HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Mining Letters, Memos 1990-1999 part 2 - PLN General - 11/26/1990 MASON COUNTY CCMPLA= X
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES DAM MC'D:
Mason County Bldg.III 426 W.Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION REPORT
_tN==e or Cc3plaint:
Location:
Address:
CCL'- yr 'EREcI= BY:
DEEM S OF IlVV=GATICN
42Nr IIWESTIG= BY:
ACTIGN TAK
Ca4PLA= ACTICN HANDLED BY:
STATE OF WASHINGTON NL'
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF SURFACE MINE PERMIT
In order to transfer surface mine permit No.l_x::�to you from- -
htn2("MA N GNTP.2 tR ISPTrNr, complete the following:- -
Subsequent land use /
This subsequent land use is is not ✓ a change-from current- -
permit.
Note: change in subsequent land use requires submittal of a completed form
SM-b (county/municipality form) . Approval of all landowners with possessory
interest in permitted property.
Landowne Name (Type) gnatu Date
Landowner signatures required only if new land use proposed.
Current Permit Holder's Statement:I hereby relinquish all interest in surface mine permit No.70 - 0/-ZD1 &
Name (Type) Signatur 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. '10- D►Z 0 6 ( 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. En—LP ' i � �,hzp of .�ec.� I�G,
Name (Type) Signat—urel Title Date
Nl% 2,4,a 3 n C.D F3e[_ir —r P_ 4 Teter
Address
,MG Cs3o -�� g
Telephone Number
A new reclamation plan for this permit is attached for approval by the
Department of Natural Resources. Yes No �C _
For Department Use Only / q
Date Accepted by,Departufent
Accepted by:
Copies to: Operator. Oly-Geology, Region File
. ' A
" WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF _
Natural Resources
v JENNIFER M.BELCHER
Commissioner of Public Lanes
December 6, 1993 KALEEN COTTINGHAM
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. 70-012066 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. 9347188 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 '(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 #70-012066
David Pierce
REVSMPER.FRM
Revised 8/25/93
SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 28329 SE 448 ST I PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068
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 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.
811-4 AAA 0
l2 9- 93
Bonnie B. Bunning Date
Region Manager
- South Puget Sound Region Office
EXHIBITA.FRM `
DEC93.29
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
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
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
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 leach ate 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
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 3 , 1994
Belfair Sand and Gravel
Walt Goit/Jeffrey Hartman
2493 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, ' Washington 98528
RE: 1) Woodwaste Acceptance at Belfair Sand and Gravel (BSG)
2) Regulatory Requirements for Underground Storage Tank
(UST)
Dear BSG, Walt Gait, and Jeffrey Hartman:
The Mason County Department of Health Services (MCDHS) orders to
cease all solid waste handling within BSG has not been enforced
through' a stop work on the gravel pit, as the processing and
removal of woodwaste from the site is not considered a large enough
environmental threat, in the short-term, to take these actions
during the appeals process. However, the Health Department has
determined that on-going waste handling should not be done at the
site due to the reasons under appeal. Although we are not
recommending a stop work at the pit for woodwaste recycling and
removal activities during the appeals process, we would request
from the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney a stop work on the
gravel pit if woodwaste or other wastes are brought into the site.
The Health Department is continuing to discuss permitting
requirements with the State and the Mason County Building and
Planning Departments for the UST proposed for use at BSG. At this
point, we are trying to arrange a joint inspection with all
jurisdictional agencies to best facilitate the process. Should
this not be possible, the MCDHS will request an inspection within
the week of November 7 to determine whether woodwaste leachate is
an issue with the tank installation and use.
Please contact Mike Tokos of the MCDHS, 427-9670 extension 279 ,
with any questions or correspondence regarding these issues.
Mike Tokos
Environmental Health
cc: Jeffrey Hartman, 567 San Nicolas, Newport Beach, California
Gary Sexton, Attorney
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 15, 1994
Al Hoover
NE 2491 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, Washington 98528
RE: Mason County Surface Mining Regulatory Enforcement
Dear Al Hoover:
The Mason County Department of Health Services has requested that
the Mason County Department of Community Development (MCDCD) assume
lead agency status in determining Mason County's responsibilities
for surface mining activities within the county. Several county
agencies will have regulatory responsibilities within surface
mines, and Community Development/Planning departments have
customarily worked as the lead agency to formulate county policy
and write local ordinances in addressing surface mining issues.
Enclosed is the Health Department's request submitted to MCDCD. We
have not currently received a response to this request, as it was
just submitted. Gary Yando is the director of Community
Development; however, a planner may be assigned to follow up on
this task. You can contact MCDCD or the Health Department for
updates on how the county will further pursue this issue.
Sincerely,
l l,j JC 4
Mike Tokos
Environmental Health
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
Mason County Department of Community Development
Gary Yando
. P.O. Box 578
Shelton, Washington 98584
RE: County Regulatory Responsibilities for Surface Mining
Dear Mason County Department of Community Development:
The Mason County Department of Health Services (MCDHS) , Building
.Department, and Community Development have all received citizen
complaints regarding activities at Mason County surface mining
facilities. It is our understanding that Department of Natural
Resource permits regulate primarily reclamation and bonds, while
counties have jurisdictional responsibilities for a variety of
other regulatory issues within surface mining operations.
Thurston County is an example of how counties are addressing these
regulatory responsibilities through a local ordinance and surface
mine permit process. County agencies with jurisdiction include
Community Development/Planning, Health, and Building departments--
with Community Development/Planning customarily taking the lead on
policy development for surface mining issues.
The MCDHS requests that Community Development initiate policy
development for surface mining issues, and that all other County
jurisdictional agencies be included in the development process.
Please contact Mike Tokos for access to information on State and
other-county surface mining regulations, and notify the MCDHS of
your response to these jurisdictional responsibilities and our
request for Community Development lead agency status on policy
development.
Sincer y
B ad 8 n
Director, CDHS
cc: Mason County Building Department
• DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY-TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE DATA SUMMARY Jul 8, 1994
SITE ID INFORMATION:
TCP ID: S-23-6124-000 SITE NAME: Anderman Sand & Gravel
SITE LOCATION INFORMATION:
COUNTY: ADDRESS: CLOSEST CITY: ZIP CODE:
23 Mason 2493 Old Belfair Highway Belfair 98528
DEGREES MINUTES SECONDS METHOD TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION TAX PARCEL#:
LONGITUDE: 122 49 31.00 M 23N 1W 17
LATITUDE: 47 28 65.00
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 35 - CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 6
SITE STATUS INFORMATION:
RESPONSIBLE UNIT: SW SOUTHWEST DATE ENTERED: Jun 3.1994
SITE MANAGER: SOUTHWEST REGION LAST UPDATE DATE:
ECOLOGY STATUS: 4 STATUTE: 2
INDEPENDENT STATUS: 1 PROGRAM PLAN:
WARM RANK: UBAT SITE:
NFA CODE:
EPA ID PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT RATING:
SITE INSPECTION RATING:
ERTS ID:8259 UBI ID:
LUST ID: AFRS PROJECT CODE:
SITE COMMENTS:
AFFECTED MEDIA& CONTAMINANTS INFO:
MEDIA STATUS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 DW TYPE
2 Surface Water S S S
4 Soil S S S
5 Sediment S S S
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
iaaG .
o SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services. I also wish to receive the
'0 • Complete items 3,and 4a&b.
• following services (for an extra
,a urett your name and address On the reverse of this forth so that we can
o return this card to you. f@@):
> • Attach this form to the from of the mailpiece,or on the back if space 1. ❑ Addressee's Address m
does not permit.
(A
o • Write"Retum Receipt Requested"on the mail •'« clecebebwthearand he date 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery o'-
•��ie Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date p..
0 lf de V°�' Consult postmaster for fee.
3. m
)Article Addr ssed to: 4a. rticle Number
Gv ! p `
n �— �00 � n
E 4b. Service Type o
❑ Registered ❑ Insureo
Certified ❑ COD c
aC ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for
Merchandise o`
7. Date of DBIgr@ry
EZI05. Signature (Addressee) T8. Addressee's Addre if requested Y
and fee is paid) c
o•
6. igna re 0 t
0
PS Fo m 3811, Decembe 1991 it USA P.O.:1992307-530 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
J DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY-TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE DATA SUMMARY(DRAFT)
PART 3: SITE DETAIL INFORMATION Jul 8, 1994
TCP ID: S-23-6124-000 SITE NAME: Anderman Sand & Gravel
ALTERNATE NAMES: SIC CODES: WASTE MGMT. PRACTICE:
1442 3 Impoundment
5 Landfill
KEY: WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE CODES
1 = Drug Lab 5= Landfill 9 = Spill
2 = Drum 6= Land Application 10 = Storm Drain
3 = Impoundment 7= Pesticide Application 11 = Tank
4 = Improper Handling 8= Pesticide Disposal
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY-TOXICS CLEANUP PROGRAM
SITE DATA SUMMARY(DRAFT)
PART 2: SITE ADDRESSES Jul 8, 1994
TCP ID: S-23-6124-000 SITE NAME: Anderman Sand & Gravel
FSITE ADDRESSES:
ORGANIZATION ADDRESS LINE 1
ADDRESS OWNER OPERATOR CONTACT PERSON ADDRESS LINE 2 BEGIN END
TYPE TYPE TYPE TELEPHONE CITY STATEZIP CODE COUNTRY DATE DATE
1 1 Anderman Sand&Gravel 2493 Old Belfair Highway
Walter Goit
(206)275-7110 Belfair WA 98528
KEY:
ADDRESS TYPE CODES OWNER/OPERATOR TYPE CODES
1=Current Owner 6 =Former Operator 1 =Private 5=State 9 =Unknown
2=Current Operator 7 =Former Generator 2=Municipal 6=Tribal 10=Public-Owned(Bankruptcy)
3=Current Generator 8 =Former Transporter 3=County 7= Mixed 11=Fin.Inst.Owned(Bankruptcy)
4=Current Transporter 9 =Attorney 4=Federal 8=Other
5=Former Owner 10=Contractor
t \ �
Department of Ecology - Toxics Cleanup Program
Site Information System
Project Summary 7/8/94
TCP ID: S-23-6124-000 • COMMENTS:
SITE NAME: Anderman Sand & Gravel
ALTERNATE NAME:
COUNTY: Mason
SITE MANAGER: SRO
SITE LOCATION: 2493 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair 98528
�TCP ID Activity Lead CURRENT DATES: ENTERED Comments
Title Person START END STATUS
S-23-6124-000 Initial Investigation RLP 01-28-94 01-28-04 Completed
Early Notice Letter(s) SRO 06-03.94 06-03-94 Completed
PAGE: 1
w
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF - �M
*� Natural Resources
v JENNIFER M.BELCHER
Commissioner of Public Lancs
March ZZ, 1994 KALEEN COTfINGHAM
Supervisor
CERTIFIED MAIL NO. P320-525-687
Walt Goit, President
Belfair Sand and Gravel , Inc.
2493 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, WA R528
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^48 ST 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068
Eaual Oc)oortunity/Affirmative Action Emolover `ecvGe0Ca ��
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
Segel Engineering CIVIL ENGINEERING• LAND SURVEYING • CONSULTING
(206)876-0500
835 KEGEL LANE S.E. • PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
November 13, 1995
Randy Laun
509 4th St. - Suite 6 r- j;K
Bremerton, WA 98337 `
re- Alderman/Service Fuel Gravel Pit/Al Hoover NOV 1 4 1995
Old Belfair Highway -Mason County LOUN & TYNER
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 a seasonal ponding area with tots of dead
trees and brush. 'rhe entry/access road was "built-up" along the South edge of this area 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 runoff then flowed East to the Highway drainage
system.
In late 1985, I was contracted to survey Mr.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 1 left Service Fuel Co., i.e. the area was undisturbed and in natural
vegetation.
In 1988, I vas 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 was occurring, which caused earth to
cross over the boundary line in several sposs. -Also, storm water runoff was collecting to 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, I 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,
enck A.Keg 1,P
j�. 9' $SI T ?.�c �,:c 1 .,.. a a. '`-F6 yj• �'�"C `!��+2'.�- r �•••st-
....
OCT-23-95 MON 09 : 18 AM P. 01
Patio Garage Shop P
R
H 25' P
o o ° E
U 750 gal. 1000 gal. Red Clay Tile 10' R
S T
E g Y
Leach Pit
wj drain rock x L
I
N
Driveway E
Bank area
Di c _ Culvert
Leach Pit aprox. 15' from bad sample site. —
Olympic Excavating will be the contractor I will be working with an this
prodject, as soon as he returns from hunting.
E. 16720 Hwy, 106 Parcel# 22214 - 50 - 00014
ENCRDA Cl IMFN T S & FL A T URE S
AL ONG WES T PROPER T Y L INE
HOOVER PROPERTY •
P SEC, 15, T. 23 N. , R. 1 W. , W, M.
I MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SEE R. 0. 5. IDOL - 14, PG. 10
I l�
k -N-
`I
G
Y l
11 SCALE i"=30 '
j t 0 30 60
I �
y t
1
x �
QAIOINAL RSBAA/CAP D RKING
PREP.LINE 'MOT FUJYO'MA
APPEARS TO BP BURIED
t BY BAA VEL. FrU
r
8EJAIR
1
Ih.
I•J
J "HUGVEH" .
SAND & f
GRAVEL"
J
1
I
1
w
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
1 G
EXPIRES 2112�
1 LEGEND
'✓NEWT PROPERTY LINE "N"VER"
EXISTING O'ElVUl LINES
f — — — EXISTING LINE OF 4' WOODEN LATHE
FOLM RFBAWCAP "K.F. /BOSS"
IJ G N PpLYC Vx2" M04WN rW1M XARKXW PRV, L THE
+ r -AorTEW OF 6RAVFL FILL
4 ..tom d' WOODEN LATHE
3.5' TALL NO,4 RE9AR PAINTED ORANGE
■ .v 2"41" NODDE'N STAKE FAINTED WNITE
M"WED PROP.COA. M/4' XOOWN LA TM6
KEGEL ENGINEERING
PKOfRiEli A. KffiL F.C. 1..4.
ii NfYfl.Lom 4.9.
PEAT Efl«OVIEL MA Sam
P1q�R: (L04 p�OE00
DATE: 1O-5-95
JOB No. 80-a—WA
012-3Z
Bonnie Sura','irig
Warren W4rf,' eIrj
A(
Mason ccunt'/
Brad Pan-rier T)irD
Gat''Y Y&J_IdO
From Allan -7 Hoover
N.F. , 2491 Old Scej .=,Ir Jjv ./
Bel-fair Wa 9S52a
RE: Surface Mine Oevmi 120 6 ( Selfair Sand arid Gravpll )
PIL-ase find encl-c-sed a zopy of the re-isurvay of rely Ljes.t
j-ir- wh I Ch air ii n S;::,I ;'a Sand and I phi _,'
dc-cume•nty a I c rig with the Lrigirs41 si.4,vey, which you alrerscjy have
a copy of ar.d tcratimony r,f Dave c3in"s dur -.' 'Og the Mason il t �
Supericr Court cause fJo 01.1 JLII'Y' 11 , 1991 ; OL.e-Stior-O!,
b-/ G Sex t n;i , F x 1 tj i, t prep. ved by 8 i I I i., i ng I s?/'?
Yes. Did you go back , after
n -Am. I av Y you t f.�I/d t h�q.
L U,OIL
(5o i t Pridermari) t zJ F.,:_, ; 4 p Id E; rj that area? Did yc}u g ci back
z5if-)d t.':!?ll Bill ? Yas,. I d"-LLPLs.ad Doi 'h Law !,.L
v 6_4
o U t b uF f E-f" n a n d n!-.o t h aafll/ OPeratior:al part it-, buffer
L I q I P_y t d IA Er C LI Z?S. by Kai 9rozm:) _Aac,_r_ Atj*.'-jj, jjE�,,
p e f ?
p an. SerViCt~ FFLA-'?j was or.s r a t tjp .
(from, 1004
tape)
WOUICI aISL) './Ow J".-e j a-r Y v J,)h r. ri r,
0-21-E9 concerning L t i L F_ c.p va r t y m a rk tn,r*s together w 1 t')
pic.- tures rrom thE. 0Q'Da,'* "I.LtLiral Resoul-ces 1 1 10 m h z;w j f r.;
tho p-j-op e r t
line and .4 and notes of Days-)
e I`ci L:v,r.c zei-ri i ng C:i P. I cj,,-a L o f,. o.17 pro,.9;.,ty
WItI71 nU((j&'r'OU-L letters from UIr- DNR to th.-- trine a p L-r a tr�., uvi n o r
C'L','jLz-r n icrj the 1 :- east ol'OPOI, L
is my request ugain that; Surface Mine Pr-ermi.t. 1206 .)
as ti—m Pi ':: p-roparty is b r ou g tit '"" iir.0
cornpliance with all
zipp cah I e regul a L i onsz.
at n J . H o L7 v e r
1
c•v^ '�
R / /l7 /Vr.�t/1^r`` d���'C� (I Ya' �yt.pl�rr'r+^,o.,t �• r ��1'�� � �'L �''
d
sell
�ram, /�-f�-�"�, . � sF✓�-'- 1 �'t/C .� -
70 ...
vtRv rr✓1 S %..4 st �.J Lt' . r r V�C.t/ l 7d
Cr S �,H� z C � s � ,L e�/`� �r�o�.-ram''. �� r�•1'/ ,�r�� �.�
Ds Yes
lr � � i 6�i [�p-v. � vit C�k� a �� S`��.r.� �•x �g�r �JAB� ,�i
s E.
S' za..1 S S 7C7 �S'�e Gy r t 4L ��.. 6r.� 42,
19 e-� L""r--p
7���� ! � C:Orly$S' KI..C-� ��t'`7� �� � L�✓"e J ��m'�
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
Dj\xE- 1-7
COVER SHEET—,
SENDfNCY FAX # 275-2110
(attn-.) must call bdorc .qending fk-
RECEIVINGFAX
MFMOS, NOTES
LNCLOSURES:
PR/S�S S&-p tj CC-
oql
'rJ-HS FACSMILE IS A PRIVILEGED AND C.'C)NTLDE'XTL-,kJL CC-)-',',tN4G'N-ICAlJON
A\- 'D/'(-')R WORK PR(jJ)VC`L .AX'D IS TRANSNOTTED FOR ME EXCLUSP/E
INTORMATION AND USE C)F -fj-IF .ADf)p-ESSE.E. IF, YOU RE CEP/L,' TM-S
C C)N-BAUMC,AT 1()\-Tr-,\, ERRORYOU' rq<-E TO �LIAEDIATELY NO'llrY TIE:
SE'.�DMR
Kegel Engineering CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING • CONSUL.TINCy
(206)876-0500
835 KEGEL LANE S.E. • PORT ORCHARD,WA 98366
November 13, 1995
Randy Laun
509 4th St. -Suite 6 JR 1z C'r 7
Bremerton, WA 98337
NO U 14 19��5
re- Alderman/Service Fuel Gravel Pit/Al Hoover
Old Belfair Highway -Mason County Ll��N �`��l� 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. Hoover's property were left as a natural area. This area was
what we called a "Beaver Swamp" and consisted of a seasonal ponding area with lots of dead
trees and brush. The entry/access road was "built-up" along the South edge of this area 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 runoff then flowed East to the Highway drainage
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 observed that nothing had changed along this boundary
lint;, from the: time that I left Service Fuel Co., i.e. the area was undisturbed and in natural
vegetation.
In T988, ll&s contracted to survey Mr.Hoover's West property line (East line of old
SerOCC F'Uel Pit), using 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 ovkir the boundary lint: in A,150, Z};mmn t a'Mr raiiof vas col+ccting in u lo'-
area East of the line, in amounts much gre eter than Ftorinal, "I-his was evidenced by water rir]0
on the existing fir trees.
In 1995, 1 was again contracted to re-verily the 1988 survey line for Mr. Hoover. Durinb
this survey, I observed additional encroachments of earth berm construction and erosion
sediment across the boundary tine, The few area, previously observed in 1988, contained many
Tefta r water rings on the vegetation. A snap ofour
encroachment areas. This map was previously furnished to you.
phis has been a brief overview ofiny past experience with the subject site. If you have
any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me.
/JSi�nce-rely, - 7
t`etferic A. lCag 1, P. L.
FAK:tra
11
,C I F:A,=.f A
April 21, 1995 APR 2 5 1595
Washington State Ecology Department MASON CO. PLANNING DEFT.
Southwest Regional Office
Water Quality
Attention: Bill Backous
RE: Surface Water Issues in Mason County
Dear Sir:
Since the Belfair Sand and Gravel has operated, which is located
off the Belfair Highway, their property abuts my property.
Through the years, I have had a problem with Belfair Sand and
Gravel with discharge of water onto my property. It is my
understanding that such an operation is supposed to contain water
on their site, and Ecology is supposed to regulate such company, if
this isn't done.
I had this problem arise last January when it had rained
considerably. Water flowed over onto my property in great quantity
from the gravel company, which resulted in an enormous gravel
slide. The slide caused erosion, covered my road, and flowed down
into the creek, which in turn uprooted several trees along the
creek. Not only has extensive damage been done to my property, but
also my watershed has been threatened. My dad got water rights on
the stream over forty years ago. My drinking water comes from that
stream;
Mr. Backous, I called your employee Scott Morrison several times,
but he doesn't return my calls. I kind of gave up, but this
problem nor I will go away.
A developer, New Concept Homes of Bellevue, was assessed a $12 , 000
fine by Ecology for doing damage to Mr. Salter's property in Port
Orchard. I want my property repaired or a monetary award to have
my property restored to its natural state.
I expect action within two weeks of the date of this letter. If
not I will have to seek counsel to sue appropriate agencies
concerning this matter.
Sincerel, ,
Milton Jen's6h
NE 2341 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, WA 98528
(360) 275-2440
cc: Union River Basin Protection Association
Belfair Herald
Brad Banner, Mason County Health Department
Representative Peggy Johnson
Mason County Department of Community Development
Commissioner Bill Hunter
Kegel Engineering CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING • CONSULTING
(206)876-0500
835 KEGEL LANE S.E" • PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366
November 13, 1995
Randy Laun
509 4th St. - Suite 6 R E G
Bremerton, WA 98337 -
re: Alderman/Service Fuel Gravel Pita AI Hoover NOV 1 4 19?5
Old Belfair Highway -Mason County LOUN & TYNER
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. A,-,,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. Hoover's property were left as a natural area. This area was
what we called a "Beaver Swamp" and consisted of a seasonal ponding area with lots of dead
trees and brush. T'he entry/access road was "built-up" along the South edge of this area 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 runoff then flowed East to the Highway drainage
system.
In late 1985, I was contracted to survey Mr.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., i.e. the area was undisturbed and in natural
vegetation.
In 1988, I 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 boundary line in several s1:ols. -Iklso, stonin water rul—iofri teas col"cotinj in a lv,v
area East of the line, in amounts much greater than normal. This was evidenced by water rings
on the existing fir trees.
In 1995, I 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,
enck A.Keg 1,P.
FAK:tra
,#i•�:: ,....c•�i'r w. .;.R .. .1e1...-1' .u+r r^^ r .Mfr_';r .ef,� !�c'S,.i* a�*.�.. ;,n-t sr r�.,+r.a„r6�.r17�'..a.�.A��i. A.,kt'�".jam-uct. ;:..>
NM PROP.COP.
N
x
x
EXHIBIT A
ENCROACHMENTS G FEATURES
ALONG WEST PROPERTY LINE
l HOOVER PROPER T Y
SEC. 16, T. 23 N. , R. 1 W. , W. M.
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SEE P. O. 5. VOL . 14, PG. 10
I
-N-
4
x �
SCALE 1 "=30 '
x 0 30 60
1
1,
X 1
X �
ORIGINAL REBAR/CAP MARKING
PROP.LINE "NOT FO(NVO"
APPEARS TO BE BURIED
BY GRAVEL FILL
l
! 1
-BELFAIR
SANO 6
GRAVEL" J v 1
T
1•'
1
r
r
r
��/arm
5
. j LEGEND I
iv NEST PROPERTY LINE "HOOVER'
—x--- i✓ EXISTING FENCE LINES
EXISTING LINE OF 4' WOODEN LATHE
j t N FOUND REBAR/CAP 'K.E. 14065'
(� -FOUND 2 W' WOODEN HUB/TK MARKING PROP. LINE
T w TOE OF GRAVEL FILL
0 N 4' WOODEN LATHE
3.5' TALL NO.4 REBAR PAINTED ORANGE
! -u-2'x2' WOODEN STAKE PAINTED WHITE
MARKED PPOP.COR. M/4' WOODEN LATHE
KEGEL ENGINEERING
°+EDEPId A. c6EL P.[., L.S.
935 KEGM LASE S.E.
PORT OPOHAM MA 963"
PROW- f,-M) 875-0500
CATE: 10-5-95
.JOB No. 88-258A
SM PPOP. COR.
