 HLS needed. Chec.JL C F8 -aaz5 _:_::-T-F- 07-3s -2/ -�rq T(Ev 5H6A2ER- SANz � G2-AvEC. �r��•e c� Y��(c.C-�' Ex �'S-F,-✓1 q t7r� /`tav+ufwcfe.�.�c� o�,''C �. I 7! 3ZO 30 , lam✓), 1', qZ �z►L- Se.� Io�c-k s ZO " tic.- `-��,b Le_ 5-'A A- 3� Shc.(( bey✓ L r' -r.vS-s GAJSA See Oz7 G.(S a Io e c,L.CL.Nore d ei C Gaf�,C.- 2-r 6- 1 S O e- b4-A / G6s fIGo✓ 6-,0( 'S L,cl l be So L6 !.c✓+,�ar,.` �pcd Z act �'ov�C r w1�✓���agd �S L6 1 A7( e5-F �foow►.5 = i�o,.•��le.. Sc,,,,�;-C� c�� O v1 Safe . [,�,-/r 1�P/� c.���-C.. tcr,,fi -tl.�-f �ii�s C.��,J� �c,•1,--1-� . �►-. Sup..-..mow o-(-' �Q ( ra V:d r V c.. F) P(C,5 10'o Lb Cafes Z A DA_ PGY k-,-r rad� C � , WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER Commissioner of Public Lands September 16, 1998 Allen Borden, Shoreline Planner Mason County Department of Community Development PO Box 578 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-12066 Revised Reclamation Plan by A.D.A. Engineering, L.L.C. (1998) Dear Mr. Borden: On July 24, 1998, Todd Bohle(department Geomorphologist) and I inspected the stream and adjacent slope immediately west of the current mine site. The purpose of our inspection was to determine the possible effects reducing the current reclamation plan buffer to 65 feet(measured horizontally) would have on the stability of the slope. I have reviewed the referenced revised reclamation plan by A.D.A. Engineering, L.L.C. and the report by Mr. Bohle (copy enclosed). Based upon this information the department can make the following statement: • The reclamation plan referenced above meets statutory requirements per RCW 78.44. • The 65-foot-wide, no-disturbance buffer(measured horizontally) is adequate to rotect the stream.. � 7 P Tyr 3 - civ - Mr. Bohle's report, under Recommendations, makes reference to the width of clearing and subsequent mining with regard to protecting the buffer from intrusions of landslides which could jeopardize both the water quality and stream stability. This information is defined as operational in nature and outside the jurisdiction of the Surface Mine Reclamation Act 78.44. It is also outside the jurisdiction of Forest Practices Act RCW 76.09. On August 3, 1998, we met to discuss the planned revised reclamation plan, more specifically, the stream side buffer width and the wood-waste, recycling-processing center. At the time we met, you stated it was yet to be determined if the planned wood-waste processing site would be under county jurisdiction per health department ordinances. SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN ST N i PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TTY:(360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER%J Allen Borden Page 2 September 16, 1998 If the proposed use is under your jurisdiction as the local land use authority, then Mason County would be the SEPA lead agency. If Mason County is not the SEPA lead agency, SEPA rules dictate that Washington Department of Ecology be the SEPA lead agency. Please keep the department informed as to the status of your decision on the SEPA issue. Thane:you for your cooperation. If you have questions, I c--n be reached through the South Puget Sound Office at(360) 825-1631. Sincerely, David S. Pierce Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh SEP98/59 Enclosure c: Jeff Hartman, Hartman Family Trust ` GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR 7 PEON.STA o A u �► DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r o T Z PLANNING -SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES i� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O.BOX 578 of lass ao SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360)427-9670 October 23, 1998 David S. Pierce, Surface Mine Field Inspector Washington Dept. of Natural Resources P.O. Box 68, Enumclaw, Washington 98022-0068 RE: SURFACE MINE RECLAMATION PERMIT 70-12066 REVISED RECLAMATION PLAN (1998) Dear Mr. Pierce: This letter is to further clarify the letter by Senior Planner Allan Borden sent on September 22, 1998 to the Department of Natural Resources (your attention). That letter did acknowledge that Mason County had no authority under