AES CONSULTANTS r_
3472 NW Lowell (Oldtowne) K\//7L.11' ma:--
P.O. Box 930
SILVERDALE, WASHINGTON 98383
(206) 692-6400 FAX (206) 692-8927 'DATE
TO Z0( SUBJECT
jF
7
9M 316 COOP,18
7ZX/ "i
17_zO
!!�v
PLEASE REPLY NO REPLY NARY'S�ZR' SIGNED
40%Pre-Consumer Content
10%Post-Consumer Content
:Wlution Control Hearings Board ST"rp (206)459 632'
horetines Hearings Board (SCAN)585-632,
crest Practices Appeals Board — / (FAX)(206)438-76911
1�draulics Appeals Board / V
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE
4224-6th Avenue SE,Bldg.2, Rowe Six
P.O. Box 40903, Lacey,WA 98504-0903 f �
May 31, 1995 JUiy v ��gy
Gary H. Sexton Michael E. Clift ^" =OLiNT,,
SEXTON& BARTHOLOMEW Chief Deputy Prosecutor O. Lzj-Li?
1126 Highland Avenue Mason County
Bremerton WA 9831.0 411 N.Fifth Street
Shelton,WA 98584. ,
RE: PCHB NO. 94-274
BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL & JEFFREY HARTMAN v. MASON
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Dear Parties:
Enclosed are the Findings, Conclusions and Order of the Pollution Control Hearings
Board.
This is a FINAL ORDER for purposes of appeal to Superior Court within 30 days,
pursuant to WAC 371-08-220 and RCW 34.05.542
The following notice is given per RCW 34.05.461(3): Any party may file a petition for
reconsideration within 10 days and serve it on the other parties. The term "file" means receipt.
Sincerely,
Robert V nsen
Presiding
RVJ/belfair
Enc.
I c�" .__�aed a copy cft���J --nt
pccw0e prepaid, is a receptacle for United _
S=es mail at Lape A an_ -�C U
__�� �Gif��
R rn o
1� J U L z 8 1995
MASON CO. PLANNING DEFT.
v
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER
Commissioner of Public Lands
KALEEN COTTINGHAM
Supervisor
July 28, 1995
Hugo Flores, Land Use Planner
Mason County
Department of Community Development
PO Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066, Belfair Sand and Gravel
Dear Mr. Flores:
Thank you for meeting with us on July 12, 1995. The issue of interest was the
widening of the berm (buffer) and the importation of concrete rubble.
As we indicated, the department concurs with the concept of widening the
easterly buffer. How the work is accomplished and the review of the materials
to be used in the project (including any permitting) is an operations type of
issue and under the jurisdiction of Mason County and possibly others.
I mentioned the fact that of the four counties I deal with, Mason County is
the only county with no permit process in place to regulate the location and
day to day type operations of surface mining.
As you requested, enclosed is a list of contact people for some of the
jurisdictions which have elected to regulate the mine sites.
In addition, I have enclosed copies from our file of the photos you requested.
I trust this information is useful to you.
Thank you for your cooperation.
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
IA�Q-SS
David S. Pierce
Surface Mine Field Inspector
DSP/bh
JUL95/134
Enclosures
SOUTH PUGET SOUND REGION 1 28329 SE 448 ST I PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068 1 FAX:(360)825-1672 1 TEL:(360)825-1631
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER %,p
Old
Will A
lam
MASON COUNTY RESEARCH REQUEST FORM
426 W CEDAR STREET SHELTON, WA 98584
PHONE # 427-9670 FAX # 427-7798
PLEASE ALLOW UP TO 72 HOURS FOR COMPLETION
DATE REQUESTED: Z - '� — 9L TIME,:
REQUESTERS NAME:
ADDRESS:lvi 2y4/ oL �' cry�k' f!w?Y' CITY:
PHONE #: _� � �d � 7/a Z
v PLEASE RESEARCH THE FOLLOWING.
BUILDING RECORDS:
SEPTIC RECORDS: AGE OF SYSTEM:
WATER SAMPLE: DATE OF SAMPLE:
PRESENT OWNERS NAME: //&/?/ H,4''/ J L t /�L f /fi st y% f�'l✓''I "� I�i l�S%
ORIGINAL OWNERS NAME:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: N,�- XY A/� %��` f ` /7
PARCEL #:(twelve digit tax parcel) 2 3 1 7 - r- 0
RESEARCH TO BE: MAILED: FAXED: PICKED UP:
COUNTY STAFF PERSON ACCEPTING REQUEST:
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOR ANY LARGE REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC_ RECORDS i.e.
REQUESTS FROM A7TORNEY'S POTENTIAL LITIGATION DISPUTES, COMPLAIN7S. ECT...
Description ofoil
records requested and purpose for review:
5 \�G L:f .G✓ r✓r r�c. N:-ram /��.�. /Z c'G6 CiS _. �a nridc< � 7/�:S Orti Cc
RCW 42.17.020. I certifythat the information obtained tliloug h this request ww*ibe e
Lr
only for the reasons stated and will not be used for commercial purposes.
Signature Date
RCW 42.17.310. During file review, any pages you wish to have copied (excluding non-
public record documents) must be tagged and charges will be assessed at .10 per page.
Copies can be mailed or you may pick them up when ready. Copy charges must be prepaid.
COUNTY USE ONLY:
RESEARCH COMPLETED BY: DATE:
T�I2�INGS
Date: 12/13/96
To: Betty Wing
From: Brent Long
Re: File Search - Belfair Sand & Gravel
After wading through the Solid Waste files re: the above, I did not
find any records re: enforcing compliance on the setbacks between
the Sand & Gravel and Mr. Hoover' s property. I copied the attached
documents from the file and highlighted the areas showing boundary
encroachment . This appears to be late 1995 . Since I find no records
that the county is conducting any type of compliance review, I
wonder if DOE or DNR is. I'm not sure how t handle this request
from here, other than to refer Mr. Hoover t6 DOE/DNR. What do you
think?
\� LAIN, US
INVESTIGATION REPORT FORM z
Revised 10/6/9417,
n
Part A: Nature of Complaint
• Initiator's Name:
• Address:
�F
( ) 3 - O
• Telephone: ,
• Owner Name: 9 O
• Address:
• Telephone: ( )
• Department of Concern1
❑ Clerical ❑ Building ?4l
ealth ❑ Comm Development ❑ Fire
• Area of Concern:
❑ Process Delay ❑ Personnel ❑ Policy/Fee ❑ Code Violation ❑ Other
Refer to Director
• Location of Concern:
z
c)
tri
a ,
• Nature of Concern:
t^ � , 01 ,
Part B: Concern Intake and Referral
Received aefirred T ' )�� Response Date:
h l
Name Date NaW �j' Date Date
Part C: Findings `� 1 � �jw
Referral Forwarded to: " A's ❑N/A
Name Date
Findings:
Part D: Resolution
Name Date
Intake Copy-White File Copy-Yellow Referral Copy-Pink
h'
r � ��'
1
Y
/:
J' .ti-
.....T
,.. `�.
aJ
^��.
i �r{
..... ,r
_ �
.�~•
.. �_
��
`.. �
C�
%�� c�_
.,�
y
�' _
4,
F'
7�.
�r
M I i
�� �
}' ._
!�
{rR-
i
V
.� i
-i
r !;PA
v
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
�- JENNIFER M.BELCHER
Natural Resources Commissioner of Public Lands
KALEEN COTTINGHAM
Supervisor
November 1, 1996
Richard Medeiros
NE 2481 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, WA 98528
RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066
Dear Mr. Medeiros:
1 ant responding to your December 28, 1996, letter to Warren Warficld. 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 apj2cars that aw
required an easement from your overflow discharge in the late 19 f S Belfair Sand and
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 REGION
28329 SE 448TH ST 1 PO BOX 68 1 ENUMCLAW,WA 98022-0068 1 FAX:(360)82S-1672 1 TTY.(360)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631
s Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER COP
cru0000 2200
✓v l� SP of
1723
-1 o -90 .� !vl
2O i�B� 2200
I J l Oii i 1 2?�00 fit' _ o 2200030 020G� i
10
O
I I lca
l ELL /S/^
2200050
�G fa"��G✓ P-� BA NCROF T
2200 Gr�J _
rn
090� li � �C7 TRACTS C' � UNRECORDED
f�
1 VOL . A PC, 25
5'660006o
2390
p 0
{✓G5 030 9o110 ct
2 4� sP �Y�O '2390 1 00
iCV-7 ' .4- 4�Ur. kd .I ,
•,�. 2 t-15-�000aa4� 2400000
2 N Cx� C Sp
2300080 Ejwl 4cr��JKe
2300030 �2390000
+ 233&; 0v 030 ! :
00060
" -1- �✓r/ Y �
(�4te 230oo7o w; il,� i z4 ��, M f�✓�i r'1 l�. -1- �;
�.' 32302000 MA ►' 40 (_.
C .
.i� 0010
T / ' 1 _
,Q .- /192 2302010 i_�
cr,
X:�Z
NbF
RANGE I TOWNSHIP 23 SECTION 17
SCALE P' .400'
2 I
ill, II D0000 East
OLD
IFL FI/R
1111T 20 00000
l00040
1400030
S t/J,
1.000"
SP_Y044
1400090
I I S t n 41 gID0
i.0 4b •��
4190
42O1010 {201000 tip'�M1 .•• pb O1. 4010
liolozo 4 �' �b°ii oo tP Js
.40
'4r ow
' �s4�4i 41901 10
4101
1211, 10 01000 090
4210 4t90020 \ICI 4t90 1100060
Ol0 010
\; II .190 1190070 UNION
IOFJ R/VfR
4290
040 !P/Ml �\
41000.0
.110
na to s 115t
090 14DO
SO 0w 430,
a9omo
1104000 0,0
S➢ 1900
4400000
O
2/1It
S I 1100090
1211, Sl 60000 100 f0
Oil /Jf S
41000{0
JP I191 .10 090
1411 1490
02U 010 S I/JL
O ° .4.,
n � 040 4300
4190030 0>a
N(V II_f0_91
OLD
IY-Yt-9! 9FL fIlR VMI ON
R/vfR
FOR REFERENCE
I14F f1Nl V
RANGE 1 TOWNSHIP 23 SECTION 16
SCALE I"-400'
mo
etxrR rR uR1oN
2 N RIVER 1
r2mwo eroo
010
JP
22"
1 Tt]
110 '+� t�q, Y2oo0]0
t ttt0 ]
111
R tt6o
N//!/
D ELL 15 IRNCROFT
2m0030 12316 I I 60000
TRACTS UNRECORDED
x x00
oeo
r U/10
e moo6o
2390100
r400000
I
noeow
ler
tMom 2400030 -
S 17/6s
•---�-- 12316 IJ OOOOD
2302000
S II/I9R
2]04010 S 12/002
c
a� g
o �
d
x
5
O
u
-IL
o J20JD00 11316 34 60300 M N
k
1 r]I6 40 60000 3
P`
RI VpFRIt �Rp
33 ODOIO
s Irno
33 03000
]3 00000
12.26t2 3 4
FOR REFERENCE
I ISF 11N1 V
RANGE I TOWNSHIP 23 SECTION 8
SCALE 1".400'
2 I
zzoaoao
P
P
Q xm
Y
2
= Op
y 2mooio
12—22 6-0
123oe oo omoo
12.22-92 3
FOR REFERENCE
± _ 3I
hD PANTHER .l RKE
ae
o z ;
SUBJECT 8
SITE �
- RE CYC L JN6- ' { oo � 18 ITP�14, �
WOOTEN
1 0
AREA
Ego
ILLIWAUP, HAVEN LAKE o� G A
DewaT—o -WINDFLOWER BcLSAIR
�\ \ EXCAVA : ION f I �ZSO d LAK_ STATE PPRK
L 1\ t1 Pp ` COLUNS
A -
R� _ LAKE
i - `, •,
Ovo
pp
J' 1 �i J IF POSSIBLE &RUSHER
WILL BE MOVED N. W. o
_ OUT OF LINE OF SITE 1 _ r
i J I TO ADJACENT REST-
DENCES, �� 240 TWAoH
l WASH J� N
STATE PARK
I I A R E Pc '/ 220
c' Zoo
+I ! POND S Z RlAj � yF� P5s-t'� o /.
IrI N / ISo
Er Y PO
o 1 \\ poNUI/NG /_ \ _ 16o
ce
' �' , - -- -- - ---- - - - - -I40 C Y M A P
FILTERED]
SWALE K.T. S. 140 TH
POND / �•------Izo
i
{' POND
♦ 'PillI: .
Xt
I '•�'_ Fitt'++"�''w '�L,.-,u �' � �
PUMP fC•. -
'4iO-USE \ , l00
`�-� -Co SUCTION �'
4.`b0 OFFICE Z }
- ` \
VERFLOW 't
.0ISCHARGE _ %, %\p` �� l "'� ROAD ---- —
LlRF- _ \
TRIP AND•
° — F3ERMED _--L---?---�- RE.V ETAT oN
INS
1 I / NOTE:
1 f
N 6 N o -- ENIERGENC`r j ' t: D
DISCHARGE , 4
PtzoviSlONs ! E L FAIfs
OPERATIONS SITE PLAN - SEC, 17 T23N � - ! SAND � GRAv�t-
, RIW, W. M.,. NE q , NE -
-- CIO RT
--SGALE I " = 100' W/ EXISTIN.G TOPOGRAPHY-
�AND RAV�L
fB �.
First Class Mlaafl�,,
C,
OODWASTE RECYCLING
PLAN
TO % DEFT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
' 2
1 3%1. No landfill _ 1320 ±
roads exist. - -`_ _-_ -- - � \ ►7 •
2. Front gate � \ 4
(locked) .3. There are no , `-Z60 U SUDIECT
P ,
ermanent SITE
� -
structures. A.
4. Wood waste
WOOTEN
recycling LAKE.
area. uuwauP, vEN LAKE O .0 A�
l � WtNoF�o•.IER
I ZSO• pEWAT-O d L^Kt E2LFAR
\ E X C AWAT 10 N sTPTE PPRK
AREA `�`,`KES -
R
CLo i
4} v- POSSIBLE CRUSHER Z60 -• aP\' s�
! - MOVED N.W.
G1'` °
1 t R DOT E
OTOFLNE OF SITE
TO AOJp%CENT REST- '•.
I WASH R>=LACES, 240 •: �; TWrL rA
• ` - AREA •� - 220 � .� �p STATc PARK
Zoo
+i ` POND 1'R!M `Sys f, •.? P.O G /x i •+-To H S
/� SE A R Yy�P A
s Q o� / ISO
Of
- - --_ --- - - Y M A P
(FILTERS
SWALE NORTH
/ R.T.S.
° I �} �IQ - ��r �, POND J•--�20 a 5
l ,
fFbND
M.
jj t 1
OVERFLOW 'CG T1 1 ~ r< `u,:i;r T� I
0 - ROAD
DISCHARGE - - yam` \ ..
� � .. ;.
° E BERMEO TRI� AND REVLIKE�i'cTA _ — ---
^`° 1 1320'` i EASENIE;,:i #
I � .NOTE -
CA C. N N o -- : ENIERGENGYj ! `'
DISCHP%RGE ,
e.ROviSIONS p,NuF_RMAN
_v SAND < GRAVEN
OPERATIONS SITE PLAN — SEC. 17, T23N, RIW, W. M.' NE %q NE '
SG „ _ - - --- ^�;� TCORT
ALE 1 - 100 W/ EXISTIN-G TOPOGRAPHY- „ � :K.
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES
r Mason County Bldg.III 426 W.Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584
(206)427-9670• Belfair:275-4467
Seattle: 464-6968 • Other: 1-800-562-5628
environmental health personal health
water quality
Application for Permitting
Waste Recycling Facilities
Woodwaste
All owners/operators of solid waste facilities shall file an
application for a site permit with the Jurisdictional Health
Department . The Health Department will determine the need for a
permit based uponn -RCW 70 .95 .170 and WAC 173-304-600 .
All solid waste handling facilities in existence after November 28 ,
1985 shall meet the permit requirements of chapter 173-304 WAC.
Please answer all CIRCLED. or CHECKED questions as completely as
Possible- -on this form or by reference to attached documents . This
application form is to provide the Environmental Health Division
with information upon which a decision regarding a permit can be
made. The applicant will be notified of the decision in writing.
Any conditions or requirements of the permit will be clearly
Stipulated at that time. Questions regarding this application
should be directed to the Solid Waste Division of the Environmental
Health Department.
Gc:IcR.-kL SOLID HANM INC . CiL'—! Pc .r
i Z I: Por -w.
OkGeneral Ir.=ormazion
1. Name of Site _F�cti12 5�bI I-) �R '1JCLI I AjL
2. address
3. Legal Description Sec. T �_3 /V R. 1.)
4. Property Tax Account Number �� J
5. Property OWner of Record w-A4rA&..-A IMA�vtn I d -
6. Facility Ovner of Record *i II � t
rl S f1 i
7. Operator of Record �(7—
S. Concsct Person
Name
Address C
Telephone
9. Date of application jo /_J� �-�� ,� U
10. Type of Facility
_ Landfill
Industrial Landfill
_ Transfer Station
_ Drop Box
_ Land Spreading
Composting
Shredding
Baling
Inert and Demolition
Sludge Utilization
_ Tire Pile
_ Surface Impoundment
Limited Pur?ose
:ast_ Recycling
':ooc.aste
Other
I1. is this an existing si-e? yes ;•o
If yes, dace operacion�began _
12. General description of the facility. -'Z d- 4 / -
�,aye/ Mln c.
13 . Elevation of site r-�,
14. Estimated capacity of facility ac closure .
hS
General Facility Requirements
Operation and Maintenance Plan to include the fo
a. Leachate collection system Llowing:
b. Leachate treatment plan
C. Landfill gas control system
Monitoring Flans
groundwater
surface water
landfill gas
Safecy/ emergency plan — AA 15 0
f. Routine filling, grading, cover
Record system
Vector and noise control
Closure and post-closure plans
j . Corrective action programs
leaks
system failure
Recordkeeping
Daily operating records shall be kept for the following
____ Weights, or
Volumes
Lumber of vehicles
Types of waste
Vaste Characteristics
Source and Type by volume
Landfill (LF) Dropbox (DB) Ash (A) Example LE-100 cons
Garbage
Rubbish
Ashes
Conscruc_:on and de:aoiic:o, -,asce
3
I^c_st_ial :�s�as
Se_a5e =_eatre::= ::ast_
ooCCaszardl
�
Soeciai jastes
Other (specify)
Land Use
Zoning of Sice Area ,
l Mom./SfV�b
Enforcement Agency
Restrictions
Adjacanc Property Use (within 1/4 mile)
North
South
East
' e s t
Compliance with local zoning y/;l
Government Approvals
Municipal
yes no
County
Planning Commission
Shoreline ,`fgt. —
SEPA
Local Sw `!sc. Plan
Hydraulic Permit —
NPDES Permit —
Flood Control Permic
Surface "lining Permit Az-
Fire Permit
Corp of Engineer Permits —
Other —
Detailed Plans for the Facility
Detailed topographic maps and preliminary engineering
plans of the site will include the following. Bering
— Scale 1:200 or larger.
_ Five foot contour intervals or less.
_ Location of access roads and landfill roads.
_ Location of permanent fencing_
V/ _ Location of all scr.:ctures.
Location of ucilic'_es.
Location of rigncs of way
1 1
_ ocat-o- o- d'-sc--
✓_ Location OC surf—`a .acers
Location and✓ iden:=z.' of Men lzOr:ns '.:2:_s.
T— ocation and ident-tv of ocZe= _a1Ls .
Ground racer flow direction.
Fire protection facilities.
Leachate collect-.;on and creac=enc facilities.
Equipment storage and repair facilities.
Salvaging facilities.
Buffer zones, planting, ecc.
Location and identity of all topographic features.
I/_ Diversion ditches and :rater con
✓ Lifts. r trol structures .
_
Cover stock piles.
Location of fill areas.
Location of surface impoundments.
Location of zecyclinz areas.
?:'Ofiles or footprint--multidirectional.
Others
I. Complece and attach an assessment that acdresses each of
the following items.
a. Geology/hydrology of the site;
b. :'aluacion of bedroc _;soil types;
C. Depch to groundwater;
d. Direction of flow for the regional ground wa-ser;
e. Direction/flow race of local ground water if
different Chan regional ground water
f. Quantit7, locaci0n, and construction of private _ells
-ji chin 2000ft. ;
g. Vacer rights/volume withdrawn within ;000£t. of Bice ;
h. Identification/location of all surface waters within
one mile radius;
i. Background/surface-water quality assessment;
J . Site water balance calculation;
k. Design of ground and surface water monitoring system;
I. Topography and drainage patterns of the site.
J
These Standards apply t0 all new and a:'nanded disDosal Sites ncluC' nz
landfill, landspreadins disposal sites, and piles and surface i.^_pouncLments
that are to be closed as landfills. These standards do not apply Co : (1)
Interim solid :caste handling sices, (2) Energy recovery and inc'_reracion
sites , (3) Piles and surface imDoundnencs used for storage , ((.) Ucilizat; on
of slud3e and ocher waste on 1and, (5) Inert and demolition :asce.and C6)
Problem wastes.
Include any support documents and explain any yes anst:ers in an Addendum.
I. Geology. Is the facility located over or adjacent to geologic features
Which could compromise the structural integrity of the facility?
Yes
Yo
Ground water.
a. Is the facility located where the bottom of the lowest liner
is less than cen feet above the high level of ground water in the upper-osc
aquifer, or five feet when a hydraulic gradienc control system or the
equivalent has been installed to control ground water fluctuations?
_Yes
No
b. Is the landfill located over a sole source aquifer?
Yes
No
Is the facility's active area located closer than one chousa-d
feet (1000' ) Co a down-gradienc drinking vacer supply _ell?
_Yes
No
Surface ',Dater.
Is the facility's active area located within tlo hundred feet measured
horizontally, of a scream, lake, pond, river, or salt water body_ , or in any
wetland or any public land that is being used by a public :racer system for
watershed control for municipal drinking water purposes?
Yes
No
Slope.
Is the facility's active area located on any hill whose slope may become
unstable?
_Yes
XNo
V
01:: Land Use.
a. Is the facilicv located lithin ten thousand feet of any air-
port =un:av currently used by turbojet aircraft or five thousand feet of
any airport runway currently used by only piston-type aircraft unless a
waiver has been granted by the federal aviation administration?
_Yes
XNo
b. Is the facility located in areas designated by the US Fish
and Gildlife Service or the -Department of Came as a critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species of plants, fish, or wildlife?
_Yes
_No
c Is the facility's active area located no closer than one hun-
dred feet ram the facility property line for land zoned as nonresidential
or no closer than t-•o hundred and fifty feet from the facility property
line for land zoned as residential?
_Yes
_XNo
d. Is the facility's active area closer than one thousand feet
to any state or rational park?
Yes
_X.No
6. Other information Concerning the locacional standards chat is re-
quired.
7. Site Name �, S
rrepar pplication
Dace prepared
7n addition co the i::ormac_on requi.-ed in the General So:id taste Handiir.s
Permic Application incorporate the following items.
A. Applicable Standards.
1. General Facility Standards.
2. Performance standards.
3 . Locacional standards.
A. Design.
1. Compliance with locacional standards, surface :racer
locacional standards.
2. Description of types of waste intended for disposal.
3 . Run-on and run-off system including diversion plan.
4. If more than 10,000 cubic yards at closure plan to
include:
a. Groundwater monitoring system;
b. Leachace collection and treatment plan.
c. Gas monitoring and control plan.
&• Plan of Operation.
1. Noise control program.
2. Road plan.
3 . Lift development and method of compaction.
4. Access control plan.
5. Closure and post-closure plans
Preparer of Application
Dace
?IL=S - Sivc2yGt _,D
In addition co the information required in the Generai Solid Vasce Handling
Permic Application incorporate the following items.
Applicability
Is the waste to be stored or treated likely to produce
leachace?
_xYes
No
Basis for answer?
C2) What will the final disposition of the -waste be?
recycled
_landfill
_incineration
_ocher; describe
Ce
Hod long will the :asce remain in place?
Maximum capasicy of pile?
5. 'Jill the pile be inert/ demolition waste, and/or Jill
the pile be stored in an enclosed building?
_Yes
No
1. How facility will meet locacional standards.
2. Consistency with local solid waste management plan.
3. A design of the liner or sealed surface upon which the
liner rests, including an analysis of the liners ability
to withstand stress.
4. A design of the run-on and runoff system.
5 . A design to avoid catastrophic failure.
6 . "u-c'_�u� elevation and boundaries.
t
MASON COUNTY 'If -il
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
hr��ironmenlalflealth Water Qoalily Personalf/eallh
PO BOX 1666 SHELTON, WA 98584
LOC6wLA - — BELFAIR 360A275-446727-9670& 4468
TOLL FREE 1-800-562-5628
` O FAX (360) 427-7798
February 25, 1997
Mr. Jeff Hartman
4 Corporate Plaza
Suite # 215
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: Belfair Sand & Gravel Application For Permitting Woodwaste Recycling
Facility, Received February 1.0, 1997
Dear Mr. Hartman,
This is written to confirm receipt of the above referenced application and to touch
on the following points:
1. The submitted application is not complete. All items circled need to
be addressed.
A new application is attached, please complete all items and return.
Please remember that this application is only for your new proposal
(woodwaste recycling) therefore the application should not reference
existing operations (i.e. mining), except in the case one operation will
affect the other.
This is a separate operation application.
2. In our telephonic contact of Monday, February 24, 1997 you
asserted that documentation (i.e. any SEPA, DNS et cetera) relating
to previous B.S. & G. operation's "woodwaste controversy",
hearings, appeals, et cetera is sufficient for the new woodwaste
recycling application.
That is not accurate as those findings were in regard to the
woodwaste site existing circa 1992-1994 and do not apply to
this new application for a woodwaste recycling operation proposed
in a different physical area of the property.
3. Please note that all appropriate reviews, comment periods,
notifications, applications, and investigations will need to be
performed to properly consider this permit application.
4. It is recommended that representatives of Belfair Sand & Gravel,
Mason County Department of Health Services, and Mason County
Department of Community Development meet to map out the
requirements and course of action to expedite your application
process.
5. Please note that your application needs to explicitly state the
maximum intended capacity of the woodwaste pile.
Use of cubic yards for quantity is preferred.
Please contact me to arrange an appropriate meeting date and time. The best
time to contact me is between 5:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., Monday through Friday
at (360) 427-9670, extension # 555.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Guy Grayson
Environmental Health Specialist
copy: Brad Banner- Director, Mason County Department of Health Services
Gary Yando - Director,Mason County Department of Community Development
Allan Borden - Mason County Department of Community Development
March 25, 1997
From Allan J. Hoover
N.E. 2491 Old Belfair Hwy
Belfair Wa 98528
To Dave Pierce
Surface Mine Field Inspector
Department of Natural Resources
Thru Art Tasker
Assistant Region Manager
Resource Protection Services
Thru Bonnie Bunning
Region Manager
Thru Jennifer Belcher
Commissioner of Public Lands
REF Surface Mine Permit No 12066
Mr Pierce;
Mr Goit , current site/ permit operator is recorded in
DNR files as being on site on 11-27-85. (DNR letter Sept 19, 1985
to Seaboard Surety Co ) .
Mr Goit 's, and Mr Hartman'S partner , Mr Rosander , ( together
known as Anderman Inc ) signed the document to operate in
compliance with the Service Fuel Plan. They, Anderman, then
operated in violation of paragraphs VIII , IX , X C, X D, X G, X H,
and X I , of that plan and RCW 78-44 and other applicable
regulations. (DNR Files)
This is documented by Kay Brown (Attorney General ) closing
arguments on statement of Lingley (DNR) and Sims (DNR) , about
ponds allowed to creep . This is further documented by my repeated
requests to DNR, together with property line survey done 12-88
(Kegel Engineering ) and the informal survey done by DNR mine
inspector Dave Pierce. (DNR File) . Note; Pleaser add Kegel re-
survey dated 10-5-95 to file to supplement the original survey,
and Kegel letter- dated 11-13-95.
This site, under Department of Natural Resources cognizance
with Permit No 12066, was allowed to get out of compliance. It
was out of compliance when operational control authority was
turned over to other agencies. It is still out of compliance.
Based on these facts, I again request that Surface Mine
Permit No 12066, be revoked , pending the mine site being brought
into complete compliance with all applicable regulations.
cc W Backous Department of Ecology
cc G Ya-tido Masan County
cc B Banner Mason County Allan J . Hoover*
. ........ ................,a`c'.(+:1..+ltl:i......",..._.J'r....uwr ...a.a... ............-_......_._... .._,.-._.._....-... ...._ .......,..a-....... _...._._. .,..,.tau[.
u erior Court of the Mate of
agbirtgton
for tfje (C� ourttp of �fla5o11
JAN ES B.SAWYER II,judge
'Department No.1 U-
TONI A.SHELDON,judge Commissioners:
Richard C.Adamson
Department No.2 "h' oy
:889 a Robert D.Wilson-Hoss
Carrene M.Wood
P.O.Box"X"
Shelton,Washington 98584
(360)427-9670 Ext.289
M E M O R A N D U M "
Gary H. Sexton ,,, . ..
Attorney at Law �-C✓�.li I i :x4tz
1126 Highland Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98337
Randy W. Loun
Attorney at Law
509 4th Street, Suite 6
Bremerton, WA 98g37
DATE: February 7, 1997
SUBJECT: ANDERMAN v. MEDEIROS et ux.
Mason County Cause No, et al. ,
91-2-00182-4
Enclosed please find a conformed cop
y Of an Order
Motion for Reconsideration filed with the clerk on todayrsDenying
Based upon information provided to m matter will proceed to a one y office by counsel, this
a.m, on Monda Y. non-jury trial to begin at 9 : 00
Februar 24 1997.
Should you have any concerns regarding the revised trial date,
Please notify my office in writing no later than 5: 00 p.m, on
Wednesday, February 12, 1997.
SirfC-6-tely.
JAMES B. SAWYER I'Y, Judge
JBS:gb
Enclosure
cc: Superior Court File
'97 FC3 -7
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF' WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON•• _'' �'•''
ANDERMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. ,
Plaintiff, ) NO. 91-2-00182-4
VS. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
RICHARD MEDEIROS, et ux, et al. , )
Defendants. )
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on defendant
MEDEIROS' Motion for Reconsideration, the parties having stipulated
to the Court making its decision without oral argument based on the
Declaration of Richard Medeiros and the file herein; now,
therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
DATED this day of February, /1997 .
J GE JAMES . SAWYER II
Conformed Copies Mailed To:
Gary H. Sexton Randy W. Loun
Attorney for Plaintiff and Attorney for Defendants and
Third Party Defendant Third Party Plaintiffs
1126 Highland Avenue 509 4th Street, Suite 6
Bremerton, WA 98337 Bremerton, WA 98337
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of HEALTH SERVICES
Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 985U
(206)427-9670 9 Belfair:275-4467
Seattle:464.6968•Other: 1-800-562-5628
environmental health personal health water quality
Application for Permitting R - v k
Waste Recycling Facilities ►_TH SERVIcr
Woodwaste
All owners/operators of solid waste facilities shall file an
application for a site permit with the Jurisdictional Health
Department . The Health Department will determine the need for a
permit based upon RCW 70 .95 . 170 and WAC 173-304-600 .
All solid waste handling facilities in existence after November 28,
1985 shall meet the permit requirements of chapter 173-304 WAC.
Please answer all CIRCLED or CHECKED questions as completely as
possible- -on this form or by reference to attached documents . This
application form is to provide the Environmental Health Division
with information upon which a decision regarding a permit can be
made. The applicant will be notified of the decision in writing.
Any conditions or requirements of the permit will be clearly
stipulated at that time. Questions regarding this application
should be directed to the Solid Waste Division of the Environmental
Health Department.
GENERAL SOLID ::,?STE F-AA"DLI:.G .-ICILITY PERXJT =?o?.Ir;.TIC::
General Information
1. Name of Site BF
L,EATR SAND & GRAVEL, INC
2. Address NE 2493 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair WA 98528
3 . Legal Description Sec. T. R. See attached — #1
4. Property Tax Account Number 12317-11-0000
5. Property Owner of Record HARTMAN FAMILY TRUST, dated 11-1-90
6. Facility Owner of Record BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL, INC.
7 . Operator of Record WALTER J. GOIT
a Contact Person
Name WALTER J. GOIT
Address NE 2493 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, WA
Telephone 360-275-2110
9. Date of Application — 3-/28/ 97
10. Type of Facility
Landfill
Industrial Landfill
_ Transfer Station
Drop Box
Land Spreading
Composting
_ Shredding
Baling
Inert and Demolition
Sludge Utilization
_ Tire Pile
Surface Impoundment
_ Limited Purpose
waste Recycling
�;ood::aste
Other
11. is this an existing site? Yes X_ No _
If yes, date operation began
12. General description of the facility. Sand and Gravel
mine operating since 1980
13 . Elevation of site. 500 ft.
14. Estimated capacity of facility at closure. 10 ,000 tons
General`Facility Requirements
Operation and Maintenance Plan to include the following:
a. Leachate collection system
b. Leachate treatment plan
c. Landfill gas control system
d. Monitoring Flans
groundwater Subject to National Pollutant Discharge
surface water Elimination System and State Waste Dis-
landfill gas charge General Permit-See attached #2 .
Safety/ emergency plan - See attached #3 .
f. Routine filling, grading, cover
Record system
Vector and noise control - Subject to Misha Control (Yearl
Closure and post-closure plans Inspection
j . Corrective action programs
leaks
system failure
QRecordkeeping
Daily operating records shall be kept for the following
X Weights, or Certified Scale to be installed
X Volumes
X Number of vehicles
X Types of waste
63 Waste Characteristics
Source and Type by volume
Landfill (LF) Dropbox (DB) Ash (A) Example LF-100 tons
Garbage
Rubbish
Ashes
Construction and demolition -, aste
?ndustr=al -:asses
Sewase -reatren: :asze
Lizzer
Agricultural .:asze
X «oodwaste
Special wastes
Other (specify)
Land Use
Zoning of Site Area Industrial/Mining/Recycling
Enforcement Agency
Restrictions
Adjacant Property Use (within 1/4 mile)
North Forest Land
South Forest Land/Rural Residential
East Rural Residential
`Jest For -st 7.and
Compliance with local zoning Y/N
Government Approvals
yes no
Municipal
County X
Planning Commission _
Shoreline Mgt.
SEPA
Local SW Mgt. Plan
Hydraulic Permit _
NPDES Permit _
Flood Control Permit
Surface !lining Permit �
Fire Permit _
Corp of Engineer Permits _
Other D.O.E. Waste
Water Permit ,
Detailed Plans for the Facility
Detailed topographic maps and preliminary engineering
plans of the site will include the following.
Scale 1:200 or larger.
Five foot contour intervals or less.
Location of access roads and landfill roads.
Location of permanent fencing.
Location of all structures.
Location of utilities.
Location of rights oZ7 way.
_ _Otago:: of disc :a:za point oL g_c_:nC .ater.
Location of surface eaters
Location and identiz-, of monitoring wells.
Location and identity of oche: ::ells .
_ Groundwater flow direction.
Fire protection facilities .
Leachate collection and treacmenc faclllti2s.
Equipmenc storage and repair facilities .
Salvaging facilities.
Buffer zones, planting, etc.
1/ Location and identity of all topographic features.
Diversion ditches and water control structures .
Lifts.
Cover stock piles.
Location of fill areas.
Location of surface impoundments.
Location of recycling areas.
?rofiles of footprint- -multidirectional .
Others
H X X Xxx K.K .x Y, X xxitm Xadbx
1. Complete and attach an assessment that addresses each of
the following items.
a. Geology/hydrology of the site;
b. Evaluation of bedroc :;soil types ;
C. Depth to groundwater;
d. Direction of flow for the regional ground water;
e. Direction/flow rate of local ground water if
different than regional ground water
f. Quantity, location, and construction of private ::ells
-within 2000ft. ;
g. 6later rights/volume withdrawn within 2000ft. of site ;
h. Identification/location of all surface waters within
one mile radius;
i. Background/surface-water quality assessment;
J . Site water balance calculation;
k. Design of ground and surface water monitoring system;
1. Topography and drainage patterns of the site.
LOC.;:IO`AL STAINDA DS
These standards apply to ail new and expanded disposal sites includine
landfill, landspreading disposal sites, and piles and surface impoundments
that are to be closed as landfills. These standards do not apply to: (1)
Interim solid waste handling sites, (2) Energy recovery and incineration
sites , (3) Piles and surface impoundments used for storage , (4) Utilization
of sludge and other waste on land, (5) Inert and demolition •..aste ,and (6)
Problem wastes.
Include any support documents and explain any yes answers in an Addendum.
41 Geology. Is the facility located over or adjacent to geologic features
w ich could compromise the structural integrity of the facility?
Yes
X No
Ground water.
a. Is the facility located where the bottom of the lowest liner
is less than ten feet above the high level of ground water in the upper-:ost
aquifer, or five feet when a hydraulic gradient control system or the
equivalent has been installed to control ground rater fluctuations?
_Yes
X No
b . Is the landfill located over a sole source aquifer?
Yes
X No
PI )
Is the facility's active area located closer than one thousand
feet (100 to a down-gradient drinking water supply well?
_Yes
X No
Surface Water.
Is the facility's active area located within two hundred feet measured
horizontally, of a stream, lake, pond, river, or salt water body, or in any
wetland or any public land that is being used by a public water system for
watershed control for municipal drinking water purposes?
_Yes
X No
(0 Slope.
Is the facility's active area located on any hill whose slope may become
unstable?
_Yes
X No
V Land Use.
a. Is the facility located within ten thousand feet of any air-
port runway currently used by turbojet aircraft or five thousand feet of
any airport runway currently used by only piston-type aircraft unless a
waiver has been granted by the federal aviation administration?
Yes
X_No
b. Is the facilitv located in areas designated by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service or the Department of Game as a critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species of plants , fish, or wildlife?
_Yes
X No
c Is the facility's active area located no closer than one hun-
dred feet rom the facility property line for land zoned as nonresidential
or no closer than two hundred and fifty feet from the facility property
line for land zoned as residential?
_Yes
X No
d. Is the facility's active area closer than one thousand feet
to any state or rational park?
_Yes
X Vo
6. Other information concerning the locational standards that is re-
quired.
Site Name BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL
444 Q, March 28 , 1997
P e r Application Date prepared
J ffrey Hartman
PILES - - STORAGE _,D TRE.-�TXENT
In addition to the information required in the Cenerai Solid Waste Handling
Permit Application incorporate the following items.
Applicability
Is the waste to be stored or treated likely to produce
l/ leachate?
X Yes
No
Basis for answer? There is no way to handle
woodwaste without some Leachate.
What will the final disposition of the waste be?
X recycled
_landfill
_incineration
_other, describe Top Soil - Mushroom com-
post - Wood Shavings Sawdust
How long will the waste remain in place?
Less than one (1) year.
Maximum capasity of pile?
10 cubic yards .
5. Will the pile be inert/ demolition waste, and/or will
the pile be stored in an enclosed building?
_Yes
X No
1. How facility will meet locational standards.
2. Consistency with local solid waste management plan.
3. A design of the liner or sealed surface upon which the
liner rests, including an analysis of the liners ability
to withstand stress.
4. A design of the run-on and runoff system.
5 . A design to avoid catastrophic failure.
6 . Maximum elevation and boundaries.
.00D+:ASTE
in addition co the information required in the General Solid .asce Handling
Permit Application incorporate the following items.
A. Applicable Standards. See attached Location Map - #4 .
1. General Facility Standards. See attached Site Map - #5.
2. Performance standards. See attached Woodwaste Facility
3. Locational standards. Standards #6.
�Al Design.
�•� 1. Compliance with locational standards, surface .rater
locational standards.
Description of types of waste intended for d ".& ,
3 . Run-on and run-off system including diversion plan.
4. If more than 10,000 cubic yards at closure plan to
include:
a. Groundwater monitoring system;
b. Leachate collection and treatment plan.
c. Gas monitoring and control plan.
L. Plan of Operation.
1. Noise control program.
2. Road plan.
3. Lift development and method of t94 .
Access control plan.
Closure and post-closure plans
Q�, Im 4�44/
March 28 , 1997
of A Hartman
rep p a of :application Date
RANGE I TOWNSHIP 23 SECTION 17
SCALE r.400'
2 I
l�3/Co
/r�A'
1 t31, 11 woDD �t
OLD
12317 to 00000 act FA IR
t.17
I4000l0
1100010
I490030
IIOOOw
.►•t010
1IO00go
" IIpIM
4!
ItD101D Ir.1000 s• �S IotO IDo
42010w '`� / orb 100 »J0 010
6 e10
]100 II90110
Op
I231,So tlppD 4,100
p IIDOD1p
It9. It.wt0 •\]Itw 4100050
0]0 010
1too II90070 wloO
1[w
.1. .1.
IID Ip r 1/32
]Iw !Iw i.p
Ow OM
1101000 17tw30 13w
0,0
rF l.00
IID0000
Iwww
e1. °t' r rnr s rn/r
1300ao
v Ian 1 ow 1 (///'''���(��''1/]Iw 34Mwoo
.2. op g 130O f I/!r
8 S 040 1]00
3 4 i]sww ox
.rr 11•r.-.I
I G[[•.t ol.
.(l rt lR IIM/OR
Nv, R/KR
FOR REFERENCE
I ISF nNI Y
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
SoN,sratFo
o P A 0, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
T
o i PLANNING -SOLID WASTE -UTILITIES
z� N Y 4 BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
1e64 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
April 25, 1997
Jeffrey Hartman
Walt Goit
NE 2493 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, Washington 98528
RE: WOODWASTE RECYCLING FACILITY PROPOSAL
Dear Mr. Hartman and Mr. Goit:
As part of making a preliminary evaluation of the woodwaste recycling facility proposed for
your 40 acre property, Mason County Department of Community Development has reviewed
the county critical area maps (for example, wetlands, streams, steep slopes, floodplains, and
aquifer recharge areas). The aquifer recharge area map shows that the Union River critical
aquifer management area ends at your east property boundary line. If a proposal was within
the aquifer area and used hazardous materials or created hazardous products during its
operation, an applicant would have to provide an additional aquifer geotechnical report to
substantiate how the proposal would not affect the aquifer.
As your property is uphill and adjacent to the aquifer and streams in the area, it is of utmost
importance that you operate in a manner that avoids potential problems. Certain precautions
should be integrated (storing raw and ground materials for limited time periods, covering
ground materials with roofed structures, and keeping runoff from the immediate recycling
operation to its own stormwater facility and controlling other runoff out of the vicinity).
I have enclosed a copy of the Mason County Environmental Checklist. The environmental
checklist should be submitted to this department with the processing fee. A clear plan of the
woodwaste recycling operation area (receiving, processing, and storage areas) should
accompany the checklist so that those persons reviewing the checklist will understand how
materials will be handled in your proposed operation.
If you have questions, you may contact me in the Department of Community Development at
(360) 427-9670 or 275-4467 ext. 365.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden
Shoreline Planner
Recycled
( _' •. � 1 +) ' � to� ( .. f ...
l i4
- j
m
r ti
t
e �
u
Allen Shearer
P.O. Box 789
Belfair, WA 98528
Jeff Hartman
4 Corporate Plaza
Suite #215
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Woodwaste Recycling at Shearer Sand and Gravel formerly Belfair Sand& Gravel
Dear Mr. Shearer and Mr. Hartman:
The Mason County Health Department has decided not to require an additional permit for
recycling woodwaste at NE 2493 Old Belfair Highway at this time. As long as all
requirements of county, state and federal woodwaste recycling regulations are met. These
requirements will be part of the permit issued to you by the Mason County Community
Development. Chapter 173-304 of the Washington Administrative Code is the state
regulations that apply to solid waste. Mason County Solid Waste Regulations are in
"Solid Waste and Biosolids Handling and Facilities Regulations."
WAC 173-304-300 (3)(b)(c)(i)(ii)(d)(e)(f) are specific to woodwaste recycling.
(3) Waste recycling requirements.
(b) Applicable waste recycling facilities shall submit annual reports to the
jurisdictional health department and the department by March 1 of the following
year for which the data is collected on forms supplied by the department. The
annual reports shall include quantities and types of waste recycled for of
determining progress towards achieving the goals of waste reduction, waste
recycling, and treatment in accordance with RCW 70.95.010(4). Such facilities
may request and be assured of confidentiality for their reports in accordance with
chapter 42.17 RCW and RCW 43..21A:160.
(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) 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; or
(ii) 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.
Upon such determination by the jurisdictional health department that(c)(i)
or(ii)of this subsection are met,the jurisdictional health department may
require a permit application and issuance of permit under WAC 173-304-
600 of these rules.
(d) Waste recycling facilities shall allow jurisdictional health department and
department representatives entry for inspection purposes and to determine
compliance with these rules at reasonable times.
(e)All applicable waste recycling facilities shall not conflict with county
comprehensive solid waster management plan required by WAC 173-304-011 of
these rules.
(f)All waste recycling facilities shall comply with applicable local, state and
federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to environmental
regulations and laws.
The Health Department is also concerned over the possibility of uncovering solid waste
that was illegal buried there in the past. The concern arises from a history of verified and
unverified complaints that scrap metals, tires, woodwaste and other miscellaneous solid
waste was buried on the property. Due to this concern, one of the requirements for the
permit will be that the operators/owner.must notify the Health Department upon
uncovering or the discovery of any solid waste on the property within 48 hours. Once the
solid waste is unearthed the operators/owners must dispose of the waste in a proper
manner, such as a county permit transfer station, and submit the receipts to the Health
Department in a timely manner.
I have enclosed a copy of the WAC 173-304 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid
Waste Handling and a copy of Mason County's Solid Waste Regulations for your use. If
you have any questions regarding this issue or the permitting process,please feel free to
call me at(360) 427-9670 ext. 555
Respectfully,
Andrea Unger
Environmental Health Specialist
MASON COoNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Environmental Health Water Quality Personal Health
PO BOX 1666, SHELTON, WA 98584
LOCAL(360) 427-9670
ELMA 482-5269
SEATTLE 464-6968
BELFAIR (360)275-4467
FAX (360) 427-7798
May 27 , 1998
: r
Richard Medeiros
2481 NE Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, Washington 98528
RE: Your Letter to Commissioner Bolender dated May 7 , 1998 ;
Your FAX to Commissioner Bolender dated March 11, 1998
Dear Richard Medeiros,
In response to issues you raised:
1) Removal of woodwaste from Belfair Sand & Gravel site.
Mason County has required BS&G to remove the woodwaste already
on site. Only removal of existing woodwaste material is
allowed; no further importation has been authorized or
permitted. As of October 1997 it was the opinion of MCDHS that
woodwaste had been removed from the site, within practical
limitations. Prior to any future importation of woodwaste,
BS&G must apply for and be issued an appropriate permit.
2) Demolition waste (inert) materials brought to site and
City of Bremerton 4th Street Project.
WAC 173 . 304 . 461 states that permitting is not required for
inert demolition waste amounts of two thousand (2 , 000) cubic
yards or less. Mason County Department of Health Services can
require permits for disposal of lesser amounts of demolition
wastes, but would not do so when the material is used for
construction purposes (i.e. bank revetment et cetera) . In such
cases it is not landfilling and therefore no permitting under
WAC 173 . 304 is required. A MCDHS Notice and Order dated July
7, 1995 specifically prohibits "accepting all solid waste and
demolition waste which requires Health Department permits or
approvals". Mr. Dan Watts' letters to you dated April 2 , 1996
and August 5, 1996 clarify the demolition waste and woodwaste
issues.
1
3) Buried tires on mine site.
A review of the file for the site shows an inspection report
dated August 4, 1992 indicating
site; a document dated March 15, several hundred" tires on-
with no quantities specified. 1993 references a tine pile,
M
1993 reference existing on-site tiDre ( ) dated July g,
re usage or retaining wall
Purposes,, and that no tires shall be brought on-site without
prior, written MCDHS authorization.
has
indicating the existence of tire burialCDHS amounts so nin
Your FAX of March 11, 1998 . stated
ce
Sincerely,
Guy Grayson
Environmental Health Specialist
2
Mason Conservation District
S.E. 1051 Highway 3 - Suite G - Shelton, WA 98584
Phone: (360) 427-9436 - FAX: (360) 427-4396 RECEIVED
5/25/98 MAY 2 6 1998
MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Alan,
This letter is being prepared for the Old Belfair Highway culvert replacement proposed by the
Mason County Department of Public Works. This project is being conducted in Section 16,
Township 23,Range I West. The onsite soils have been mapped as Belfast sandy loam, 0 to 3
percent slopes(Ba),according to the NRCS Soil Survey for Mason Co., 1960. This soil does
have unnamed hydric inclusions. The particular wetland is not mapped on the National wetland
inventory map.
This wetland is determined to be a category III. These wetlands provide important functions
and values. They are important for a variety of wildlife species and occur more commonly
throughout the state than either category I or II wetlands. Generally these wetlands will be
smaller,less diverse, and/or more isolated in the landscape than Category II wetlands. The
hydrology of this wetland can be lowered, 12-16 inches and still maintain hydrophytic
vegetation. If the hydrology is lowered, the wetland may loose some of the emergent species and
pools and, in time, may become a scrub/shrub forested system. If I or the District can be of any
further assistance please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Shannon Bonnett
r
CONSERVATION-DEVELOPMENT•SELF-GOVERNMENT
January 27, 1998 9
C
Mason County Planning Department ✓4* F v
Courthouse Building 111 j o
1
426 W. Cedar
Post Office Box 578 "w1i►r
Shelton, Wa. 98584
Fax. (360)427-8425
Re: Diverted drainage through culverts and ditches.
Dear Mr. Borden,
As you have been aware for some time now, of the diverted drainage leaving the Belfair
Sand and Gravel,Inc. (BSG)mine site from culverts and ditches,that is malicious, and is
causing excessive flooding and is a danger to both my family and myself.
This is a formal complaint,consisting of facts and evidence concerning the drainage
leaving the mine site and causing continuing damage and an unhealthy and unsafe
environment for all concerned.
Brief History: For many years now, turbid drainage has been leaving the BSG mine
site through ditches and culverts directed to my property. I was
informed in the past to direct my complaints on off site turbid drainage to the Dept. of
Ecology(D.O.E.), and have been on a continuous basis. For over three years, no one
answered my complaints,or visited my property, in order to verify the damage and the
source of the diverted drainage.
Last week, I was visited by Scott Morrison, from the D.O.E., and he assured me that the
culvert installed, and directed onto my property,was not the jurisdiction of D.O.E.,but
the jurisdiction of Mason County Planning, and gave me a copy of RCW 85.28
regulations.