the surface mine reclamation permit for Belfair Sand and Gravel, but Mason County had concerns on the operations of Belfair Sand and Gravel and potential impacts to area resource values. The application materials and SEPA checklist for the Belfair Sand and Gravel revised reclamation plan were sent to the Mason County Department of Community Development for our review. Department staff did discuss the proposal, the reported problems with the current operation, and the county approvals or permits that may relate to the revised reclamation plan. From these discussions, it was concluded that Mason County did not have a permit or approval related to the reclamation plan, but Mason County did have concerns about the impacts to water quality and property in the vicinity of the Belfair Sand and Gravel operations. Apparently, it was not clear in the September 22, 1998 letter, but Mason County would like to have lead agency status in reviewing the revised reclamation plan of Belfair Sand and Gravel. In your letter of September 16, 1998, you state that the Department of Natural Resources may take the lead in the proposal review and at tunes, the Department of Ecology takes the lead agency role. In examining the SEPA Rule (WAC 197-11-936), this Department can understand this designation of lead agency, but Mason County would like to see a thorough evaluation of the surface mine operation and revised reclamation plan. Another point in your letter of September 16, 1998, you state that the impacts to water quality and slope stability by mining operations are beyond the scope of RCW 78.44, the Surface Mine Reclamation Act, and not in the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. These criteria are not beyond the scope of the State Environmental Policy Act and must be addressed. Mason County believes these issues to be of probable significant adverse impact that call for further evaluation of the proposal. Recycled f Mason County feels that this proposed reclamation plan needs careful review and evaluation in order to make the proper threshold determination of the impacts of the proposal. If the Department of Natural Resources and Ecology cannot make the thorough proposal evaluation and threshold determination, the Mason County Department of Community Development requests that Mason County be designated the lead agency for the SEPA review of the revised reclamation plan of Belfair Sand and Gravel (D.N.R. surface mine reclamation permit 70-120066). Such designation can be accomplished by Mason County petitioning the Department of Ecology for this determination on lead agency status, as stated in WAC 197- 11-942 (Agreements on lead agency status), or share in that status by another fair means of determination. A copy of this letter is being sent to Scott Morrison at the Department of Ecology to solicit a comment on this request. Please advise this Department on the issues about this proposal and lead agency status raised in this follow-up letter. For questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670 [Senior Planner Allan Borden at ext. 365 or Director Gary Yando at ext. 270]. Sincerely, Gary rando, Director Department of Community Development cc: file, Department of Ecology (Morrison), Jeffrey Hartman L 11 RECEIVED WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF JENNIELCHER DEC 17 1998 Natural Resources Comm ER M.BofPubl Commissioner of Public Lands MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT. December 15, 1998 Allen Borden, Senior Planner Mason County Department of Community Development County Courthouse Bldg. III 426 West Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 Revised Reclamation Plan - SEPA Lead Agency Dear Mr. Borden: This letter is in response to our recent discussion regarding the SEPA Lead Agency status for the referenced permit. Gary Yando notified us in writing that Mason County was requesting to be the SEPA lead agency on this proposed project. Washington Administrative Code 197-11-942 allows agencies of jurisdiction to come to an agreement as to which agency will have SEPA lead agency status. The Department of Natural Resources hereby concurs with Mr. Yando's request for Mason County to be the SEPA lead agency for the referenced project. I trust thi5will clarify the matter. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions, I can be reached at(360) 825-1631. Sincerely, J ticf David S. Pierce Surface Mine Field Inspector DSP/bh DEC98B2 SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 950 FARMAN ST N 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW, WA 98022-0068 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TTY:(360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631 Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER%J 11 i WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCH: Commissioner o1 Pu. MEMORANDUM May 18, 1999 \ q.S i EPA,File No. 16086 TO: Dave Norman, Geology Division RECFIVE D Dave Weiss, SPS Region SEP 4) 3 FROM: Hoa Le, SEPA Center Assistant MCCD - PLANNING SUBJECT: DS, Scoping Notice - Belfair Sand and Gravel Enclosed is a Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope.of EIS for your review. If necessary, please coordinate your comments with one another and submit directly to the lead agency no later than June 1, 1999, and forward a copy to the SEPA Center for logging and filling. Please include the DNR SEPA FILE number on all correspondence. At your request, the. SEPA Center will issue a coordinated comment. Attachment ks r MAY 19 1999 SEPA' CENTER 1 111) WASHINGTON ST SE 1 PO BOX 47015 1 OLYMPIA, WA 9850-0-7015 FAX: (360) 9 _ 02-2789 1 Try: (360) 902-225 1 7--L: (360) 902-2596 C� ��e Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer aE^�u �(/V 0N.STq GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR .y M lF off.' o A v N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES z� N Y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 - C' � � r DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND ►i REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS �� Kai 4 �0 SEPA NO. SEP99-0036 I1 May 10, 1999 In compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW 43.21C, the Mason County Department of Community Development is notifying the public that this department has made a Determination of Significance for the following development proposal. After the scoping period of 21 days, the applicant will be required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to address the impacts to the environment associated with this proposal, in accordance with RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This Scoping Notice is being sent to give the public the opportunity to share written comments with this department and those comments will be used to help define the final scope of the applicant's EIS. Description of the Proposal: The applicant has submitted a revised Surface Reclamation Plan for an existing gravel mine on a 41 acre property. The plan calls for the removal of gravel materials (2,261,000 cubic yards) over a period of 14 years (between 10 to 100 foot depths), the processing of wood waste materials to be ground and mixed with soils to create blended topsoil, and the recontour of the site to allow for the preparation of 8 residential lots and stormwater pond on site. Name of Proponent: ALLEN SHEARER - BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL Location of Proposal: 2493 NE Old Belfair Highway, Belfair, WA.; in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 23 North, Range 1 West, W.M. Parcel Number: 12317-11-00000. Proposed use: Revision of surface mining reclamation plan for existing gravel mine; area will be subject to material extraction and eventual site preparation of eight residential lots. Site acreage to be developed: 41 acres Proposed lifetime of use: 14 years Water: Well Sewage Treatment: on-site septic system Access: existing drive to Old Belfair Highway Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Environmental Features: The site lies within the Union River watershed. A type 3 stream flows north to south near the west boundary of the property and a type 4 stream is within 125 feet of the northeast corner of the property; a wetland area with category 3 wetland vegetation is found within 50 feet