Now to clarify additional issue, which goes hand and hand with the RCW 85.28;
(1) Administrative Hearings Decision issued in April of 199 V(see attached copy)please
pay particular attention to page 11, paragraph 6 which states as follows:
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 natural or undisturbed areas of the site.
(2) Why the culvert just inside the main gate to the left,when entering the mine site, is
an illegal culvert. The department of Natural Resources, refused to issue a operation
permit, in 1991,because the culvert was not within the Administrative Hearings
decision. As stated in paragraph above,water that may leave the site, may only
leave the site from undisturbed and natural areas, not from ditches and culverts.
(see attached letter)
In 1986, Anderman Enterprises, Inc. when taking over the site, built a 16 foot berm on
the south property line, adjacent to my property.
On November of 1990, Walter Goit, of Anderman Enterprises, Inc. installed a culvert
that diverted drainage from the mine site directly onto my property, and from that date to
the present date, the diversion along with other ditches, have increased its volume of
turbid drainage and is causing excessive damage and flooding.
Drainage leaving the mine site has been a problem since Service Fuel Company operated
a surface mine site back in 1982. The takeover Anderman Enterprises, Inc. not only took
over the operation, but also took over the existing drainage problem, and is documented
by Anderman Enterprises, Inc. vs Dept. of Natural Resources, (1991).
In 1989, Anderman was shut-down for drainage leaving the mine site, onto adjacent
properties. The original reclamation and operation plan(D.N.R. files), required that all
water(ALL)be contained on site.
In 1993,there was a Senate Bill, and House Bill,that required D.N.R. to enforce
reclamation issues, and D.O.E., to enforce clean water issues, and Mason County, to
enforce operations.
Complaint: Drainage is leaving the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site through
culverts and ditches, is in violation of RCW 85.28, and Administrative order, which are
all attached.
Before you claim there is a lawsuit against the mine operation I would like to make
something clear. There is no lawsuit against Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. The items in
litigation are against Anderman Enterprises, Inc. and in no way, are related to Belfair
Sand and Gravel, Inc. (please read RCW 85.28 and Administrative Hearing decision)
The drainage leaving the mine site is your jurisdiction, and requires enforcement of the
following:
1. The culvert just inside the entrance of the B_S.G. mine site, is an illegal
culvert, (see attached D.N.R. letter),culvert must be removed.
(regulated by Administrative ruling) (see attached copy)
.L
}
6 T�•
2. B.S.G. has constructed ditches at the lower pond area that takes the
drainage from the disturbed area, and deposits it the Hoover property,
and down the driveway(ingress and egress only easement), diverted
ditches must be removed (regulated by Administrative ruling) (see
attached copy)
3. On the south mid-level, ditches are in place to protect the mid-level pond,
by taking the overflow and ditching it to my property, which has in the
past and is continuing today, depositing drainage in the amount of
100,000+ gallons of turbid water, and 4 to 5 hundred yards of mud, and
silt, onto my property, diverted ditches must be removed. (regulated by
Administrative ruling) (see attached copy)
4. On the upper level drainage is diverted from the upper ponds, so that it
goes over the back side of the site, and into the tributary leading to the
Union River, diverted ditches must be removed (regulated by
Administrative ruling) (see attached copy).
I pray that an investigation will be prompt and effective, so that Belfair Sand and Gravel,
Inc. will be in compliance. I would appreciate a written response so that I may see the
progress with compliance.
trice el ,
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Hwy.
Belfair, Wa. 98528
cc: Commission Bolender
cc: Commission Cady
cc: Commission Olsen
MAR 06 '98 17:36 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P. 1
kNASON COUNTY DEPT_ OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
426 W. Cedar
P. O.Box 578
Shelton, Wa _ 98584
Allan Borden
Fax . (360) 427-8425
RE: Belfair Sand and Gravel Diverted Drainage _ (SSG)
Dear Mr. Borden,
Once again I am writing to file a complaint . You did not
respond to my last letter, however, the situation has gotten
worse .
I complained in my last letter that diverted drainage coming
from the BSG mine site was entering my property through diverted
drainage coming from the mine site and things have gotten worse ,
because an additional 100 yards of material from the mine site
has been washed onto my property from the upper settling ponds,
and is flooding my property both in the front and in the rear .
At this time over 6 acres of my 8 acre property is being damaged
by diverted runoff, and is continuing to get worse.
I am requesting an immediate response to my complaint , so that
the damage can come to a halt . Enforcement of RCW 85.28 et , seq_
is appropreate , and must be enforced, and BSG, must be in
complienee, so that our health and safety, along with our right
to the use of our property can be obtained.
I don ' t know how many more times you want me to beg for help???
As it stands now, I have lost 213 of my property through
diverted drainage from SSG and would like to have it stopped,
and have a normal piece of property like most other people do.
I pray your response will be quick, and enforcement of any
illigal activities will be applied .
nc rely,
Richard Medeiros
cc : Mason County Commissioners
cc : Dept . of Ecology (Scott Morrison)
cc: Dept of Natural Resources (Dave Pierce)
Printed by Allan Borden 3/09/98 4 : 01pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Bolender
To: Allan Borden
Subject: Richard Medieros
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===NOTE===============3/08/98=10:30am=======================================
RM contacted me a week or so ago with questions regarding a culvert on his
neighbors property (Belfair Sand & Gravel) which might be redirecting
stormwater onto his property.
RM seems to believe this issue is within our regulatory purview. Can you
provide me with any perspective on this issue?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 1
Cr
3
41
Z
Z Ownership
Address
Exist, Catch Basin
a / & Highway Cross Culvert (W, Broughton)
L4�
R Ditch Section to Remain Unchanged o i CD�� S,D, Littlefield
NE 2450 ❑ld Belfair Hwy
Q O _O
Exist. Open, Ditch �-
Reconstruct After ter Pipe Installation
Q _ _ Pipe End With
Exist, Gravel Driveway Tide Gate
BRIDGE
{ W, Broughton
NE 2400 Old Belfair Hwy 30' Access/
Dralnage Easement
Beginning of New Pipe
144' 134'
Approx. End of New Pipe
278't
Approx, Pipe Length
a a
104 1 104
IO2 i rk. i i 02
(
tool Surrounding Ground/Driveway Elevation I'oo
1 98
981 Approx. Bottom of Exist, Ditch Exist 12 Drvvy LNP 1 96
�.,t 94.72 1
9'I PROPOSED 18' HD'E PIPE \�111 Outfatt Et. I 194
Invert El, -- — 1�J
921 93.50 92.00 1OHWL .1 92
---•--------�`•----i OHWL 1
901 Union River i i 90
881 L--- — --.—j 8
0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50 2+00 2+25 2+50 2+75 3+00 3+25 3+50 3+58
Vertical Scale 5 x Horiz. Scale
C❑NSTRUCTI❑N & MATERIAL NOTES;
18' HDPE Pipe Shalt Conform To The AASHTO Classification Type S
Installation Of This Pipe Shalt Be In Accordance With ASTM Recommended Practice D2321
River End Of HDPE Pipe Shalt Be Fitted With A Tideflex Check Valve Sized
To Match The Pipe Manufacturer's Nominal Outside Pipe Diameter
Valve To Be Attached In Compliance With Manufacturer's Recommendations
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY DRAINAGE ENHANCEMENT
County Road No.j 9825 Filei OBH-S&G.DWG EPFllei BLFR-S&G-PROPOSED DRAINAGE
CRP No., Scale, 1160 (8.5' x 11' Sheet) Datei May 6, 1998
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
SON.STgTFO
o A o u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T i PLANNING -SOLID WASTE -UTILITIES
z� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N:5TH ST. e P.O. BOX 578
1864
SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
March 19, 1998
Richard Medeiros
2481 NE Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, Washington 98528
RE: Concerns of runoff from Belfair Sand and Gravel property
Dear Mr. Medeiros:
Mason County Department of Community Development has received your recent letters,
dated January 27 and March 6, 1998, stating that surface water runoff from the Belfair Sand
and Gravel (BSG) property to the north continues to flow onto your property, and these
flows have caused damage and sediment deposition on much of your property. You have
stated that these flows are due to runoff and ponded water associated with the BSG operation
and that Mason County should take action to stop it.
You are aware that several levels of management occur with sand and gravel operations in
Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources administers these operations
through their surface mining reclamation plan that emphasizes mining as a resource and that
manages the work site towards rehabilitating the areas mined out and controlling water runoff
within the operation. Washington Department of Ecology monitors the water quality of the
waters that flow through and off the mining site. Mason County is involved in investigating
surface runoff problems associated with any development and facilitating a solution between
the parties involved.
This letter is to keep you informed that Mason County is aware of your concerns about the
periodic and repeated flows off of the BSG operation. Several of the county departments are
working towards a strategy to address the operations and the water runoff of Belfair Sand
and Gravel and its effects on the surrounding area. Mason County will keep you informed
as this strategy progresses. If you have any questions, you may contact me in Department of
Community Development at (360) 275-4467 extension 365.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden, Senior Planner
cc: Gary Yando, DCD Director; C. Olsen, Commissioner; J. Bolender, Commissioner
Recycled
Smith page 33
1 consider letting me come in and mine his gravel .
2 Okay?
3 So, as we were talking and this, and he ' s
4 got this big operation, all this bark, the
5 conversation came up what he does with all of his
6 bark. And he said he had a contract that people
7 sell it, you know, or come pick it up. And so
8 that was it, okay, it stopped there .
9 +1B it' then ..later_;on-Fa s_-we�were-:working-with •
10 the.-_l ease.,.agreement with:Mr .Proud _on _the gravel*,
11 he was complaining about-,his Accessibility_- to .get:•
12 the.: bark...out_ on time, ; and. getting it. moved .out .of.
13 his ;_way,., and..the.._other. guy,,'wasfi1-t>performing,
14 _correctly. "-
15 And so I says : Well, I 'd like to be in that
16 beauty bark business , too, because there is a need
17 over here . So that ' s kind of how it started .
whale.- ycu.11 re :working_on.:,the;
19 ;grave��pit,::why:: don!a :.yourtake':ahi" "` barb ..�It- wad,
I
20 ,at;kt�fio kiucks_�a`yard ;by,=the.-way. that ..was : the price)
•_
21 ;that ..he was'<'c6hsider_irig.4
22 And-iwhat _I did-..in:-lieu.-of..-that-.two dollars,
23 was .extra work -for_ the bark, :_.okay? I did other
24 work which paid for the .two' dollars :a yard °bark
25 1 didn 't pay him in money. 1Re4h1au1ed �`his"excess'1
DEAN MOBURG & ASSOCIATES (206) 622-3110
EXHIBIT 4
I
WAC1997
................... .............. ....................... ................. ............... .....
WAC 173-304-405 General facility requirements.
(1) Applicability. All applicable solid waste handling facilities shall meet the
requirements of this section. J
(2) Plan of operation. Each owner or operator shall develop, keep and abide by a plan of
operation approved as part of the permitting process in WAC 173-304-h00. The plan shall
describe the facilities' operation and shall convey to site operating personnel the concept
of operation intended by the designer. The plan of operation shall be available for
inspection at the request, of the jurisdictional health officer. The facility must be
operated in accordance with the plan or the plan must be so modified with the approval of the
jurisdictional health department. Owners or operators of drop boxes may develop a generic
plan of operation applicable to all such drop boxes, owned or operated.
Each plan of operation shall include:
(a) How solid wastes are to be handled on-site during its active life;
(b) How inspections and monitoring are conducted and their frequency;
(c) Actions to take if there is a fire or explosion;
(d) Actions to take if leaks are detected;
(e) Corrective action programs to take if ground water is contaminated;
(f) Actions to take for other releases (e.g. failure of run-off containment system);
(g) How equipment such as leachate collection and gas collection equipment are to be
maintained;
(h) A safety plan or procedure; and
(i) Other such details as required by the jurisdictional health department.
(3) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator shall maintain daily operating records an the
weights (or volumes), number of vehicles entering and, if available, the types of wastes
received. Major deviations from the plan of operation shall also be noted an the operating
record.
(4) Reporting. Each owner or operator shall prepare and submit a copy of an annual
report to the jurisdictional health department and the department by March I of each year.
The annual report shall cover facility activities during the previous year and must include
the following information:
(a) Name and address of the facility;
(b) Calendar year covered by the report;
(c) Annual quantity, in tons, or volume, in cubic yards, and estimated in-place density
in pounds per cubic yard of solid waste handled. by type of solid waste if available, for
each type of treatment, storage, or disposal facility, including applicable recycling
facilities; and
(d) Results of ground water monitoring required in WAC 173-304-490.
(5) Inspections. The owner or operator shall inspect the facility to prevent
EXHIBIT 5
44WAC1997
VAC 173-3B4-4135 'General facility requirements.
(1) Applicability. All applicable solid waste handling facilities shall most the
requirements of this section.
1
(2) Plan of operation. Each owner or operator shall develop, keep and abide by a plan of
operation approved as part of the permitting process in WAC 173-304-600. The plan shall
describe the facilities' operation and shall convey to site operating personnel the concept
of operation intended by the designer. The plan of operation shall be available for
inspection at the request of the jurisdictional health officer. 'The facility must be
operated in accordance with the plan or the plan must be so modified with the approval of the
jurisdictional health department. Owners or operators of drop boxes may develop a generic
plan of operation applicable to all such drop boxes, owned or operated.
Each plan of operation shall include:
(a) flaw solid wastes are to be handled on-site during its active life;
(b) flow inspections and monitoring are conducted and their frequency;
(c) Actions to take if here is a fire or explosion;
(d) Actions to take if leaks are detected;
(e) Corrective action programs to take if ground water is contaminated;
(f) Actions to take for other releases (e.g. failure of run-off containment system);
(g) Now equipment such as ledchate Collection and gas Collection equipment are to be
maintained;
(h) A safety plan or procedure; and
(i) Other such details as required by the jurisdictional health department.
(3) Recordkeeping. Each owner or operator shall maintain daily operating records on the
weights (or volumes), number of vehicles entering and, if available, the types of wastes
received. Major deviations from the plan of operation shall also be noted on the operating
record.
(4) Reporting. Each owner or operator shall pr0para and submit a copy of an annual
report_ to the jurisdictional health department end the deportment. by March 1 of each year.
The annual report shall cover facility activities during the previous year and must include
the following information:
(a) Name and address of the facility;
(b) Calendar year covered by the report;
(c) Annual quantity, in tons, or volume, in cubic yards, and estimated in-place density
in pounds per cubic yard of solid waste handled. by type of solid waste if available, for
each type of treatment, storage, or disposal facility, including applicable recycling
facilities; and
(d) Results of ground water monitoring required in WAC 173-304-490.
(5) Inspections. The owner or operator shall inspect the facility to prevent
EXHIBIT 6
Dept. of atura} resources
P.O. Dox 65
Enumclaw. Wa. 9SO-12)
Richard Medeir.%A
`E24*,-,1 iald$eL{air H v,v_
BelfaLr. «'a. gsS,n •
Dear. 'vlr. C'leaveltutd: N.fa!,�I1 =0, 19 93
Thi:S follow up letter. is 'so that I may Conn-t my Statement that appr,- , kme milb,n
rardi of wood waste products have been brought onto the Anderman mining site. P.fter
talk-mg to c-they le-ople. and used a calculator to add up the numbers.it Nvoul;l r*nloye Ue
one hundred thousand 1.100,000 j to me hw? d�f�.`l�t�a".nAl).11�5,000i}tgrd3 in
the last fiur Fear-s that N ve lv;.n ils:'J t t,-,thr site. 14--xvvver thcie`nunit c e-re q -_
rna:enAiit-e�i.3e.
The w:9,-that I came up L;ith these numtvrs are:
1 Si_x i_Ci lmd For dax
'. T-vj-enty yard dump trucks yards 120
Five t]a}s per tiveek Yard; 000
4. Four creeks per month var►1s :400
S. T-welve months per rear vard- s 2S,800
6. Four tear period ,,grds 115,200
The onh mason that I bring up is that, if the Dept. of Natural Rc�nurces
were dying there job. aDa n;A findmi z them5el nmy problems. Because the Dept.
of Natura] Reiource9 loci}-a ea;t-way out ot-vie problem. they hive nUmved Andermn"to
brig it all ties w'—o, Waite. tr,_IDepi. {„HegltI RL-. Taloa is Ming i.?&-iI ,%ith a
large problem_tirl?€IF ILeDept ofS.ataral Rc-;,C-,vr4, s rnoniU-4Hix tltc An cmv n ss;c
from time to time, it wk uld haxv only peen a small yTc-t n, or not s pmblem at ail.
F�chard ':�Iedeiro�
cc:Ranch-Loun
N a-e To]•:��s
EXHIBIT 6a
I
I ORDER
2
1} This matter is remanded to County Health to require whatever additional
J
Information from the permit applicant that County Health deems appropriate.
4
5 2) County Health may impose conditions on the issuance of a permit as appropriate
91
g and necessary to comply with the minimum functional standards, its own solid waste ordinance
7 and the Counry-s solid waste management plan.
8 3) County Health further may impose reasonable conditions in light of past solid
9
waste violations by BS & G.
10
1 DONE this �L day of May, 1995.
12 POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS BOARD
13
14 ROBEW V. JE , C� '
15
16 RICILARD C..KELLEY, Me
17
18 A. TUPPER-JR., Member
v
19 P94-274F
20
21
nC
"3
26
FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, EXHIBIT 7
27 CONCLUSIONS OVLA«' AND ORDER
i
Tuesday, September 22, 1998
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Hwy.
Belfair,Wa. 98528 i
ECEIVE �-
Commissioner Cynthia D. Olsen n �17� � ,� ,,f,'A ,
(�
411 North 5`h Street `-w ' ''�
Shelton, Washington 98584 '11mouiv vvuiv i I
Fax# (360)427-8425 %OMMISSIONFRF
Re: Guy Grayson I Belfair Sand and Gravel
Dear Commissioner Olsen,
I am writing this letter regarding activities c. mine site, and
what appears to be favoritism given by Guy Grayson and/or Mason County Department
of Health (M.C.D.H.S.).
On June 19, 1998 and July 28, 1998 I answered a letter from Gu Gra son, that informed
me that woodwaste has been removed from t nc. mine site
(BSG)and was Mr. Grayson opinion or MCDHS opinion, and I quote, that"woodwaste
had been removed from the site,within practical limitations".
I don't appreciate being made a fool of, or being lied to. If Guy Grayson or anyone from
the MCDHS, claims to have visited the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site and did
not see that over 10,000 plus cubic yards of woodwaste stockpiled at the lower level of
the mine site,including several hundred loads that were brought up to the most upper
level and stockpiled or buried, it is because they are either lying to protect the BSG mine
site, or doing some sort of favoritism exchange for whatever. From the time of the
Pollution Control Hearings Board decision, less than 100 cubic yards have left the mine
site.
In the past I have sent documentation to show proof that woodwaste still remains on the
mine site that exceeds the Washington State statute WAC 173.304.462
As I have explained in my previous letters, both Mr. Hoover and myself have
documentation that includes video's, written notes, depositions, and letters that can more
than prove that the quantity of woodwaste exceeds the two thousand cubic yards defined
in WAC 173.304.462 (1)(exhibit 1) and the more than 10,000 cubic yards that require
groundwater monitoring at closure, and complies with WAC 173.304.462 (e) (exhibit 1)
WAC 173.304.490 (1) (exhibit 2), and WAC 173.304.460 (2). (exhibit 3)
I
It is not my responsibility to keep records of how much woodwaste came into and out of
the Anderman Enterprise, Inc.(Anderman) and Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site,
however, records have been keep as far back as 1985, and were keep both by myself and
Mr. Allan Hoover. Records were keep when Anderman Enterprises, Inc. began it's
corporation, to the time Anderman Enterprises, Inc. was terminated on Jalwary 22, 1991.
Records continued right on to Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. when it was formed on July
of 1993, and to the most part continue to this day.
All the woodwaste was purchased by Anderman , from Northwest Forest Fiber Products,
located in Tacoma , Washington. Proof of purchase is based on Walter Goit's deposition
taken by Dean Moburg&Associates(206)622-3110. On page 33,(exhibit 4), and I
quote, " He said,(Mr Proud owner of Northwest Forest Fiber Products) while you're
working on the gravel pit, why don't you take this bark. It was at two bucks a yard,
by the way, that was the price he was considering."
It is the responsibility of Anderman Enterprises,Inc. and or Belfair Sand and Gravel,Inc.
to keep records. It is required under statute WAC 173.304.405 (3)(exhibit 5)that each
owner or operator maintain daily operating records on the weights(or volumes) ,
number of vehicles entering and , if available, the types of waste received.
It is also required under statute WAC 173.304.405 (4)(exhibit 6)that each owner or
operator shall prepare and submit a copy of an annual report to the jurisdictional health
department and the department by March 1 of each year. The annual report shall cover
facility activities during the previous year and must include the following information:
(a) name and address of the facility
(b) Calendar year covered by the report
(c) Annual quantity, in tons,or volume, in cubic yards, and estimated in-place density in
pounds per cubic yard of solid waste handled,by type of solid waste if available, for
each type of treatment, storage, or disposal facility, including applicable recycling
facilities;
On March 20, 1993, I wrote a letter to the Department of Natural Resources, to Mr.
Cleaveland which was a follow up letter. In this letter i explained what I observed as far
as woodwaste coming onto the Anderman mine site. (exhibit 6a) Addition to this letter
both Mr Hoover and I have several hundred photo's, and daily notes which total the
number of woodwaste loads that entered the mine site, and how many loads left the mine
site from the time woodwaste was brought to the site in 1989, to date.
As you are or should be aware of in May 19, 1995 the Pollution Control Hearings Board
("Board")heard a matter between Belfair Sand and Gravel, and Jeffrey Hartman vs.
Mason County Department of Health Services.
The Pollution Control Hearings Board ruled in favor of Mason County Department of
Health, from these conclusions of law, the Board ruled as follows: (exhibit 7)
I
l) This matter is remanded to County Health to require whatever additional information
from the permit applicant the 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 the County's solid waste management plan
3) County Health further may impose reasonable conditions in light of past solid waste
violations by Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc.
Item 1,requires Mason County to whatever additional information from permit applicant
that County deems appropriate.
It would seem appropriate for Mason County to require records of incoming and
outgoing truck loads of woodwaste to be submitted by Anderman and BSG. In Walter
Goit deposition, it states,they paid$2.00 per yard. As required by law, sales and
purchases are to keep for tax purposes.
Item 2, contains an important point, which is" comply with the minimum functional
standards, its own solid waste ordinance and the County's solid waste management
plan. To this day that has never been achieved.
Item 3,Mason County has failed to impose any conditions in light of past solid waste
violations,both by Anderman or BSG.
Leachate: Mason County Department of Health has allowed a 10,000 gallon storage
tank to be installed knowing that no permit was applied for before installation, and a
permit was granted after the fact. No inspection of the tank was performed for leeks,
rust,or any type of corrosion. This tank was taken from a service station and most likely
was contaminated.
To make matters worse, Mason County Dept. of Health is allowing BSG to empty the
leachate into the lower settling pond. (that overflows in the winter) Allows the leachate
that is pumped into the lower settling pond to be pumped up to the upper pond that BSG
diverts onto my property. If favoritism doesn't apply here, what is the purpose of the
leachate storage tank????????
As I have explained many times in previous letters to Mason County Dept. of Health,
Regulations require under statute WAC 173.304.462 (2) (i) (exhibit 1) "Have a leachate
collection and treatment system".
As there are many more issues concerning woodwaste violations, the fact of the matter is
that removal of all woodwaste at this time is appropriate. Anderman or BSG, have never
complied with regulations and the removal of all woodwaste must be enforced.
The following is concerning a phone conversation with Mr. Bordon. I was told by Allan
Hoover,that BSG,has applied for a new reclamation plan. This plan was sent to Allan
Bordon for review. On September 17, 1998, I contacted Mr. Bordon and was informed
by him that a new reclamation plan has been submitted.
I informed Mr. Bordon that a public hearing and public comment must be allowed before
any reclamation or operation plan is excepted.
I call the Department of Natural Resources to find out why the reclamation plan was
transferred to Community Development,the reply I received was that with the new
statute introduced in 1993, it is required that Mason County sign-off on the new plan
before it can be approved.
There are several issues that must be addressed in the reclamation plan, operation plan,
and environmental impact statement, and they are as follows.
I. Trespass: Hundreds upon hundreds of yards of material have and continue to
trespass onto my property. I have made numerous amounts of complaints, without
any enforcement. My property continues to be damaged by Bel fair Sand and Gravel..
2. Diverted drainage: Belfair Sand and Gravel, diverts drainage onto my property
which has and is flooding the front and rear areas of my property. Because of the
diverted drainage over six(6)out of eight(8)acres are flooded during the winter
months and some of the summer months, depending on when BSG diverts there
drainage onto my property. If any questions on the above statements need
verifying I would be pleased to show you hundreds of photo's and several video's
containing diverted run-off.
3. Contamination: As you know, or should know, the front section of my property
through flooding from the Anderman and BSG, has contaminated my property, as per
record at Mason County Dept. of Health. (This is a record on file at Mason County
Department of Health,or I can supply a copy if needed).
4. Culverts: Directed onto my property without an easement, or authority. This
violates my Washington State Constitutional rights, Article One, Section Sixteen.
5. Setbacks: Setbacks do not meet required statute RCW 78.44.
6. Area of Operations: Mining is to be done in phases,reclaiming after each phase.
BSG, has disturbed over 26 acres and is not reclaiming as required.
7. Reclamation Plan: The reclamation plan BSG is now working under has never
been approved and has been in violation for over 10 years. Complaints have been
made without any enforcement.
I
8. Solid Waste: Anderman and BSG, have been allowed to bring onto its site for
disposal solid waste such as concrete,tires, asphalt, construction debris,bunkers from
Jackson Park Superfund Site, fill dirt, all without apply or obtaining a permit as
required by law.
To allow Belfair Sand and Gravel a new reclamation and operation plan,without
correcting the above would not only be wrong, it would look pretty suspicious on the part
of Mason County. Continuous violations can not continue without enforcement and
severe consequence, until complete compliance is achieved.
I have continued to report violations and have exhausted all of the administrative process
with no enforcement of any kind. The only thing remaining,is to file a law suit.
This letter requires a response. This response should be within the next ten working days
from the day following this letter dated Tuesday, September 22, 1998
erel ,
ichard Medeiros
cc: Randy Loun
cc: Pollution Control Hearings Board
cc: Dept. of Natural Resources (Dave Peirce)
cc: Dept. of Ecology (Scott Morrison)
cc: Dept. of Fisheries(Jim Brennan)
cc: M.C.D.H.S. (Guy Grayson)
cc: Commissioner Bolender Vt District
cc: Commissioner Cady Yd District
I
WAC1997
WAC 173-304-462 Woodwaste landfiiling facility requirements.
(1) Applicability. These requirements apply to facilities that landfill more than two
thousand cubic yards of, woodwaste including facilities that use woodwaste as a component of
fill. Woodwaste is defined in WAC 173-304-100. These standards are not 9pplicable to
woodwaste landfills on forest lands regulated under the Forest Practices Act, chapter 76.09
RCW.
(2) Minimum functional standards,
(a) Woodwaste landfills are not subject to WAC 173-3104-130 standards, Locational
standards for disposal sites, except for WAC 173-3D4-130 (2)(e) surface water locational
standards and WAC 1733- p4_-_1a0 (2)(b)(iii) down gradient drinking water supply wells.
Woodwastes may be used as a component of fill within a shoreline and associated wetlands only
if a demonstrated and proven technology to prevent ground and surface water contamination is
used.
(b) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall maintain a record of the weights or
volumes of waste disposed of at each facility,
(e) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall not accept any other wastes except
woodwaste.
(d) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall prevent run-on from a maximum
twenty-five year storm,
(e) All wood waste landfills having a capacity of greater than ten thousand cubic yards
at closure shall either:
(i) Have a ground water monitoring system that complies with WAC 1.73-304-490 and the
woodwaste landfill meet the performance standards of WAC 173-3n4-460(2), or
(ii) Have a ieachate collection and treatment. system.
(f) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall not deposit woodwaste in lifts to a
height of more than ten feet per lift with at least one foot of cover material between lifts
to avoid hot spots and fires in the summer and to avoid excessive build-up of leachate in the
winter, and shall compact woodwaste as necessary to prevent voids.
(g) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall prevent unauthorized disposal during
off-hours by controlling entry (i.e., lockable gate or barrier), when the facility is not
being used.
(h) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall close the facility by leveling and
compacting the wastes and applying a compacted soil cover of at least two feet thickness.
(i) -owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall obtain a permit as set forth in WAC
173-3114-6Dn from,the jurisdictional health department,
[Statututy Authority: Chapter 43.21A RCW. 85-22-013 (Oidet 8S-18), § 173-304-462. filed 10/28/85.1
WAC 173-3104-163 Problem waste landfills. (Reserved)
['Statutury Authority: Chapter 43.21A RCV4. 85-22-013 (Order 85-18), 5 173-304-463, filed 10/28/85.1
F.XATRTT 1
I
4WAC1997
WAC 173-304-490 13round water monitoring requirements.
(1) Applicability. These requirements apply to owners and operators of landfills, piles,
la.ndspreading disposal facilities, and surface impoundments that are required to perform
ground water monitoring under WAC 173-304-400.
(2) Oround water monitoring requirements.
(a) The ground water monitoring system must consist of at least one background or
upgra.dient well and three down gradient wells. installed at appropriate locations and depths
to yield ground water samples from the upper most aquifer and all hydraulically connected
aquifers below the active portion of the facility.
(i) Represent the quality of background water that has not boon affected by leakage from
the active area; and
(ii) Represent the quality of ground water passing the point of compliance. Additional
wells may be required by the jurisdictional health department in complicated hydrogeological
settings or to define the extent of contamination detected.
(b) All monitoring walls must be cased in a manner that maintains the integrity of the
monitoring well bore hole. This casing must allow collection of representative ground water
samples. Wells must be constructed in such a manner as to prevent contamination of the
samples, the sampled strata, and between aquifers and water bearing strata and in accordance
with chapter 173-160 WAC, Minimum standards for construction and maintenance of water wells.
(c) The ground water monitoring program must include at a minimum, procedures and
techniques for:
(i) Decontamination of drilling and sampling equipment;
(ii) Sample collection;
(iii) Sample preservation and shipment;
(iv) analytical procedures and quality assurance;
(v) Chain of custody control; and
(vi) Procedures to ensure employee health and safety during well installation and
monitoring.
(d) Sample constituents.
(i) All facilities shall test for the following parameters:
(A) Temperature;
(R) Conductivity;
(C) PH,
(D) Chloride;
(E) Nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia as nitrogen;
EXHIBIT 2
I
WAC1997
WAC 173-304-460 Landfiliing standards.
(1) Applicability. These standards apply to facilities that dispose of solid waste in
landfills except for:
1
(a) Inert wastes and demolition wastes landfills, that must meet WAC 173-304461
standards; and
(b) Woodwaste landfills that must meet WAC 173-304-462 standards.
(2) Minimum functional standards for performance.
(a) Ground water. An owner or operator of a landfill shall not contaminate the ground
water underlying the landfill, beyond the point of compliance. Contamination and point of
compliance are defined in WAC 173-304-100.
(b) Air quality and toxic air emissions.
(i) An owner or operator of a landfill shall not allow explosive gases generated by the
facility whose concentration exceeds:
(A) Twenty-five percent of the lower explosive limit for the gases in facility structures
(excluding gas control or recovery system components);
(B) The lower explosive limit for the gases at the property boundary or beyond; and
(C) One hundred parts per million by volume of hydrocarbons (expressed as methane) in
off-site structures.
(ii) An owner or operator of a landfill shall not cause a violation of any ambient air
quality standard at the property boundary or emission standard from any emission. of landfill
gases, combustion or any other emission associated with a landfill.
(c) Surface waters. An owner or operator of a landfill shall not cause a violation of
any receiving water quality standard or violate chapter 40.48 RCW from discharges of surface
run-off, leachate or any other liquid associated with a landfill.
(3) Minimum functional standards for design.
(a) Minimizing liquids. All owners or operators of landfills shall minimize liquids
admitted to active areas of landfills by:
(i) Covering according to WAC 173-304-450 (4)(d);
(ii) Prohibiting the disposal of noncontaineri2ed liquids or sludges containing free
liquids in landfills unless approved by the jurisdictional health department;
(iii) Designing the landfill to prevent all the run-on of surface waters and other
liquids resulting from a maximum flow of a twenty-five year storm into the active ar4a of the
landfill;
(iv) Designing the landfill to collfAct the run-off of surface waters 8�4 other liquids
resulting fro* a �vygpty-four hour, t"4 y-f}vl year storm From the active gr�ja qnd the closed
pa:r"� ons of a lan,if I;
(b) Leachate W€joms. All owners oT, grra�vrs o�' laid€ills shall{
i I
EXHIBIT 3
I
} i
'r
^s 1D I V E D
JEFFREY A. HARTMAN SEP 14 1998
A Professional Law Corporation
MASON CO.P1, W0 tEPT.
Telephone (949) 644-2002 4 Corporate Plaza, Suite 215
Fax (949) 721-8316 Newport Beach, CA 92660
September 8, 1998
ALLEN GORDON
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
P.O. Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: BELFAIR SAND & GRAVEL WOODWASTE RECYCLING PERMIT
Dear Mr. Gordon,
This letter is to confirm our prior conversations concerning the application for
Woodwaste Recycling Permit and our most recent conversation concerning the import of
materials from North Shore Road in Belfair and replacement of the material with pit run
from our site.
On June 28, 1998, my engineer submitted to you the information we felt necessary
to complete the application for the Woodwaste Recycling Permit. I have discussed this
matter with you on two separate occasions, requesting that the matter be submitted to the
appropriate departments for review, to complete the process. I advised you that I would be
out of the country until October 1st, at which time I would contact you in order to keep the
process moving forward.
In our most recent conversation, I advised you that we intended to bid on an import
job. I had agreed with Dan Watts that I would inform him in advance of any job which
included importing materials onto the site. This is due to the numerous complaints that we
have received from our neighbors. It makes your job easier, being able to respond to
complaints from the neighbors if you know what is planned, as opposed to hearing it first
hand from the neighbors. It seems that most complaints are tainted and blown way out of
proportion as to the type of material or its source. This is just an effort to make our lives
easier by communicating what importing is going on, so that the county is knowledgeable
and can respond to the neighbors complaints when they call.
I thank you again for your continued cooperation on this project.
Very Truly Yours,
JJ IyAy. r man
cc: Robert D. Gates
A.D.A. Engineering
JAH:kla
HUG-11-1998 14:20 FPON TO 12535974410 P.92
MEMORANDUM: SITE REVIEW OF BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL PROPOSAL
July 24, 1998
TO: Dave Pierce, DNR Surface Mining Field Inspector
FROM: Todd Bohle, DNR Natural Resource Scientist
RE: Report on field investigation of Belfair Sand and
Gravel tree removal .
IN ATTENDANCE: Dave Pierce and Todd Bohle
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Field review of hillslopes above a type 3/4 water. This area
was reviewed to evaluate whether proposed tree removal would -
contribute to •instability of steep stream-adjacent slopes or
significantly jeopardize in-stream processes, particularly those
associated with natural inputs of large woody debris .
.The proposal calls for the establishment of a 65 foot RMZ and the
PvPntual removal of all material above the elevation at this
point . In many places this proposal will result in a lowering of
the adjacent hillslope by 50 to 100 vertical feet .
The primary objective of this report is to provide guidance for
conditioning this proposal in order to reduce the likelihood of
material damage to dnwrsr_ream fish habitat and public works .
LOCATION:
Section 17 of T23R1W, Mason Co>>nty
Between 200 and 320 feet in elevation draining into the Union
River basin within the Upper Hood Canal .
FIELD WORK:
A site visit was conducted on July 24, 1998 . The east slopes
above this type 3 or 4 stream were inspected for evidence of past
instability, the likelihood of delivery of landslide material to
the channel , and attributes indicating slope instability such as
the presence of accpc and confining/impermeable strata, the shape
and slope of the hillside . Observations regarding the current
role of woody debris in channel-forming processes were also made
in order to assess the significance of potential reductions in
wood supply to the maintenance of these processes .
FACTS & OBSERVATIONS
GEOLOGY:
The surficial sediments most strongly affecting current landscape
processe5 today arm the product of Fraser Glaciation (15, 000-
13 , 500 years ago) . The slopes proposed for harvest and
excavation appear to be underlain largely by unconsolidated
recessiuiial vuLwash sands and gra,elz _ Consolidated till and
impervious lacustrire clays were not observed anywhere on this
slope though they are commonly found associated with these
materials .
1
RUG-11-1998 14:21 FP.Or1 TO 12535974410 P.9;;
GEOMORPHOLOCY:
The stream on the western edge of the property is tightly
confined by steep wails of unconsolidated sands and gravels .
Channel gradient ranges from 4 to 8t and channel morphology was
dominated by wood-formed steps (typically created by >12 inch
diameter wood) . Wood is also important in promoting sediment
storage and protecting unconsolidated stream banks from scour
during high flows . As this stream has slowly eroded the toes of
these unconsolidated valley wall sediments (since recession of
Lhe glaciers) , over steepened elopes have. pariodically failed to
angles less than the angle of repose (350 or 705.-) (Ritter 1986) .
Given that the stream is tightly confined and immediately below
steep ddjacent valley walls, it is assumed (with high confidence)
that future shallow rapid failures will deliver material to
downstream fish-bearing waters .
Current constraints on rate of channel incision into these
sediments appear to be associated with a culvert near (or below)
the downstream eria cf Lhte unit (not obs`i-ved) and the presence of
large conifers which are forming steps and acting as local grade
controls .
Given the highly unconsolidated nature of these hillslope
materials, slopes exceeding 609.-' represent potentially unstable
areas (WUNR 1995) which have a high likelilluud of dtelively .
While the northern half of the proposed area had slopes generally
less than 601, the southern half of the unit contained slopes in
excess of 8Us and therefore have a sensitivity to reductions in
root strength.
,FINDINGS - IiVTERPREI'A'QUN Qk' UHSEKVA .L0NS w/r/t YUKES'1' exAciaC ES
One shallow-rapid landslide was observed which initiated on a
relatively dry, planar slope exceeding 800 . As this slope was
harvested approximately 60 years ago and no relict stumps or
trees older than approx. 30 years were observed on the slide
body, this relatively recent slide could have been triggered by
past harvest (reductions in root strength) . It also appears as
though most of the landslide debris was transported to the
channel . On slopes less than 600, however, the presence of
numerous in situ cut stumps supports the conclusion that these
are rEiativelii stable even following significant reductions In
root strength (from tree removal) .
Reductions in large woody debris within these streams would
potentially result in localized incision and subsequent increases
in stream-adjacent landslides . In addition, tree removal on all
601.- or greater slopes have the potential to trigger shallow rapid
failures.
No confining layers and no evidence of past surface flow were
observed within the generally planar hillslope, suggesting highly
permeable soils capable of conveying precipitation associated
2
AUG-11-1998 14:21 FROM TO 1255974410 P.04
with even large storm evPnrs subsurface. In one instance where
water was concentrated above the break in slope, however, a
significant gully formed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations, if followed, will 'help protect
downstream fish habitat and pv10 i r. works:
1) The 65 foot no cut buffer, while reducing the amount of wood
potentially recruited to the channel, will help maintain a
relatively natural wood recrui.tmenC rPgi.me necessary to
protect in-channel processes and downstream resources . A 65
foot horizontal distance no cut buffer will ensure
recruitment of approximately 80%- of that which wnnlci hP
potentially recruited from a mature (80 year old) conifer
dominated stand (McDade et al . 1990) .
2) Harvest of trees within 65 horizontal feet of the stream
will not significantly decrease slope stability where slopes
are Proposed activities may proceed as planned in
these areas .
3) Tree removal on slopes >60*6 should be timed ouch that the
material within_ a crown diameter of that stem (extended in a
vertical line up and downslope) be removed within 6 months
of Lree Lelliny (see attached sketch) . Excavated slopes
should be no greater than 60o from the point marking the
downslope extent of the harvested trees crown diameter_
This rest iuLivi2 is intended to prevent the occurrence of
landslides which could potentially be triggered by
reductions in root s`.rength. Ideally, harvest and
excavation should uuuul duL iiiy Lhe same suitLner dry period
(prior to the on-set of wet winter conditions) .
4) While soil on this hillside dre very well dzuin&d, du nuL
concentrate water which may collect (during intense winter
storms) from compacted surfaces . which may occur during
mining operations . concentrations of water could
destabilize steeper adjacent slopes or result in the
formation of large rills and the del--very of fine sediment
to downstream tish-bearing waters.
Sketch:
7 Iu`mly 6o f
60
i
3
HUG-11-1998 14:22 FROM TO 12535914410 P.05
REFERENC`F.S:
McDade, M.A. , F.J_ Swan5 on, W.A. Mckee, J.F. Franklin, and J.
VanSi.ckle. 1990 - Source distances for coarse woody debris
entering small streams in western Oregon and Washington. Can. J.
For. Res . , 20 : 326-330 .
Ritter, D.F. , 1986 . Process Geomorphology. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm.
C. Brown Publishers .
WA. Dept of Natural Resources, 1995 . W. Kitsap Watershed
Analysis, Appendix A: Mass Wasting Assessment Report. South
Pugct Sound Region, En>>mrTaw. WA.
4
TOTAL P.05
FOR EST
PRACT I C E BAS E - MAP
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH , RANGE 01 WEST ( W . M ) SECTION 17
APPLICATION #
63 / 80 / i/ 9
\
= 4 / rZz
�
Z /
i
_ � 4
r
1 0
\ 20 0
\ [I] , ®Ekl 95
I /
I
�� 1 I
I \
FR -�
SCALE
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
FEET 1 Mile (5200 n)
MAP DATE. Fdncry 26, 1997
CONTOUR INTERVAL : 40 Feet LEGEND : See Instructions
NAD 27 DISCLAIMER : See Legend
water/wetlands including their location and class may be incorrectly displayed or not shown
on the Base Map. Applicants are responsible for verification and correction.
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
P�oN.srgrFo
o A°u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T = PLANNING -SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES
N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
of 1864 ao SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360)427-9670
December 21, 1998
Richard Medeiros
NE 2481 Old Belfair Hwy.
Belfair, Wa. 98528
Dear Mr. Medeiros:
Recently I forwarded you a letter regarding the concerns you have expressed regarding Belfair
Sand & Gravel. We still have not heard from the Department of Natural Resources but I thought
I would pass the following on to you:
1. It is my understanding that the existing mining operations are exempt from
grading permits(I had Mr. Borden check with the Building Department, who are
responsible for the grading ordinance). However, it is my understanding that the
Department of Ecology should be monitoring surface runoff for water quality
concerns (sediments and other pollutants) and potential impacts around the
operation.
2. It has been my understanding that typically the Department of Natural Resources
attach to the surface reclamation permit the Department of Ecology's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit for the operation of a gravel site. With
the surface reclamation permit, DNR should have the authority to have the
operator resolve the problems occurring on the site. If the stormwater features are
failing, DNR should respond to the complaint of problems caused by the
operation.
Again I think that it is important to understand that Mason County is without an established
gravel mining operations ordinance. We can cooperate with DNR and DOE to bring problems to
the agency's attention and work towards resolving them
If there are any questions,please call me at X270.
Si rely,
ary o
Dire or f DCD
cc: Allan
Cindy
Recycled
L
",Vok*
v
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER
Commissioner of Public Lands
December 15, 1998 DEC 16 1998
MASON CO..PLAWNG DEPT
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, 567 San Nicolas, Suite 308, 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
DEC98180
c: Scott Morrison, Washington Department of Ecology
Allen Borden, Mason County Planning Department
Jeff Hartman, owner
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 i�
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
�pN.STATFO
o A N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
U
i o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
N Y 4 BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
rasa SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
December 15, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Yando, Director
FROM: Allan Borden, Senior Planner
RE: AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS SURFACE AND STORMWATER RUNOFF ON
AND FROM EXISTING GRAVEL OPERATIONS
The Mason County Permit Assistance Center, through the Building Official, implements the
Mason County Grading Ordinance (Ord. 141-96). Tami Griffey stated that existing mining
operations are exempt from grading permits, but Department of Ecology should be
monitoring surface runoff for water quality concerns (sediments and other pollutants) and
potential impacts around the operation.
The Mason County Department of Public Works engineer Alan Tahja stated typically
attached to a Department of Natural Resources surface reclamation permit is the Department
of Ecology National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) for the operation of
the gravel site. With that surface reclamation permit, DNR should have the authority to have
the operator resolve the problems occurring from the site. If the stormwater features are
failing, DNR should respond to the complaint of problems caused by the operation.
Without an established gravel mining operations ordinance, Mason County can cooperate
with DNR and Ecology to bring problems to the agency's attention and work towards
resolving reported problems to adjacent properties caused by the existing gravel operations.
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
PEON S Tq tF O
o A°u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
a N T PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
Y Y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
1864 15, 1998 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
Richard Medeiros
NE 2481 Old Belfair Hwy.
Belfair, Wa. 98528
Dear Mr. Medeiros:
I am taking this opportunity to respond to your letter of December 13, 1998 and hopefully
provide some information that might help.
First I am aware of the letters you have recently directed to Mr. Allan Borden. I have been
working with Mr. Borden to see what our options are regarding the concerns that you have
expressed. No response was forwarded because we were waiting to hear from the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR)regarding the proposed Surface Reclamation Plan revision and who
was going to be the lead agency for the project. We had formally requested that we be the lead
which means we could do the environmental review for the project.
We have recently been informed by DNR that they are forwarding a letter to us designating us as
the lead agency for the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA). We have not received the letter
as of yet. Once we do we will determine our options.
I would also like for you to refer back to my March 19, 1998 letter. As I pointed out there are
several levels of management that occur with sand and gravel operations. We do not have a
surface water ordinance nor do we have a sand and gravel ordinance. We do have a storm water
ordinance and grading ordinance which we have been trying to review and see how they might
apply.
You asked about a public meeting. At this time my department is not scheduling any public
meetings. That does not mean that we would not ask our Board of County Commissioners to
hold one in the future.
I believe that is all I have to report at this time. Like I said I am awaiting information from DNR
before I move forward.
If ere e any questions,please call me at X270.
Si e ely,
G ry it c i of DCD
cc: Comm. lsen
Recycled
December 13, 1998
Richard Mcdeiros
NF,2481 Old Belfair Hwy. -
Belfair,Was. 98528
G a ry Yando
411 N, 5`" Street
Shelton,Wa, 98584
Fax: (360)427-8425
Re: No response to letters written.
Dear Mr,Yando,
It is a shame I have to"to this letter,but I am not getting any response cithi-Ir from the
Commissioners, or Allan Bordon.
Ovul tlic ycars excluding this wcck end, tremendous amounts of erosion and turbid drainage.came
from the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site onto my property.
In nxy letters I evrllainnAl that my riroNrty is so flooded from drainage cOmin�from the mine site
that it is now becoming life threatening. This must come to a stop. If the mine site can't or won't
comply, it is within Mason Counties jurisdiction to enforce the laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to surface mining and force;compliance. If that is not possible, then all that remains is
litigation. I hope we don't have to come to that.
Instead of detailing all the regulations:and how they are not being complied with, I would like to
invite you to my property. I don't mean this to be contemptuous, but if you bring yourpersonal
automobile and have to drive throughithc flooding in order to get in and out of my property and
turbid water enters your automobile, than you will understand the seriousness of the problem.
When l(mving my property, if you don't stall in the mean time, you have no brakes.
Also, not to get into details,I informed Mr. Bordon of the importance of a pitblic meeting. I would
like a response on the progress of having that public meeting.
I wait for your reply or visit_
el ,
Richard Medciros
cc: Dave Peirce DNR
cc: Scott Morrison DOE
cc: Commissioner Olsen
cc: Randy Loun
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
�oN.STAr
o A Ou N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
r o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
z� N y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH
Y ST. • P.O. BOX 578
SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
1864
MEMORANDUM
December 14, 1998
To: Gary Burleson, Prosecutor
From: Gary Yando, Director of the Department of Community
Development
RE: Friend Dissolution of Partnership by Superior Court in Mason
Co.
The Mason County Department of Community Development (DCD) is
cordially requesting that the attached documents be reviewed by
your department . It seems that Mr. John Friend, Nancy E. Friend,
Donald E . Friend and Elsie M. Friend had some sort of a
partnership involving a parcel of land. They then went before
Mason County Superior Court to have a dissolution of partnership,
with an amicably agreement for the division of land (See attached
Stipulation # 96 2 00353 4) . The Court went ahead and allowed
the dissolution of partnership, with the attached legal
descriptions for the division of lots to be given to each of the
parties involved. This dissolution was granted on May 31, 1996
and was recorded in Mason County Auditors Office (See attached
documents) . The plat/survey was then recorded today. The
questions for your department are as follows :
1) Are the lots legally created by Superior Court if the
Planning Department, Environmental Health Department, Public
Works Department and other reviewers have not been allowed to
review the plat for State and County Standards?
2) If the lots created by this dissolution do not meet the
standards identified in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan are
the lots buildable?
3) Are the lots buildable if they have not been reviewed for
public health standards: ie: Water System has not been approved,
the soils on each of these lots have not been approved by
Environmental Health for on site septic system?
4) Is the County required to allow permits to be issued for
these parcels with the above listed information?
5) Is the proposed plat to allowed to be created without State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review?
6) Is the proposed plat to allowed without a road plan and
profile and stormwater site plan not being created for it?
. Recycled 41
�6 06,71 )-eb �3
-66,7106-7 (
AA
iAJ/it4 ,ram a w! N-�t�aC �w0" wP /� !"`�c✓ 4'� �'
Bx.`(fµvq fy� n
ad9� f-a Alct
°p�.r� 4111� vie �
1 I
I
December 5, 1998
Richard Met eiros
Nf 2481 014f3elfair Highway
Belfair, Washington 98528
Commissio 'er Olsen ATTN: COMMISSIONER BOLENDER
411 North 5 h Street
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re: Suspicipn of favoritism and or illegal acts.
Dear Commrlissioner Olsen,
i f
In my letter dated September 22, 1998, 1 requested from you a response within ten
working days from the date of the letter. No response was given to that letter.