of the southeast corner of the property. The Union River Critical Aquifer Recharge Area bounds the east property line [designated by Mason County Resource Ordinance Chapter 17.01.080]. Nearly 90 percent of the property has been altered by past development and mining activities. heuy<;ieu Lead A eg ncy: Mason County Department of Community Development. Areas of Environmental Concern: Thus far, the follow=gs have beenid ntifi ameriting further study in the EIS: ,d � Ova 1. Adequacy of stormwater management on the property: how water volumes are handled (routing to ponds, size and number of ponds, conveyance of pond water to rea s of the property); how q ty.is m aged DES pollutio con of rategies and monitoring). f 2. Impacts to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area, mclud g impacts to ground water quality and quantity of area streams and Union River; risk of contamination of th aq ifer petroleuin products and other pollutants used in operation) f 3. Impacts to type 3 stream on west side and type 4 stream on t north si a of e mine site, including changes in vegetation buffer and introduction of water volumes and solid and dissolved materials by current stormwater management system. 4. Impacts to area resources by exposure of metal, organic, and inert materials buried on this site by previous operation activities, including w , waste, build' g mate ' s, equipment, and chemicals used or brought on site. 5. Impacts to the surrounding environment resulting from traffic related to tie propo 7 6. Impacts on public services related to the proposal, such roads and utilities. 7. Impacts on noise levels related to this proposal. 8. Impacts to air quality related to the proposal from mining, processing, handling, storage and transporting of soils and earth materials. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on this proposal by writing to the responsible official listed below. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses of other approvals that may be required. A copy of the SEPA rules (WAC 197-11), specifying the EIS scoping process is available upon request. Respc Lsible icial Date Responsible Official: Gary Yando, Director Department of Community Development 411 North Fifth Street P.O. Box 578, Shelton WA. 98584 (360) 427-9670 or 275-4467 Written correspondence on this matter should be sent to the Department at the above address, attention Allan Borden, and received by Tuesday June 1, 1999. NOW AP►ROrRAAH W$f LINE.NrsrleE - 1111.03 `INFO s.r cat (emu ON tETRAPOLArm•RDN1m") 100015. 130-41 (CErRA►OLArEo fRo4 4D BASE POINT) �•�T/R;o.HIT con - .) I.N. lCiP QP I ad t WW EL -JII.// ' IMN. EL.-JI1.7D / a8 A-Y y4 ' . y POND �7 / LOGE W MAI[R! `vc YATERl--� �\ \ '\ ' / \�(y POND \•\ � _� \ •• "1 ! / \ —•—•—PROPERTY FINE \\ 7 \ lo►or LOPE IND. 1 I/Y - '' / / 401 OF SLOPE naN PIPE \r \ 7 tJ \ v♦ TREE ERN: ON S.LINE / •., $ ---•^• ..-EDG[OF GRAVEL ROAD N 1W rT. - �♦ / -+POWA POLE "BASE PT"/ \I \ ` \ dh _fir m POSER VAULT / �•, \� 1 r t` / \ A fY TELEP/IONE POLL LiamPOL E u 1 s YONO E „•• ,\ ` \ ; � f, �• j� SURY[,'CON7R0.POND OF EDGE WATER EDC OF ALA 1.5 OIL II~As ,rJ GL� \ �.♦ POND J ASSUIIEDI(SEE MASS NOTE) EDGE OF WATER! ��� JIB. ro7•Ir " sNEDy�� ��.. .— � �� t2 _ _ s �� \ /" .rhaJ`0 IAw _l _ N trrle TArAa•Iw1 F PUMP—t T �• 1 �B-. I, ,, ASSUMED f- 30-0 � Y r \ \ �"• � , IOIAL AREA.41.09 Acecs! PO No EDGE Or rATIR!— E ••• I{ ,� 60 - 0 60 120 180 FF A // 16 RMl PIPE f Q T TIJ = 601 l / Scale 1 'EASE POINT AN OMYIL INKPAM SA (BASE Pi:FOR N. L1NE) ID �I NC I/4�. 17 I \.'P\ lll7 r�i 'Y�`' w YB MASS rX NOTE: NECEL-S SE.CDR.rL.1/ry Ne�f�J']6A,1 I79,FgOM /OR THEO CDR. Ply'IS�O.so j FNo 0//•RF6M Pi 1 RIVER. / D®r WLl1YVW rUg y ASSUMED .r+ ON •'at 3 i, SECTION LINE(AS FOUND ON GROUND) 4Y1. e 1. ! "BASE POINT JAI.sT' •! SOTII'IS•'r IJSS.6S' (FOR E.LINE) E90110M CT T MM.�.� NOTE: _ ' OAS(Or BEARM NTO/'STE (EVANS• 13e 1.3I• 312.1 NECEL.TED 1024GEE �•• e MARON o0U1►f MN j DE WEEN 1"nON PIP[A I-UON PIPE (NCCEL l3/1,2A•i IOI/I/'4IA5'p NEOEL 3Ao.JtC� IU I4.34'IAIOIL) P.O.aDN/q I01/p'IbECO) �'�' LLC I L(}.pri7Y ee]3 e.l.PHONE: :�)-7031 3 ow1N: OW CHECKED: PETE SCALE:1".60' 1 JDs No.:97E-2943