I can't understand why you would not respond, is it possibly because when someone
in your local;government has possibly done illegal acts? Or perhaps someone has
not done their job??
I
Although yoO may feel It is best to ignore the problem, and maybe it will go away. I
want to assure you, that the people of this county and myself, an,tired of being
misled and tied of watching Mason County turn its head and allow certain
businesses to do what the law does not allow.
Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. is one of those businesses that has been running an
joperation th is damaging adjacent properties, and contaminating the Union River.
It appears Mr. Grayson and or other employees of Mason County Health are trying to
ignore or excuse the fact that woodwaste far exceeds the required limits required by
law on the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. mine site, located at NE2493 Old Belfair
Highway, Belfair , Washington.
Mr. Grayson', contends that the amount of woodwaste that is on the mine site is
below the legal limit. If Mr. Grayson insists that the woodwaste i;" below the legal
limit. If you visit the site or check the records this is totally spurious. He is not
enforcing th ' statute and hearings board order requiring a permit for the amount of
woodwaste eemaining on the Belfair Sand and Gravel mine site.
This letter is to inform you that a letter has been sent to you on September 22, 1998,
requiring a response. Because there was no response. I am allowing you one more
f chance to re'pfy_ In your reply I would expect a answer of the following.
I- How did Mr_ Grayson or others at the County level determine the amount of
woodwaste remaining on the mine site??? i
r
i
i
P. 06
OPY
II 4
I
I
{
2. Where ire the locations of the distribution of the woos waste on the mine site ???
I
f 3. How mu�h per yard did Anderman Enterprises, inc. pay for the woodwaste ???
4. Have re�ords of Anderman Enterprises, Inc. and Belfair Sand and Gravel, inc.
been reviewed to determine the amount of woodwaste that was deposited on the
mine site.
5. Has any ne in the Mason County Health Department verified where the wood-
waste cme from I"
The above Ere just a few questions that can be asked to determine how much
woodwaste femain on the Selfair Sand and Gravel mine site.
I
I
An investigation, pursuant to the woodwaste must be done immediately, Failure to
investigate the woodwaste that exceeds the legal limits still remain on the mine site
will give me no alternative but to persue a civil action naming Mason County.
I
Both Mr_ Ho6ver and myself consider ourselves experts on the woodwaste
1 stockpiled a�the Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc, mine site, we would be happy to
debate and prove that far more woodwaste than the law allows still remains on the
mine site illegally.
i
i
Sincerely,
ichard Medeiros
f
cc: Randy Loun
cc: Dave Peirce (Dept. of Natural Resources)
cc: Scott Morrison (Dept. of Ecology)
cc: Commissior-t4�t Cady
cc: Commiisioner Bolender
cc: Poiluticnt Control Headng%Boatd
I
{
` C
'1
{t t
a
d
I
I
1 � e
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
srgrF°
o A ou DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T z PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
2� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
of 1864 �o SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
March 19, 1998
Richard Medeiros
2481 NE Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, Washington 98528
RE: Concerns of runoff from Belfair Sand and Gravel property
Dear Mr. Medeiros:
Mason County Department of Community Development has received your recent letters,
dated January 27 and March 6, 1998, stating that surface water runoff from the Belfair Sand
and Gravel (BSG) property to the north continues to flow onto your property, and these
flows have caused damage and sediment deposition on much of your property. You have
stated that these flows are due to runoff and ponded water associated with the BSG operation
and that Mason County should take action to stop it.
You are aware that several levels of management occur with sand and gravel operations in
Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources administers these operations
through their surface mining reclamation plan that emphasizes mining as a resource and that
manages the work site towards rehabilitating the areas mined out and controlling water runoff
within the operation. Washington Department of Ecology monitors the water quality of the
waters that flow through and off the mining site. Mason County is involved in investigating
surface runoff problems associated with any development and facilitating a solution between
the parties involved.
This letter is to keep you informed that Mason County is aware of your concerns about the
periodic and repeated flows off of the BSG operation. Several of the county departments are
working towards a strategy to address the operations and the water runoff of Belfair Sand
and Gravel and its effects on the surrounding area. Mason County will keep you informed
as this strategy progresses. If you have any questions, you may contact me in Department of
Community Development at (360) 275-4467 extension 365.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden, Senior Planner
cc: Gary Yando, DCD Director; C. Olsen, Commissioner; J. Bolender, Commissioner
Recycled
C Phone:(360)427-9670 Ext.450 Jerry W.Hauth,PE,PLS
MFax:(360)427-6425 Director
A O
Z(
S V DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ON COURTHOUSE BLDG 1, 411 NORTH 5TH STREET
TP.O.BOX 1850 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584
N Y
January 22, 1998
Richard Medeiros
2481 Old Belfair Highway, NE
Belfair, WA 98528
Re: Old Belfair Highway Drainage Improvements
Dear Sir,
You have written two letters to the County recently, and requested a response to the several
concerns you raised in those two letters. Please accept the following explanations and reasoning.
The major concern you have expressed is that you feel the County is delivering new volumes and
quantities of stormwater runoff to your property from the John Byerly property division (short
plat) and from the Belfair Sand and Gravel Mining operations.
The County, when granting access permits for subdivision roads and driveways, typically requires
that culverts be installed to avoid creating water dams in the roadside ditches. You convey a
sense of concern for the Public's safety in your first letter dated January 8, and typically, this is
one of the County's highest priorities. It seems apparent that there was a need for such a culvert
installation at the Byerly short plat road, and one should have been installed for the Gravel pit as
well, at the time the access was developed. As you are aware of, the County installed an access
culvert to accommodate runoff past your driveway as well as Belfair Sand and Gravel's entrance
on Wednesday January 21, of this year. This installation was deemed necessary to stop the
damming of water in the County's roadside ditch, with it overflowing onto and across the road to
the river side of the Old Belfair Highway. Water running over the roadway as it existed creates a
hazard to the driving public, particularly when it freezes.
All indications are that the low area on your side of the Old Belfair Highway has been the
receiving area for stormwater runoff for a very long time. Neither the County or the State installs
culvert crossings where there is no need. The presence of the culvert beneath the Old Belfair
Highway that helps drain the wetland area on your property indicates that more water has
historically been delivered to this low spot than could be infiltrated into the ground. Prior to the
development of your property, and the properties lying up the hill from you, the low lying areas
File:HAWPORAINAGE\MDEROS.LTR
within the floodplain of the Union River were typically wet with a water table only slightly below
the ground's surface. Prior to the harvesting of the timber on your property and the neighboring
properties, water runoff would have been more by interflow(flow beneath the ground's surface)
than by surface flow. Though surface flow and interflow appear very different, they both provide
for the conveyance of stormwater runoff, and in the area surrounding your property, it seems
apparent that whether it arrives on the surface, or below the ground's surface, it all makes its way
to the low area on your property.
The County attempts to avoid or minimize to an acceptable level impacts associated with property
development, and timber removal and conversion to other land uses. Typically nothing short of
denying property development and timber removal in first place can completely alleviate growth
impacts. I'm sure you would agree that it would not be fair to deny someone else the same
treatment you would expect for yourself. The pipe presently existing beneath the Old Belfair
Highway between your property and the Littlefield property, and the easement through the
Littlefield property, was meant to be for the benefit of the entire area that drained through that
area and that pipe.
You have been a resident of this neighborhood for a good long time, and are all too familiar with
the cumulative impact of continuing growth and gradual development. The County too
recognizes these issues and tries to maintain a reasonable balance between land rights and
regulation. To help address the existing problems, and anticipated problems that may be expected
from the continuing growth in your neighborhood, the Public Works Department is presently
investigating and pursuing additional remedies to these problems. Mr. Allan Hoover has been
contacted, and seems amiable to a new drainage being developed along his southerly property
boundary. This drainage would conceivably intercept much of the water presently being delivered
to the newly installed access culvert. A second solution to the neighborhood drainage problems is
being investigated which involves improving the conveyance capacity of the drainage through the
Littlefield easement by way of installing a smooth walled pipe, and increasing the pipe gradient by
lowering its delivery point at the Union River.
We hope this response satisfies your concerns, and that you appreciate our desire to help
everyone involved. Please feel free to contact me at County extension 461, or write me at the
County if you feel we have overlooked anything, or are not giving adequate attention to your
problems.
Sincerely,
ALAN A. TAHJA, PE
Mason County Hydraulic Engineer
cc: Jerry Hauth, Public Works Director
County Commissioners
John Flynn, P/W Maintenance Supervisor
Karl Demeree, P/W Maintenance Foreman
He:HAWP0RAINAGE%MER0S.LTR
December 5, 1998
Richard'Medeiros
N62481 Uld BEIIAir Highway
Bolfair, Washington 98528
Mason County Dept, of Community Development
Courthouse Building TIT
426 W_ Cedar
Post Office Boy. 578
Shelton, Washington.98584
Re: Contaminated drainage ooming from Beifair Sand and Gravel mine site.
Dear Allan Bordon
This letter is a formal complaint,; At 7:05pm today, drainage corning from what is
listed in the revised reclamation plan as a 10,000 gallon septic tarok is overflrnrving
onto my property and causing continuous damage.
This same 10,000 gallon tank, has been listed as a leachate containment tank in the
past, and is now listed as a septic tank.
Whatever the mine site or Mason County want to call this tank, it is overflowing and
emptying onto my property and continues to flood my property.
This mu5l stop_ Enforcement a6d compliance must be executed in a swift manner,
in ly,
Richard Medeiros
cc: U.O.E. Scott Morrison
cc: D.N.R. Dave Peirce
cc: Commissioner Olsen
cc: Commissioner Cady
cc: Commissioner Bolender
cc: Randy Loun Attorney
i
z:�
NOV 25 198 21:19 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 91e6 P.1
November 24, 1998
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair Washington 98528
Fax # (360)27.5-9186
Allan Bordon
Mason County.Dept. of Community Development
Courthouse Building; III
426 W. Cedar
Post Office Box 578
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re-. Belfair Sand and Gravel Inc. Diverted Drainage/Damage
Dear Mr. Bordon.,
Please consider this letter a formal complaint.
This letter is one of many sent to Mason County Department of Community
Development,with complaints of water damage to my property.
Once again my formal complaint.is for damage caused by Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc.
mining activities by divert drainage that has never been approved.
My driveway is covered with turbid water coming from an illegal culvert on the mine site
property. This culvert, as explained in previous lu-ttuts, is depositing thousands of gallons
of•turbid drainage onto my property.
This culvert is flooding my driveway,making recess ditfiicult in or out of my property.
On occasions impassable_ On occasions vehicles had to be towed out of the pond that
has been created on my driveway,because of the amount of diverted drainage has caused
erosion and flooding to a depth that is over the bottom of the car doors_ ( 24")
Please understand the seriousness of this situation., as there must be access to emergency
vehicles if such a need occurs as had been in the past_ If you are not aware, you should
be, that there are four people on my property,that are ill, and could require emergency
treatment at any given time. To continue to allow the divert drainage can or will be life
threatening.
This culvert is also flooding my block house, whcru at this time contains over 400 pounds
of teat,and other valuables. The amount of turbid water from the mine site in toy block
house at the tirne of wnting this letter(7:10pm) is about 1.5 feet, making it dangerous to
go into the block house.for focal.
NOV 25 198 21:20 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 F.2
To add to this letter,the rear of my property is also being;damage by erosion coming
from the mid-level Pond, being with it several thousand gallons of turbid drainage, and
hundreds upon hundreds of yards of material acid,debris_ This also has become life
threatening and dangerous.
Mason County has the jurisdiction to regulate issues pertaining to enforcement to this
illegal drainage that is being diverted onto my property and causing me considerable
amounts of damage and bringing this activity to a stop_
Please advise,what your intentions are of enforcement of the diverted drainage coming
from the mine site.
in"
Richard Medeiros
cc: D.N.R. Dave Peirce
cc: D.U.E_ Scott Morrison
cc: County Commissioner Olsen
cc. Randy Loun
NOV 25 '98 21:20 RICHRRD MEDEIROS 360 275 9196 P.
November'24, 1998
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair Washington 98529 A.T`i N: COMNMSCONER OLSEN
Fax# (360)275-9186
Allan Bordon
Mason County Dept. of Community Development
Courthouse Building III
426 W_ Cedar
Post Office Box 578 ' COPY
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re: Belfair Santa and Gravel Inc. Diverted Draina:gc,/Damage
Dear Mr_ Bordon,
Please consider this letter a formal complaint.
This letter is one of many sent to Mason County Department of Community
Development,with complaints of water damage to my property.
Once again my formal complaint is for damage caused by Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc.
mining activities by divert drainage that has never been approved.
My driveway is covered with turbid water coming from an illegal culvert on the mine site
property. This culvert, as explained in previous letters, is depositing thousands of gallons
of turbid drainage onto my property.
This culvert is flooding;my driveway, making access difficult in or out of my property.
On occasions impassable_ On occasions vehicles had to be towed out of the;pond that
has been created on my driveway,because of the amount of diverted drainage has caused
erosion and'flooding to a depth that is over the bottom of the car doors. ( 24")
Please understand the seriousness ofthis situation, as there must be access to emergency
vehicles if such.a need occurs as.had been in the, past. If you are not aware,you should
be,that there are four people on my property,that are ill, and could require emergency
treatment at any given.time. To continue to allow the divert drainage can or will be life
threatening,
This culvert is also flooding my block house, where at this time contains over 400 pounds
of meat, and other valuables. The amount of turbid water from the mine site in my block
house at the time of writing this letter f7:i0pmj is, about 1-5 feet, making it dangerous to
go into-the block house for food.
NOV 25 198 21:21 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P.4
To add to this letter,the rear of my property is also being damage by tyrosion coming
from the avid-level pond, being with it several thousand gallons of turbid drainage, and
hundreds upon hundreds oCyards of material and debris. This also has become life
threatening and dangerous.
Mason County has the jurisdiction to regulate issues pertaining to enforcement to this
illegal drainage that is being diverted onto my property and causing me considerable
amounts of damage and bringing this activity to a stop_
Please advise, what your intentions are of enforcLrnent of the diverted drainage comings
from the mine site.
incerel
l i.chard Medeiros
cc: D.N_R_ Dave Peirce
cc: D.U.E_ Scott Morrison
cc_ County Commissioner Olsen
cc: Randy Lo'un
NOV 13 '98 14: 11 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P. 1
NOVember 13, 1998 C,(DPY
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, Washington 98528
Scott Morrison
Dept. of'Ecology •.
Southwest Regional Office
Post Office Box 47775
Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 '
Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel turbid drainage
Dear Mr. Morrison,
It appeared after your last visit to.my property, Belfair Sand and Gravel, installed plastic
on the south side of the property on the mine site_ I don't know if they were directed to
install the plastic,but it did not wort,
At 12:16pm this afternoon I walked to the back area of my property,and observed a large,
area of the mine site bean that has collapsed and depositing a very large amount of soil
Unto ray property.
Mr. Morrison, my property can't take mush more of this activity. This is not the first
timq for this occurrence and until something.is done to correct all the wrong that has
been done, it is going to continue.
Please help me protect my property from such activities.
ly,
Richard Medeiros
cc: D_N,R. Dave Peirce
cc: Mason County Allan Gordon
cc: .R_andy Lour
NOV 13 '98 12:53 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 91BG P.2
November .13, 1998
Richard Medciras
Dy
NF2481 Old,Bolfair Highway
Bclfair Washington 98528
Fax# (360)275.9196 �`SS
Allan Bordon
Mason County Dcpt. of Community Development
Courthouse Building Ill -- -- - -
426 W. Cedar " Co..
post Office Box 579
Shelton, Washington 98584
Rc: Bolfair Sand and Gravel Diverted Drainage
Dcar Mr, Bordon,
At 10,57am on November 13, 1998, 1 ruade a phone cull, lcaving a message on your voice mail,
complaining about turbid drainage that is and has been diverted onto my property illegally.
The amount of turbid water entering my property from a culvert just inside the main entrance of
the urine site is approximately 50 to .100 gallons per minute.
In the new reclamation plan submitted for approval.it does not show this culvert. This culvert has
been there for marry years illegally.
Another issue that is of importance, is the lC3chate tank(I U,UUU gallon)that is located west of the
uffYco on the site_ This tm*is pumped from time to Wtic into the lower settling pond.
In the reclamation diagram, it shows the 10,000 gallon rank as a septic tank. The question would
be, why is Bclfair Sand and Gravel, lnc. allowed to pump the septic tank into the lower settling
pond'???
This letter is format complaint, and requires enforccmetu.
S
1 Richard Medeiros
cc: D.N.R. rave Peircc
cc: D.O.E. Scott Morrison
cc. Commissioner Olsen
cc: Randy Loun
NOV 24 '98 19:55 RICHARD MEDEIROS 960 275 91% P.2
November 23, 1998
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway AM- .Allan Bordon
Selfair Washington 98528
Fax#i (360)275-9186 ���/O�✓
Allan Bordon
Mason County Dept. of Community Development
Courihouse Building I.1
426 W. Cedar
Post Office Box 578
Shelton, Washington 98594
Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel Inc. Reclamation Plan
near Mr. Bordon,
Please consider this letter as a formal complaint.
At 10.57am on November 22, 1998, Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. was pumping the
10,000 gallon tank into the lower settling pond_ This has been a practice from the day in
was installed on C:ORUCTION. October 1994
As you are aware, or should be aware, numerous attempts are being made to protect our
environment. Continuing to allow Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. to pump the 10,000
gallon septic tank, as described in the new revised reclamation plan diagram, has and will
be detrimental both to adjacent property owners and the Union River,
Weather or not 10,000 gallon tank is used for leachate containment or septic
containment,pumping into the lower settling pond and pumped up to the upper ponds is
not adequate.
As explained in previous letters, all the ponds located art the mine site overflow, bringing
with it drainage and erosion that is;brought onto my property. Hundreds upon hundreds
of yards of material, and thousands upon thousands of gallon of drainage.
When considering what is proper in the revised reclamation plan,please consider the
following:
1. Woodwaste on mine site exceeds minimal requirement of two thousand yards
Tequiring a permit per WAC 173A(A,462 (1 j.
I pollution Control Hearings Board decision, requiring enforcement on ' VAC 173.304
rules,forthe removal of woodwaste.
3. Removal of 10,000 gallon ieachatc or septic tank, used for storage, and disposing info
lower settling pond.
NOV 24 '98 19:06 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P. 1
November 23, 1998
Richard Medeiros
Nl✓'249 i Old Belfair Highway
Belfair Washington 98528
.Fax# (360) 275-9186
Al Ian:Gordon
Mason County Dept. of Community Development
Courthouse Building III
426 W. Cedar
Post Office Box 578
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel Inc. Reclamation Plan
Bear Mr, Bordon,
Please consider this letter as a formal complaint.
At 10:57am on November 22, 1998, Belfair Sand and Gravel,Inc. was pumping the
10,000 gallon tank into the lower settling pond, This has been a practice from the day in
was installed on.tune of 1996.
As you are aware, or should be aware, numerous attempts are being made to protect our
environment. Continuing to allow Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. to pump the 10,000
gallon septic tank, as described in the new revised reclamation plan diagram, has and will
be detrimental both to adjacent property owners and the Union River,
Weather or not 10,000 gallon tank is used for leaehate containment or septic
containment, pumping;into the lower settling pond and pumped up to the upper ponds is
not adequate.
As explained in previous letters, all the ponds located on the mine site overflow, bringing
with it drainage and erosion that is brought onto my property. Hundreds upon hundreds
of material, and thousands upon thousands of gallon of drainage,
When considering what is proper in the revised reclamation plan, please consider the
following:
1_ Woodwaste on mine site exceeds minimal requirement of two thousand yards
requiring;a permit per WAC 173.404.462 (1),
2. Pollution Control Hearings Board decision, requiring enforcement on WAC 173.304
rules, for the removal of woodwaste_
3_ Removal of 10,000 gallon leachate or septic tank, used for storage, and disposing into
lower settling pond_
NOV 24 'ge 19:06 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 F.
4. Ground water monitoring;requirements Per 4tdtute WAC 173,304,400 (2)
The above only addresses the woodwaste issues. othc-r issues will be addressed at a later
time and or have already been address without any response,
Sineerel ,
`�lichard Medeiros
ce: DNA. Dave Peirce
cc: D.O.E. Scott Morrison
cc: Commissioner Olsen
cc: Randy Loun
OCT 02 19e 10:57 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P. 1
October 2, 1998
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair Washington 98528
Fax 4 (364)275-9186
Allan Bordon
Mason County Dept. of Community Development
Courthouse Building III
426 W_ Cedar
Post Office Box 578
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re: Belfair Sand and Gravel Reclamation Plan
Dear Mr. Bordon,
This letter is to inform you that continues complaints have been address to you
concerning diverted drainage coming from the Belfair Sand and Gravel, mine site.
The particular diverted drainage is a culvert Iocated to the left of the entrance gate of the
mine site. This culvert has been there for some tirtic now and complaints have been
many to you and others.
As you are aware of, from the many complaints; that turgid drainage coming from the
illegal culvert has and continues to pollute the'Union River, and is flooding the front
section of my property, causing excessive amounts ol,damage_
As you know, or should,know,diverting drainage onto my property is a violation of my
constitutional right, under article one, section 16. No one has ever approved the diverting
of drainage onto my property, and can not be approved now.
The other issue is respassing. Tlundreds upon hundred of dirt material, concrete, has
been deposited onto my property by Belfair Sand and Gravel, without an easement or
permission from rite, or anyone else_ This still continues and complaints have been made
without anyone enforcing that violation.
This letter is to put you on notice_ The above issues on diverted drainage coming from
the culvert mentioned, the trespassing issue must be corrected before any approval of the
reclamation plan is allowed. If you or Mason County approve the reclamation plan
without putting Belfair Sand and Gravel in complete compliance, then the responsibly
will be yours and Mason Counties
OCT 02 '9B 10:5e RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 91BG P.2
Other issues are also involved such as diverted drainage in the rear section of my
property that is done from time to time, so that the upper pond don't overflow onto the
mine site and is diverted onto my property, flooding the entire rear portion of my
property_ The taking of my property must stop. It is your responsibility to put Belfair
Sand and Gravel into compliance,
��igcerely,
.Richard Medeiros
cc: Randy Lour
cc: Commissioner Olsen
cc: Dept. of Natural Resources
cc: Dept. of Ecology
OCT 26 `98 21:13 RICHARD MEDEIROS 360 275 9186 P.1
Rl ("' H RD MEDEIROS
NE2481 Old Belfar Highway Belfair,Washington 98528
Octobcr. 2G, 1998
Dave Peirce
Department of Natural!resources Aun: Man Borden
South Puget Sound Region
%0 Farman St_ N.
Post Office Box 68co� py
l;xtuxnclaw,Washington 922-006$
Rc- Belfair Sand and Gravel Reelamatioxi Plant
Doar Peirce,
This letter is to inform you that I just ruceiti•ed a copy of Belfair Sand and Gravel's
reclamation plan. 1 had asked Allan liordon of Mason County to send me a copy of the
plan, but to this day he has not. 1 obtained a copy from Allan Hoover, and looked at Al
three copy s.
This Reclamation plan has left out many items. kyvlhat it amounts to is that what is on the
Reclamation Plan diagram,iz�not what,is on the raiiie site.
Because the plan is misleading; and misrcVrescnt;ed, and does not contain all the facts, a
URh ie hearing is essential.
Approval of the reclamation plat at this time•a�:ruld be unfair to all concerned.
Please advise me of your intentions on issuing a reclamation plan to Belfair Sand and
Gravel, hic. Please keep in mired that compliance: rtiu-1S be rnet on all is ues.
Sin ~rely,
Richard Medeiros
cc: Dept. of .Ecology
cc: Mason County Community Development
cc: Randy Loun
Allan J. Hoover �nn 20 October 1998
JJJ
2491 N.E. Old Belfair Hwy `n „.� I
Belfair Wa 98528 1 2 `
,iHJuw vuuiv i �
Re;Department of Natural Resources Mine Perm §§'nNERF
In Mason County Superior Court ,cause#90-2-000-16-1, on or about 11 July 1991, Dave Sims
of the Department of Natural Resources testified that in 1987 Walter Goit proceeded with work
directing the turbid water from the mine operation into the 50 foot buffer area. This area is the 8
acre area listed on page 2 item VIII "The remaining 8 acre parcel on the south side is designated
to remain in its natural condition and not be disturbed by any great extent by the surface mining
activities." and 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." (From Operations and Reclaimation Plan for Old Belfair Highway
Gravel Pit, Service Fuel &Asphalt Paving Co. Inc) Mr. Sims continues to testify that a letter,
admitted as exhibit 26, prepared by Bill Lingley of the Department of Natural Resources required
the restoration of the 50 foot buffer." law is very specific about buffer zone and you cannot have
any operational part in the buffer zone, Lingley told me"
I discovered also that Jeffery A Hartman(Hartman Family Trust) by and through his legal
registered agent, Jon Rosander and Walter Goit ( Letter of 8 July 1986 assigns mine permit 12066
from J. Bennett Pres/ Gen. Mgr. Service Fuel Inc. to Anderman Inc,) (DNR letter dated Sept. 22
1986) agreeing to comply with the existing plan of operation and reclamation in accordance with
RCW 78-44 and WAC 332.18.
RCW 78-44.040 " ADMINISTRATION OF CHAPTER- RULE-MAKING AUTHORITY.
The department of natural resources is charged with the administration of this chapter. In order to
implement the chapter's terms and provisions, the department, under the provisions of the
administrative procedure act (chapter 34.04 RCW), as now or hereafter amended, may from time
to time promulgate those rules and regulations necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
[1984c215 S2; 1970 ex.s c 64 S 5.]
Judge Sawyer, in his decision of 7 July 1992 in cause# 90-2-00016-1 shows that the Department
of Natural Resources is the regulatory agency.
I believe that if the operations were complied with at the start the current violations would not
exist. I therefor again request that surface mine permit 12066 be recended until such time as the
site is brought into compliance with all applicable rules and regulations.
Thank You
Allan J. oover /
RCW ?8: 3 Y►iQlc� lacs�/ �l 'c Ste+_
`I
RECEIVED
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
DEC 1 7 1998 Natural Resources JENNIFER M.BELCHER
__ __ _ 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,
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 LJ
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
�oN_SrgrFo
o A° N
u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
►'- o T i PLANNING -SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES
Zo N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
of 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360)427-9670
October 19, 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.
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
Recycled 49
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). Mason County could petition the Department of Ecology for this
determination on lead agency status, as stated in WAC 197-11-946, or share in that status by
another fair means of determination.
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. 2701.
Sincerely,
Gary Yando, Director
Department of Community Development
cc: file
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
SON.STA
o A N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
U
i S T PLANNING -SOLID WASTE- UTILITIES
Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
of o 864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360)427-9670
1
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. 270].
Sincerely,
• Allan Borden, Senior Planner
cc: file, Hartman, ADA Engineering
Recycledr�l
RECEIVED
L.� 7
SEP 1 1998
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF MASON CO.PLA!",N4NY PST
Natural Resources Comm ER M.BE
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.
ng and
g
je 1
1 juris action o e 4. 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)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER�.�
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,
4-�
David S. Pierce
Surface Mine Field Inspector
DSP/bh
SEP98/59
Enclosure
c: Jeff Hartman, Hartman Family Trust
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
P�oN.srarFo
o A°u N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
r o T i PLANNING -SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES
2� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 51 ST. • P.O.BOX 578
1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360)427-9670
October 19, 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.
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
Recycled F,c
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). Mason County could petition the Department of Ecology for this
determination on lead agency status, as stated in WAC 197-11-946, or share in that status by
another fair means of determination.
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 Yando, Director
Department of Community Development
cc: file
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
yoN.sT,arFo
c A U N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~ o T z PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
N Y BLDG. I • 411 N. 51 ST. • P.O. BOX 578
1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360)427-9670
October 19, 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.
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). Mason County could petition the Department of Ecology for this
determination on lead agency status, as stated in WAC 197-11-946, or share in that status by
another fair means of determination.
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. 2701.
Sincerely,
Gary Yando, Director
Department of Community Development
cc: file
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
�oN.sTA
o aM, N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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
October 16, 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.
Upon further discussion, 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.
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). Mason County could petition the Department of Ecology for this
determination on lead agency status, as stated in WAC 197-11-946, or share in that status by
another fair means of determination.
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 Yando, Director
Department of Community Development
cc: file
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
STATFO
o A° 110
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
u
o T PLANNING -SOLID WASTE -UTILITIES
z� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 51 ST. • P.O. BOX 578
Mesa 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, Senior Planner
cc: file, Hartman, ADA Engineering
Recycled
'i RECEIVED
SEP 17 1998
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF MASON CO.PLA`IMNY PsT
Natural Resources Comm ER M.BE Cu
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)825-6381 1 TEL:(360)825-1631
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER�11
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,
kOa,t,L4 J J)c,e/�
4-�
David S. Pierce
Surface Mine Field Inspector
DSP/bh
SEP98/59
Enclosure
c: Jeff Hartman, Hartman Family Trust
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Solid Waste Planning Utilities
I N T E R
MEMO
O F F I C E
DATE: JANUARY 4, 1998
TO: BRAD BANNER, ALLAN BORDEN, CINDY OLSEN
FROM: GARY YANDO
SUBJECT: BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL
have attached a copy of a letter I just sent to Al Hoover. It contains
information that relates to the Belfair Sand & Grave operation.
As you can see in the letter the Department of Natural Resources have
concurred with us being the State Environmental Policy Act lead agency for
the project. This being the case I offer the following:
Allan Borden is to schedule a meeting with Bob Fink, Pam
Bennett - Cumming and representatives from the Health
Department (if they are interested and I hope they are because
they have some valuable information). The meeting with
among staff is to be held before the 18th of January 1999.
Allan is to organize the meeting which can be held in my office if
necessary.
Allan - you are to contact the above people and let me know when and
where. Keep me posted - thanks
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
STA
P '�
o A o u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
>- o T i PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
2� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
�0 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 * (360) 427-9670
Allan Hoover
2491 Old Belfair Hwy.
Belfair, Wa. 98528
Dear Mr. Hoover:
Recently I talked to you about the Belfair Sand& Gravel operation. You pointed out that this
operation had generated a considerable amount of stormwater that was ending up on your
property and no was would do anything about it including the Department of Natural Resources
and Department of Ecology. You requested that I send you a letter informing you of where we
stand and I informed you that once I heard from the Department of Natural Resources I would do
SO.
I offer the following:
1. The Department of Natural Resources has informed us that based on WAC 197-
11-942 agencies of jurisdiction can come to an agreement•as to which agency will
have State Environmental Act(SEPA) lead agency status. Based on the WAC the
Department of Natural Resources concurs that we be the lead agency for Surface
Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 (Revised Reclamation Plan). I will be
meeting with my staff to review the project and our next step. My staff will also
be scheduling a meeting with the owners of Belfair Sand & Gravel to review the
project(I would also like to point out that it is my understanding that Mr. Walter
Goit(not sure of the spelling) is no longer working for Belfair Sand& Gravel).
2. As I understand it the existing mining operations are exempt from grading permits
per discussions with our Building Department. However, it is also my
understanding that the Department of Ecology should be monitoring surface
runoff for water quality concerns (sediments and other pollutants) and potential
impacts around the operation.
3. As I understand it that the Department of Natural Resources typically attach to the
surface reclamation permit the Department of Ecology's National Pollution
Discharge Elimination Permit for the operation of a gravel site. With the surface
reclamation permit, DNR should have the authority to have the operator resolve
the problems occurring on the site. If the stormwater features are failing, DNR
should respond to the complaint of problems caused by the operation.
Recycled �
I want to make sure that it is clear that Mason County is without an established gravel mining
operations ordinance. We cooperate with the Department of Natural Resources and Department
of Ecology to bring problems to the agency's attention and work towards solving them. It is our
intent to continue to do so. We hope that by having the SEPA responsibility we can work with
the representatives of Belfair Sand & Gravel and they will work with us to eliminate some of the
concerns that have been expressed.
If you have any questions, please call me at X270.
Sincerely,
ly4x-t A
Gary Yando
Director of DCD
cc: Allan Bordon
Cindy Olsen
Brad Banner
January 28, 1998
Parametrix Inc
Attn: Phil Struck
(for John Bishop)
5808 Lake Washington Blvd NE
Kirkland, WA 98033 -7350
RE : SEPA determination no. : SEP97-0173 , draft Scope of Work and
Third Party Agreement.
Dear Mr. Struck:
Mason County Department of Community Development would like to take
this opportunity to thank you and your clients for attending the
recent meeting to discuss the Draft Scope of Work and Agreement for
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) preparation for the McEwan
Prairie Gravel Mine project . We are providing you with our
written comments on these draft documents, and hope the information
which follows will be of assistance to you.
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT (see attached example as noted) .
- The client ' s name should appear in the agreement, for
example: BB&R, hereinafter referred to as "Client. "
- Please add a section which relates to attorney' s fees (see
attached example) .
- Please add wording which clarifies that review fees for
County EIS work are the responsibility of the applicant (in
this case BB&R) , as per rates in the Mason County Department
of Community Development Fee Ordinance no. : 145-96 .
- Mason County will need to review and approve the list of
subcontractors .
- In the signature area, please provide for the signature of
Mike Clift, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney.
SCOPE OF WORK
- As currently written, the Draft Scope of Work addresses
carrying out a specific defined set of activities, which may
or may not completely address environmental impact issues for
this site. The Scope should reference the EIS Preparation
Guidance, and be expanded to more clearly address the issues
raised in the EIS Preparation Guidance, and in the
Determination of Significance and comments for this project.
- Additional Meetings and other work: There should be
provision for the fact that PMX may need to have additional
meetings with Mason County and/or perform additional work, for
the satisfactory completion the environmental work for the
Draft and Final EIS. At present the Scope references a finite
set of activities and meetings which may or may not satisfy
the requirements for the EIS .
- Tasks in general : Again, the written descriptions and
assumptions may not reflect the actual activities necessary to
complete the work for the draft EIS .
- Assumptions for each task: In each case we are unclear as to
the actual purpose of this section, and request clarification.
Are the assumptions intended to define the limit of activity
needed for satisfactory completion of the EIS? If so, they
appear to be too limited, since they address performing a
specific set of activities, rather than on the need to answer
environmental questions raised the Determination of
Significance, comment letters, and EIS Preparation Guidance.
Task 1:
- What is meant by: "This conceptual plan will become the
Alternative to the proposal that was submitted to Mason
County?"
- There needs to be a provision for additional meetings with
DNR if necessary for the reclamation plan completion.
Task 2 :
- The meaning of assumption 2 is unclear. The alternate action
alternative will need to be another actual gravel mine
project, rather than simply the reclamation plan, as well as
a no action alternative (see EIS Guidelines for guidance) .
Task 3 :
- See EIS Preparation Guidance for additional information on
requirements for research and preparation of the EIS : the
document should be included by reference.
- This should be a hydrogeologic report, not an investigation.
- The statement that "no groundwater modeling will be
performed" could limit the scope of activities to less than is
necessary to meet the requirements of the EIS .
- Three months of monitoring for the hydrogeologic report (not
investigation) appears to be too limited.
- How will location and use of the monitoring well be
determined?
- See Chapter 17 .01 . 070 of Mason County Interim Resource
Ordinance for applicable wetland regulations, delineation and
typing requirements .
- Impacts to traffic: see EIS Preparation Guidance for
specific concerns. Again, the scope appears limited,
provision should be made for additional work if necessary for
completion of the EIS (for example, existing traffic counts
may not be available) .
Task 4 :
- In general, the assumptions appear too limiting, if they
represent what will be done to complete the work necessary to
complete the EIS process. A provision should be given for any
additional work necessary (for example additional revisions,
etc) .
- What is meant by "the air quality data will be qualitative? "
does this mean no primary data collection, or that it will be
descriptive, or contain no quantitative information? "
- Mason County would not yet want to limit the number of
copies produced, since this will depend on public interest as
well as needs of other agencies . There should be a provision
that additional copies will be provided to Mason County if
required.
- The public hearing process would occur as part of the Mason
Conditional Environmental Permit process for the gravel mine.
Chapter 17 . 01 . 120 L provides that the public meeting and
hearing (s) will occur after "the last action required to
comply with the requirements of SEPA" . As the consultant
retained by Mason County to develop the EIS, PMX' s presence at
the meetings will be an important part of this process .
- Please clarify the meaning of "minor role . " Also it is
unknown pending the actual EIS process which visual aids may
or may not be needed at public meetings and/or hearings .
Thank you again for taking the opportunity to meet with us earlier
this month to discuss the Draft Scope and Agreement. We hope the
comments provided herein will be helpful in refining the content of
these documents; we look forward to receiving an updated draft for
review. In the meantime, if you have any questions whatsoever,
please feel free to contact me at (360) 427-9670 extension 294 .
Sincerely,
Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CC: Gary Yando, Director, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
John Bishop, BB&R.
MCEWAN PRAIRIE GRAVEL MINE 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
5 . 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)
1
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 . Alternatives .
-As required in WAC 197-11-440 (5)
-The alternatives to be delineated include:
A. The "no action" alternative;
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
2
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 .
6 . 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 .
-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 .
3
-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
recommended to stabilize the site 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
a) Discuss, air quality impacts including
dust/particulate matter.
b) Describe mitigation measures .
c) Include a discussion of all impacts that cannot or
will not be mitigated.
C. Water
1 . Surface Water Movement/Quantity/Quality
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
5
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
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.
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, adjacent site dewatering.
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, tree types , 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 Habitat and Species on site as
defined by the State.
d) Discuss impacts., mitigation measures, and
unavoidable adverse impacts to plants that will result
6
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 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
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 .
II . Built Environment
A. Environmental Health
a) Describe noise impacts caused by the proposal
relating to increased traffic, construction, and
ongoing mining activity during the life of the project .
b) Identify proposed hours of operation both during and
post- construction.
c) Discuss impacts, mitigation measures, and
unavoidable adverse impacts that will result from this
proposal on environmental health.
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 Interim Resource Ordinance
-Growth Management Act
-County-wide Planning Policies
7
-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.
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 .
S . 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
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
8
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 Oaks Road, McEwan Prairie
Road and its adjacent intersections with Brockdale Road
and Mason Lake Road, and Mason Lake Road and State
Highway 3 .
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 .
2 . Water/Stormwater
See: "Water" under Natural Environment,
3 . Other Governmental Services or Utilities
Discuss other governmental services or utilities that
may be affected by the proposal .
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.
9
PART IV - - - STUDIES/ANALYSIS REQUIRED
I . Aquifer/Hydrologic Study
A. Aquifer Study
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.
6 . Additional study as necessary to meet the requirements for
an Environmental Geologic Report as defined in the Critical
Aquifer Recharge Area chapter 17 . 01 . 080 E 1, of Mason
County' s Interim Resource Ordinance.
The aquifer study must be completed by an engineer licensed in
the State of Washington who has a specialty in hydrogeology.
B. Hydrological Analysis
In conjunction with the aquifer study, 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 .
3 . Analysis of impacts on other springs and surface water
regimes in the vicinity (including Rex Lake) , potential for
dewatering of adjacent properties .
5 . Provide appropriate recommendations for stormwater
treatment .
The hydrological analysis must be completed by an engineer
certified in- the State of Washington with a specialty in
hydrology.
10
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 Study
In conjunction with the wildlife/habitat survey, a wetlands study
will be carried out to determine the project 's impacts to the
wetlands 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 the
existing undeveloped landscape, and examination of how
project implementation will affect the wetland resource
function.
The wetlands study must be completed by a qualified wetlands
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 Oaks Road/McEwan
Prairie Road, McEwan Prairie Road/Brockdale Road, and McEwan
Prairie Road/Mason Lake Road, and Mason Lake Road/Highway 3 ,
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 .
11
V. Analysis of Impact on Public Services and Utilities
1 . An analysis of the impact the proposal will have on
applicable public services, (including schools, police, fire
departments, parks, recreation facilities, other applicable
services) .
2 . An analysis of the impact proposal will have on public
utilities including existing water systems and provision of
electrical power, communication services, and solid waste
disposal .
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 McEwan Praire Gravel Mine
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
�r COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF APPROVAL FOR
Natural Resources SURFACE MINING
(Form SM-6) X
NAME OF COMPANY OR INDMDUAL APPLICANT(S) TOTAL ACREAGE OF PERMIT AREA APPLIED FOR
Same as name of reclamation permit holder. (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 acres
Belfair Sand and Gravel Inc.
COUNTY Mason
MAILING ADDRESS
No attachments will be accepted.Legal description of permit area:
Attn: Mr. Jeff Hartman 1/4 1/4 Section Township Range
Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc. NE NE NE 2493 Old Belfair HWY 17 23 1 W
Belfair, WA 98528
Telephone
949 644-2002
Proposed subsequent use of site upon completion of reclamation
Single Family Residential 1DU/5AC or Light Industrial
Signature of company representaeindividual applicants) Name and title of company representative (please print) Date signed
-��- 1l2
JEFFREY A. HARTMAN , Secretary
r
ra HE
ar BY M, tl • iUNW OR NUMCIPAUTY:
Yes No
1. Is the roposed subsequent use consistent with the local land-use designation?
2. Does the applicant have an appropriate permit to conduct surface mining if required by local regulation?
(Please attach a copy of the permit,written order, or ordinance.)
COMMENTS
When complete, return this form to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources regional office.
Name of planning director or administrative official (please print) Address
Signature
Title (please print)
Telephone Date DNft Reclamation Permit No.
County or Municipality Approval(SM-6) Revised 9/99 Copy distribution:White-Olympia.Yellow-Region.Pink.Applicant.Goldenrod-County or Municipality
RECEIVED
MAR 2 b 1998 McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS
MASON CO. PLANNING DEPT.
Scope of Work
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this Scope of Work is to describe the activities and work products associated with
preparation of the technical reports and the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
proposed McEwan Prairie Surface Mine located in Mason County, Washington.
The objective of this Scope of Work is to develop, evaluate and present the information necessary
to describe the affected environment, significant impacts and mitigation measures associated with
the proposal and related project alternatives. The activities described in this Scope of Work are
expected to generate the information that is necessary to meet EIS objectives. Additional work
activities may be required, however, to reduce technical uncertainty, evaluate additional affected
environment features, and/or respond to public and regulatory agency concerns.
This Scope of Work hereby incorporates by reference, the objectives, activities and format
of the McEwan Prairie Surface Mine Proposal Environmental Impact Statement
Preparation Guidance prepared by Mason County shown in Attachment A.
TASK I - DNR Reclamation Plan
Purpose: Develop a reclamation grading plan that meets Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) surface mining regulatory criteria.
Scope: Parametrix (PMX) will coordinate with DNR and Mason County to prepare a
reclamation grading plan for the site that meets DNR surface mining regulations.
The reclamation grading plan will be based on initial feedback provided by DNR
on the Proposal, and will include a minimum of an additional 10-aces of property
along the south property boundary. A draft reclamation grading plan will be
submitted to DNR, and a minimum of one meeting will be held with DNR to
review the concept plan. A final reclamation grading plan will be prepared based
on the results of the meeting with DNR.
Assumptions: 1) The reclamation grading plan will be schematic level, and will consist of
one grading plan sheet, and one cross-section sheet.
2) A minimum of one meeting with DNR will be necessary to acquire DNR
comments on the reclamation plan. Additional meetings will be conducted
as necessary to develop a reclamation grading plan concept that meets
DNR regulations.
McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page I Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
TASK 2 - Project Management
Purpose: To ensure effective management of EIS technical tasks, schedule and budget, and
to coordinate the EIS work effort with Mason County and BB&R.
Scope: The Parametrix (PMX) project manager will regularly contact BB&R and Mason
County to coordinate the work effort and discuss progress. The project manager
will oversee the internal coordination of the PMX staff work, as well as review
and approval of the monthly invoice.
Brief monthly progress reports will be prepared and will accompany each invoice.
The progress report will highlight the work performed during the billing period,
the amount of budget used to date, schedule conflicts (if any), outstanding issues
which need to be resolved, and identification of the need for action and the person
responsible for that action.
Assumptions: 1) There will be a minimum of two formal project meetings that will include
Mason County, BB&R and PMX staff. These will consist of one kick-off
meeting to review scoping comments and the draft Scope of Work, and
one meeting to review the preliminary Draft EIS.
2) Additional meetings will be conducted with BB&R and/or Parametrix as
necessary to provide effective management of the EIS project.
TASK 3 - EIS Description of Alternatives
Purpose: To develop and document the project Proposal, one alternative and the No-Action
Alternative as required by SEPA and the Mason County EIS Preparation
Guidance.
Scope: PMX will identify one alternative to the Proposal for analysis in the EIS in
cooperation with Mason County and the DNR. PMX will prepare textual and
matrix descriptions of the alternative for use in the EIS and public meetings.
PMX will also prepare other required text for Section 1 of the EIS including the
purpose and need, objectives of the proposal, background, significant areas of
controversy or uncertainty, and major conclusions of the EIS.
Assumptions: 1) There will be one action and one no-action alternative considered in
addition to the current proposal.
McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page 2 Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
TASK 4 - Affected Environment and Impact/Mitigation Analysis
Purpose: To gather technical information necessary to characterize existing conditions and
describe the affected environment, impacts and mitigation measures associated
with each alternative in accordance with the Mason County EIS Preparation
Guidance.
Scope: This task consists of review of available data, as well as performance of technical
investigations required to gather additional site specific information to characterize
site conditions, and produce a comparative assessment of the environmental
impacts of the Proposal and each of the alternatives.
The following technical sub-tasks will be performed:
Subtask 4A - Hydrogeologic Report
Objective: Characterize site geology and hydrogeology in sufficient detail to
evaluate potential impacts to the Critical Aquifer Recharge area as
stipulated in the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development
Regulations and the Mason County Interim Resource Ordinance.
Activities: Perform a hydrogeologic investigation of the site consisting
of three soil borings. The shallow borings will extend to
the base of the water table aquifer as defined by the contact
between recessional outwash deposits (loose sand and
gravel) and glacial till. Available information indicates this
contact occurs between 40 and 60 ft below the existing
surface. The three borings will be completed as
piezometers that are screened across the top of the water
table aquifer. Water level measurements will be collected
from each piezometer, and locations at Rex Lake, the on-
site wetland and south of the site to monitor water table
fluctuations in response to precipitation events. Monitoring
will occur at a frequency and duration necessary to
characterize site conditions, potential project impacts, and
possible mitigation measures.
• Install a monitoring well into the confined aquifer expected
to occur below the contact of the glacial till and the
advance glacial outwash deposits. Available information
indicates the thickness of the glacial till beneath the project
site is expected to range from 25 to 50-ft. The constructed
depth of the deeper monitoring well is anticipated to be
between 100 and 120-ft below the existing surface.
McEtivan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page 3 Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
Depending on site operational needs, this well may be
designed to eventually serve as the water supply well for
mining operations.
• Review published scientific literature relevant to
hydrogeology of the McEwan Prairie area, as well as well
driller reports within a one mile radius of the site. This
information will be used to assess regional groundwater
conditions and potable water supply uses.
• Evaluate hydrogeologic data including precipitation,changes
in groundwater elevations, horizontal and vertical relative
hydraulic conductivities, and vertical and horizontal
groundwater flow characteristics. Prepare a Site
Hydrogeology Technical Memorandum that shows through
maps, figures and tables, the shallow water table surface,
the potentiometric surface of the confined aquifer,
groundwater flow directions, geologic cross sections,
isopach maps of formation and aquifer thickness, and a
summary of potential adverse impacts and mitigation
measures for each alternative.
Assumptions: 1) One day of survey crew time will be required.to survey
completed well elevations, and to set elevation benchmarks
at Rex Lake and the on-site wetland.
2) Well driller reports to be obtained from the Department of
Ecology.
Subtask 4B - Surface Water Management and Drainage Assessment
Objective: Evaluate surface hydrology on the site and identify potential
drainage and surface water management impacts and mitigation
measures.
Activities: Review applicable Mason County drainage ordinances,basin
plans and watershed management plans to identify sensitive
surface water resources and protection requirements.
• Based on the results of the Hydrogeologic Report, prepare
a conceptual mass balance model of surface drainage for the
site area. This model will describe in conceptual manner
the water balance for the site and vicinity, including stream,
wetland, and groundwater (infiltration) components.
McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page 4 Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
• Develop preliminary surface water management plans for
each alternative based on the conceptual site model,
including identification of potential impacts and
corresponding best management practices (BMPs) to
mitigate potential impacts.
• Prepare a Surface Water Management Technical
Memorandum that describes surface water quantity and
quality issues, and potential impacts and mitigation
measures.
Assumptions: 1) The conceptual site model will be based on regional,
accepted criteria including precipitation, groundwater
infiltration rates, stream flows, soils information and
evapotranspiration rates.
Subtask 4C - Wetlands, Wildlife and Habitat Assessment
Objectives: Characterize wetland, wildlife and habitat features on the project
site and near vicinity, and identify potential impacts and
corresponding mitigation measures.
Activities: 0 Using existing information including maps and aerial
photos, identify wetlands and critical habitat and species in
the project vicinity.
• Evaluate wetland hydrology in the project area and assess
potential wetland impacts associated with the proposal and
each alternative.
• Asses wildlife use of the site and adjacent areas and identify
impacts and associated mitigation measures.
• In accordance with requirements of the Mason County
Interim Resource Ordinance, prepare a Critical Areas
Technical Memorandum that identifies critical areas on or
near the site, potential impacts and corresponding mitigation
measures.
Assumptions: 1) Wildlife assessment will be qualitative; no species specific
wildlife surveys or counts will be required.
McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page S Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
Subtask 4D - Traffic and Transportation Analysis
Objective: Evaluate potential traffic impacts associated with the proposal and
each alternative in accordance with the Transportation section of
the Mason County EIS Preparation Guidance.
Activities: 0 Obtain existing daily and peak hour traffic volumes in the
site vicinity.
• Obtain accident records for a three year period on roadways
in the site vicinity.
• Review the Mason County Transportation Plan to identify
,existing Level of Service (LOS), and future LOS
requirements.
• Estimate truck and other vehicle traffic generation from the
proposed mine (daily and peak hour) and assign to
roadways in the project vicinity.
• Estimate future traffic volumes for the No Action
alternative using a growth factor consistent with historical
growth in the area.
• Conduct a Traffic Analysis to identify LOS impacts to
County and State roads that are likely to receive vehicle
traffic from the site.
Assumptions: 1) Site traffic generation estimates (daily and peak hour) based
on the amount of material to be mined will be based on
assumptions provided by Miles Sand & Gravel, Inc. in
consultation with Parametrix, Inc.
TASK 5 - Draft EIS Preparation
Purpose: To prepare the preliminary and final Draft EIS document for official SEPA
submittal, and to assist in gathering public and agency comment on the Draft EIS.
Scope: Following data gathering, the affected environment and impacts section for each
environmental element of the EIS will be drafted. The impacts analysis must
include each element of the environment identified during scoping by Mason
County, and propose mitigation measures for the significant impacts identified.
The impacts section will include an analysis of construction, operation and
cumulative impacts for the Proposal and alternatives, including significant
unavoidable adverse impacts.
The construction impact analysis will include evaluation of impacts such as
McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page 6 Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
erosion, sedimentation, dust, noise, traffic disruptions, and changes to the
hydrologic regime. Operational impacts will also be evaluated for all
environmental elements as identified during scoping. Cumulative impacts will
consider project impacts which by themselves do not create significant adverse
impacts but may create significant adverse impacts when combined with the
cumulative effects of other actions. A matrix presentation of the major
features/elements, and potential impacts will be prepared to simplify the
differences and similarities between the alternatives.
Mitigation analysis will also be performed under this task. Potential mitigation
measures will be prescribed to lessen the anticipated impacts of short-term
construction activities, operation impacts of the proposed facility and significant
cumulative adverse impacts.
There will be a preliminary Draft EIS prepared for internal review by Mason
County. The preliminary Draft EIS will go through an internal PMX QA/QC
process including peer review prior to its submission to Mason County for review.
Comments received from Mason County will be incorporated into the Draft EIS
and a final Draft EIS will be prepared for issuance.
Assumptions: 1) The content and format of the draft EIS will be in accordance with the
requirements of the Mason County EIS Preparation Guidance contained in
Attachment A.
2) The final design of required mitigation measures for the project would be
part of the final design and permitting phase following the SEPA decision.
3) The air quality and noise analysis will be qualitative in that no site
specific, quantitative air quality data is anticipated to be collected.
4) The County will be provided with a minimum of 5 copies of the
preliminary Draft EIS for their review. PMX will provide a minimum of
25 copies of the final Draft EIS to Mason County for issuance to the
public and agencies. Additional copies of the preliminary Draft and Draft
EIS will be provided as required by Mason County.
5) Parametrix, in cooperation with Mason County, will attend and participate
in a minimum of one project review-related public meeting and/or hearing,
for the purpose of providing necessary expert information on the EIS.
6) PMX will provide materials from the Draft EIS for use by Mason County
at the public meeting.
TASK 6 - Out of Scope
Purpose: To conduct the additional work activities that are not included in Tasks 1 through
5, but are determined by BB&R or Mason County to be necessary to meet the
McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page 7 Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
requirements of the Mason County EIS Preparation Guidance.
Scope: Work that may be conducted under this task will be defined at a later date by a
separate Scope of Work that will be developed in coordination with both Mason
County and BB&R.
Assumptions: 1) No work will be performed under this task without written concurrence
from both Mason County and BB&R.
PHASE II. FINAL EIS PREPARATION
The scope of work for the Final EIS phase of the project will be developed following receipt of
comments on the Draft EIS.
h\users\struck\mcpr\mason\rev-sco.doc
McEwan Prairie Surface Mine EIS Page 8 Scope of Work
BB&R - Mason County March 1998
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
5 . 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 . Alternatives .
-As required in WAC 197-11-440 (5)
-The alternatives to be delineated include:
A. The "no action" alternative;
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.
2
-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 .
6 . 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.
-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.
3
-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:
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.
C. Water
1 . Surface Water Movement/Quantity/Quality:
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
5
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
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.
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 .
6
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 .
II. Built Environment
A. Environmental Health
a) Describe noise impacts caused by the proposal
relating to increased traffic, construction, 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) Identify proposed hours of operation both during and
post- 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
7
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.
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
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 .
8
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 .
2 . water/Stormwater:
See: criteria included in "Water" under Natural
Environment category.
3 . Other Governmental Services or Utilities
Discuss other governmental services or utilities that
may be affected by the proposal .
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 .
9
PART IV - - - STUDIES/ANALYS is 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, 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.
The hydrological analysis must be completed by an engineer
certified in the State of Washington with a specialty in
hydrology.
10
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 .
11
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) .
12
P. 04
August 30, 1999
Richard Me4iros
NE2481 Old Pelfair Hwy.
Belfair, Wa, 98528
Gary Y ando
Dept. of ComImunity Development
411 N. SU' Street
Shelton, Wa, 98584
Re Wood w ste and solid waste violations.
Dear Mr, Ya do '
I have written many letters about wood waste being removed from the Alen Shearer
Sand and Gravel, mine site. As of August 28, 1999, continuous loads of'vvood waste are
once again le ving the mine site for sale.
As you are wgine
1 aware of, or should be, the removal of wood waste and t to wood waste
being c the site is a violation of a court order and violates statues WAC 173,304,
and RCW 70.95.
I
I have contin'iially reminded the Mason County Depart ment of Health, ar�d the
Department of Community Development of the continuous violation that pertain to the
wood waste and solid waste issues.
Have you issued a wood waste permit ???? and to whom ???
I
Has a revised reclamation plan been issued ????? and to whom ????
Has a reclam I tion plan been issued ????? and to whom ????
A quick respgnse to the above questions would be appreciated, I will be,awaiting your
quick respon e.
0*j
ly,(;i'c
hard Med'tros
cc: Commissioner Olson
cc: Commissioner Cady
cc: Commissioner Bolender
cc: Department of Natural Resources
cc: Department of Ecology
cc: Randy Loun
1
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
srgrFo
P
o A N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
u
o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
rasa SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
April 21 , 1999
MCEWAN PRAIRIE GRAVEL MINE PROPOSAL
ADDENDUM TO:
SCOPE OF WORK and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION GUIDANCE
This addendum is the result of comment letters received due to the re-issue of SEPA
determination No.: SEP97-0173 on January 27, 1999. The information is a grouped
compilation of environmental impact-related concerns raised in the comments. Please
use this addendum together with the existing Environmental Impact Statement
Preparation Guidance (EISPG) document, as resource documents for the areas to be
covered within the Environmental Impact Statement. Both impacts and proposed
mitigation should be addressed.
Surface and Ground Water
Impact of artificial lighting on wetland habitat
Impacts to interrelationship between wetlands, both on-and off-site
Buffer analysis: will proposed buffers actually stop impact to wetlands and buffers?
Provide an analysis of the hydrologic continuity between the upper aquifer and the
wetlands, identify any potential impact to the wetlands (hydrologic or other impacts)
and identify measures to mitigate these impacts.
Connection and/or lack of connection between shallow and deep aquifers -- impact of
proposal, monitoring plan
Impact of project on other water bodies, including risk of dewatering, and proposed
mitigation.
w
LIST
All
_ - - - -
.k - • f,.
Sol 1
_
i
i TO
> µ f_i.
WAS
y r > rvF f A& JAY
4 - 1 .E Y _ Y•__
o a. t.
't,.-
y,
Printed by Pam Bennet-Cumming 7/22/1999 2 : 18pm
-------------- ------ -------------------
From: Pam Bennet-Cumming
To:
Allan Borden, Grace Miller,
Robert Fink
Subject: Gravel mine
---------------------------------------
===NOTE________________________________
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. \
------ --------------------------- ------
Page: 1
Printed by Pam Bennet-Cumming 7/22/1999 10 :20am
------------------------- ------------- -
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 #8 specifically-- Q lS-�
- IC should have similar language to
#1,2,and 3 (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 the issue
of existing contamination (#4) , perhaps 1-7
as a baseline vs new contamination
- IIAa [a or 1?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. (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
r
BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL SITE PROPOSAL
L�
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PREPARATION GUIDANCE �e
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
5 . 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 . Alternatives.
-As required in WAC 197-11-440 (5)
-The alternatives to be delineated include:
A. The "no action" alternative;
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.
2
-Present a comparison of the environmental impadts 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 .
6 . 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 .
-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.
3
-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 ENVIRONAENT P
(As per WAC 197-11-444, including) /12
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:
a) Discuss air quality impacts including dust and
particulate matter.
b) Describe mitigation measures .
c) Include a discussion of all impacts that cannot or
S cQ ,b, will not be mitigated.
C�Water
-
1 . Surface Water Movement/Quantity/Quality:
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
5
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
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.
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 .
6
E. Animals
a) Provide a general discussion on the species wildlife
at this site and the impact to these species a 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 .
II . Built Environment
A. Environmental Health
a) Describe noise impacts caused by the proposal
relating to increased traffic, construction, 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) Identify proposed hours of operation both during and
post- construction.
d) Discuss impacts, mitigation measures, and
unavoidable adverse impacts on environmental health
that wl �ult 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 . Specific a.ly including, but not
limited- to, the following:
-Mason County Resource Ordinance
-Growth Management Act
-County-wide Planning Policies
-Development Regulations
7
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.
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
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 .
8
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
ck
culat on. --->
D. Public Services and Utiliti � �
1 . Fire, Police, Schools, Parks and Recreation: -4-'oT,
a) Discuss existing demands and conditions and the
additional burden that the project may have on these
services .
2 . Water/Stormwater:
See: criteria included in "Water" under Natural
Environment category.
3 . Other Governmental Services or Utilities
Discuss other governmental services or utilities that
may be affected by the proposal .
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 .
9
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 aqui contamination - -
(a) as a result o is proposal, both during construction,
excavation, a post-project contamination risk potential .
(b) from oposed 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, 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.
The hydrological analysis must be completed by an engineer
certified in the State of Washington with a specialty in
hydrology.
10
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: f-,�I
1. A wetland functional assessment..Ac---g5� � C�D6�
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.
Mo f� 1�5 alff
r a- S
�r,w, sc �� ingz, . 7�r�3'c4—,
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) .
12
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
f P�ON.STATFO
o A°u N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
z� N Y ti BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
0� 0
1864 SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
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 (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.
RecyLjed
r
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 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.
Res nsible 64cial 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.
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
10 'STATED
o A o N u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
i o T , z PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
0 N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
of 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
December 28, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO Gary Yando, Director
FROM Allan Borden, Senior Planner, {,�
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 notifying him on the adequacy of the list.
DEC 13 1999
AhHa(7N CO.PLANNINGI��F�1
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,
�k4,,
Jeffrey A. Hartman
JAH:kla
cc: Stephanie Zurenko, Geologist/Reclamation Specialist
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
P�oN.sT,arFo
o A o u N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
T , i
o PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
2� N Y Y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
o 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
December 28, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO Gary Yando, Director
FROM Allan Borden, Senior Planner K
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 notifying him on the adequacy of the list.
IRE�(:�I�lF1C!
DEC 13 1999
NU+o(7N CO.PLANNINGDr:PI
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
12/17/1999 22:59 13602759186 RICHARD MEDEDIROS PAGE 01
December 17, 1999
a D
Richard Mecieirc>s M ��
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway DEC 17 1999
Belfair Washington 98528
Fax # (360) 2175-9186 *Pa $ _
,Allan Bordon
Mason County Dept. of Community Development
Courthouse Building III
426 W. Cedar
Post Office Box 578
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re, Allen S hearer Sand and Gravel, LLC drainage
Dear Mr. Bordon,
A brief letter to remind you, damage to my property continues from drainage leaving the
Allen Shearcr Sand and Gravel,LLC mine site.
Drainage frnm the mine site is coming from the lower settling pond, down the driveway
y and onto m,, 1roperty. Drainage is also coming from upper area of the site and entering
my property and has hooded my blockhouse with approximately 12" deep.
I would have assumed someone from your department would have been out to the site to
view the drainage coming out of the site.
You may al�.o be interested in knowing that the pit is dumping a large amount over the
backside of the mine site into the tributary going into the Union River.
Please consider this a formal complaint.
ely,
�c.:...�.f
ichard Medeircis
cc: Randy 1,nun
PPPP-
v C
9'9
l cCa-eS 7 , 1jias o, �dYK✓�,c�cSii G !/ �a-n t �e 1 l�
7e w���as7�
uA, a asv►1 C / v�-,�.�; 7� , L�► a y 7`�� s' I`� 7 —
9z/.27y - wAc i73-30Y- 300
Xcw 70 -9�• .7y0
3) 1 -FS4PcA
I
�) `i ka-r '� C v v v 1"Gy 5 i a -9 9J %L,r W A,4 , w; � le—e
I
oil 5
rr
Jason County Planning Dept.
f MAY 1 0 1999
RECEIVED
UA ���
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
PO BOX 1666 SHELTON,WA 98584
SHELTON (360)427-9670
FAX (360)427-7798
October 14, 1999 ELMA (360)482-5269
BELFAIR (360)275-4467
SEATTLE (206)464-6968
Allen Shearer
P.O. Box 789
Belfair, WA 98528
Jeff Hartman
4 Corporate Plaza
Suite#215
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: Woodwaste Recycling at Shearer Sand and Gravel formerly Belfair Sand& Gravel
Dear Mr. Shearer and Mr. Hartman:
The current Mason County policy is to promote solid waste recycling by not requiring
permits for woodwaste recycling centers. This policy supports Washington State's goal
of solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling. However, a ruling by the Pollution Control
Hearings Board supported the issuance of a woodwaste-recycling permit for Shearer
Sand & Gravel (formerly Belfair Sand & Gravel). The ruling from the Board does not
require Mason County to issue a permit to woodwaste recycling centers but it would
allow the County to issue a permit.
To continue to support recycling the Mason County Department of Health Services has
decided at this time not to require a permit for recycling woodwaste at Shearer Sand &
Gravel, located at NE 2493 Old Belfair Highway, as long as all federal, state and county
regulations and the following�onditions are met. Chapter 173-304 of the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC)t4e state regulations that apply to solid waste. Mason
County Solid Waste Regulations are in"Solid Waste and Biosolids Handling and
Facilities Regulations."
As outlined in WAC 173-304 a yearly report on the amount of woodwaste brought onto
the site and removed from the site must be submitted to the Washington State Department
of Ecology (DOE) and Mason County Health Department by March 1 of the following
year. This report will show that a minimum of 50% of the woodwaste is recycled every
three- (3) years as required by state regulations.
Any woodwaste that is currently stockpiled on site must be accounted for in the yearly
reports and be included when calculating the 50% of woodwaste that must be recycled
every three years.
1
To ensure the water quality is not effect by the woodwaste recycling semi-annual testing
will need to be conducted by a third party at the owner's expense. The sampling will
included two sites on the Union River located East of the site. One sample will be taken
upstream from the site and one sample downstream from the site. The sampling will also
included the two streams near the site. One stream, a Type III, and is located West of the
site it is known locally as Everson Creek the other stream, a Type IV, is located to the
Northeast of the site. Each stream will be sampled upstream from the site and
downstream from the site. Each sampling event will include the following parameters:
• pH
• Temperature
• Dissolved Oxygen
• Conductivity
• Turbidity
• Tannins & Lignin
Mason County Health Department is also.concerned over the possibility of uncovering
solid waste that was illegally buried there in the past. The concern arises from a history
of verified and unverified complaints that scrap metals,tires, woodwaste and other
miscellaneous solid waste was buried on the property.
Due to this concern, one of the conditions will be that the operators/owner must notify the
Health Department upon uncovering or the discovery of any solid waste on the property
within 48 hours. Once the solid waste is unearthed the operators/owners must dispose of
the waste in a proper manner, such as a county permit transfer station, and submit the
receipts to the Health Department in a timely manner.
Another concern of the Mason County Health is the denial of access to the site that
occurred in the past when county inspectors were trying to verify complaints, site
conditions and other matters that might pertain to public health.
To address this concern we would require that county and state inspectors be allowed
access to the site during regular business unless an emergency situation might exist.
I have enclosed a copy of the WAC 173-304 Minimum Functional Standards for Solid
Waste Handling and a copy of Mason County's Solid Waste Regulations for your use. If
you have any questions regarding these conditions, please feel free to call me at (360)
427- 670 ext. 555
R ect I , qi
Andrea Unger R.S.
Environmental Health Specialist
cc:Chuck Matthews,DOE
Cris Matthews,DOE
Scott Morrison,DOE
Allen Borden,Mason County Department of Community Development
Richard Mederios
2
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
SON.STATFo
P '�
o A° N
v DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~ o T z PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
z� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 51 ST. • P.O. BOX 578
1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360)427-9670
October 11, 1999
Jeffrey Hartman
4 Corporate Plaza, Suite 215
Newport Beach CA. 92660
RE: BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL SURFACE RECLAMATION PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REVIEW
Dear Mr. Hartman:
Mason County Department of Community Development staff met on August 24, 1999, with
Bill Leber, your site foreman at Belfair Sand and Gravel, to briefly discuss the issues that
came up in State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Significance. Also
discussed was the need for Belfair Sand and Gravel to present to Mason County a list of
qualified consultants, one of which could be selected to prepare the environmental impact
statement for the proposed surface reclamation plan.
This letter is to emphasize the need for further action to proceed with this environmental
review process. With the Determination of Significance, it is the applicant's responsibility to
seek out proper consultants who will assist in the preparation of needed studies and necessary
documents for the environmental impact statement. A list of prospective consultants shall be
forwarded to the Mason County Department of Community Development. Following the
review of qualifications of those listed, a specific consultant can be selected and an agreement
for services to prepare the studies and documents can be arranged between the applicant,
consultant, and Mason County.
With the presence of critical aquifer recharge area, slopes, and streams in the vicinity, it is
important that Belfair Sand and Gravel continue to bring its overall operations into compliance
with best management practices concerning these resource values. If you have questions
relating to this process, you may contact Allan Borden at extension 365 or Gary Yando at
extension 270 by telephone at (360)427-9670 or 275-4467.
Sincerely,
XAllan Borden
Senior Planner
s
L
iL
v
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
HER
Natural Resources Comm ER M.Bof Public
Commissioner of Public Lands
September 21, 1999 �! Q
8EP 2 7 ja
Jeff Hartman WASO�lO•'flttlltlll' i'1F!afi
4 Corporate Plaza, Suite 215
Newport Beach, CA 92660
SUBJECT: Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066; Belfair Sand& Gravel
Dear Mr. Hartman;
As I explained to Allen Shearer it appears, since they have taken over as operator, certain aspects of the
revised reclamation plan submitted in 1998 are no longer accurate. Additionally, after review of the
1998 plan, I have determined there is a need for additional information. Thus, I met with Bill Leber, site
foreman, on September 14, 1999. We discussed in detail how Mr. Leber believes operations will
proceed and how this differs from the 1998 plan. We also discussed the need for additional information.
Below are the elements of the plan that need to be re-evaluated as well as a the additional information
that is needed. Also enclosed are copies of the 1998 plan with my comments along with some
observations and suggestions.
1)The permit acreage needs to be consistent between forms. The acreage shown on the map should be
the same as the permit acreage given on the forms. The permit area should include the maximum
disturbed area along with setbacks pertinent to the mine. The maximum depth(relief) of the mine is
greater than 95 feet. Based on the maps I estimate the relief will be about 285 feet.
2)The mine phasing(progression of mining)needs revisited(phase size, sequence, and direction of
mining). The current operation is already out of sine with the 1998 phase map. The third dimension of
mine phasing needs to be addressed. Mine phasing must consider the location of the stockpile and
processing equipment as mining progresses. Equipment and stockpiles should be placed such that they
won't interfere with reclamation. Soil management,water control, and segmental reclamation are all tied
to mine phasing.
3)A soil budget/management plan needs to be put together. The soil budget estimates the volume of soil
available and the volume needed for reclamation. It seems there may be a shortage of soils at the site
because of loss during past operations. The soil budget will help determine if this is the case. If there is
a shortage,the budget/management plan will have to address soil synthesis or import.
4) Segmental reclamation needs to be revisited. The 1998 version shows that as each phase is completed
the total phase will be reclaimed. This implies that each phase is equal to a reclamation segment. It is
unlikely that reclamation of the total phase will always be possible when mining moves into the next
phase. Often reclamation segments are not coincident with the phase but rather a portion of the phase.
Realistic reclamation segments need to be identified and timing of reclamation needs outlined(where
and when). For DNR's purposes,timing of reclamation should be tied to the completion of mining in an
area not based on real time.
CENTRAL REGION 1 1405 RUSH RD 1 CHEHALIS 1 WA 98532-8763
FAX(360)748-2387 1 TT-Y.-(360)740-6841 1 TEL:(360)748-2383
��e Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER��
Jeff Hartman
September 20, 1999
Page 2
5)A strategy for dealing with buried wood waste and other debris needs to be developed. Areas known
to contain waste should be identified. The law does not allow buried wood waste or non-compactable
material to be used as fill at reclamation. With the change in operator, it needs to be determined if wood
waste recycling is still an element of the proposal. This is mostly an operational issue under county
authority but,the 1998 plan refers to using wood waste to enhance soils.
6)Operational water(storm and process)control needs revisited. The new operator has already modified
the water control system from that shown on the 1998 plan. The control system will need to be modified
as mining progresses because the control measures will be influenced by mine topography,the disturbed
area,and the areas reclaimed. Operational water control is mostly within the county and Dept. of
Ecology jurisdictions but, DNR is very concerned about operational waters control at this site. If not
handled properly, operational waters could interfere with or prevent effective reclamation. The plan no-
where addresses how the septic drain field will be impacted or modified as mining progresses. Does
(will)the water from the drain field impact site hydrology and/or storm water management?
7)There may be areas where interim revegetation is needed. These areas would be those that have been
disturbed but,will not be redisturbed for some time. They may include currently disturbed areas or
future disturbed areas. A strategy for interim revegetation needs to be developed.
8)A strategy for management of the fines from storm water and wash water should be developed.
Because of the character of the material being mined and the site conditions, it seems likely that the
volume of fines will continue to be significant. How will they be dried,where and how will they be
stockpiled, and will they be used in reclamation?
9)A map is needed that shows how the mine is tied to off-site topography both currently and at
reclamation. It is difficult to evaluate how reclamation land forms blend with adjacent land forms
without conceptual, on-site contours tied to off-site contours. Off-site topography is key to assessing the
potential impacts of any waters discharged off-site both during operations and at reclamation.
10)Information on the hydrogeology of the mine and immediate vicinity is needed. The law requires
that, at reclamation, both ground and surface water are not adversely impacted and that the site will be
stable. The hydrogeologic conditions of the site will determine how and where ground water moves
through the site. Are there two aquifers on the site? We need to know where groundwater will (does)
emerge as springs or seeps. Spring flows could be significant and may(do) impact operational surface
water control and drainage at reclamation. Springs/seeps can also affect slope stability. The hardpan is
basically an impervious layer and thus, affects both ground water and surface water flows. What
elevation is the hard pan at and how thick is it? Additionally,knowledge about site geology will help
when developing the mine phasing.
11)The method of creating'reclaimed slopes needs to be very clear. Mr. Leber indicated that reclaimed
slopes will be cut in with no significant backfill. The method of slope construction is very important
because it will control how far mining can progress in any particular area.
12)To accompany the plan maps and forms, a narrative should be submitted. The narrative should
provide additional explanation about the critical elements of the plan. It has no set format or content but,
the sections of the SM-8a form can be used as an outline.
I
Jeff Hartman
September 20, 1999
Page 3
13)Two more cross-sections are needed in the locations I have indicated on sheet 3.
It is my understanding that Mr. Shearer and Mr. Leber will be in charge of revising the plan and thus, I
should deal directly with them. This being the case I would keep you, as the permit holder, in the loop.
If this is not acceptable, please let me know as soon as possible.
I cannot emphasize enough the need for the consultant and Mr. Leber to work closely together during
plan development. The consultant should also be given a copy of this letter and of my comments on the
forms and maps. I will facilitate development by discussing plan elements and reviewing drafts with the
consultant and Mr. Leber. Our goal is to get a good, doable plan in place.
It is both DNR's and Mason County's desire that the new version of the revised reclamation plan be
incorporated in to the environmental review process that the county is conducting. We hope that
development of the new revision can move forward so that this can be done. It seems that some of the
information needed can be used to satisfy both DNR and county requirements.
On a different note,the slope below the pond perched above the south boundary needs stabilized. The
angle of this slope must be reduced and the slope vegetated. The fines in the pond need to be removed
before this can be accomplished but,unfortunately they are too wet to handle. Mr. Leber has a plan to
dewater them so that sloping can be done next year. Until then,this slope needs immediate protection to
prevent more failures and continued erosion during this coming winter. I suggest that a tightly woven
erosion control matting be used instead of plastic. The matting,when installed correctly,is often as
effective as plastic. Matting should be used in any area susceptible to erosion. After reducing the slope
next year, a woven matting can be placed over the slope after it has been seeded, fertilized, and mulched.
This helps keep the seed and mulch from washing down the slope. I also recommend hydroseeding
because it has a tacifier that keeps the seed in place. Many hydroseeding companies guarantee their
work and can custom mix seed for site conditions.
If you, Mr. Shearer,Mr. Leber or your consultant have any questions or problems, please do not hesitate
to contact me at(360)740-6805.
Sincerely,
i
Stephah a E.Zurenko
Geologist/Reclamation Specialist
enclosures
SZ/cor
c: Allen Shearer, Shearer Sand &Gravel
Bill Leber, Shearer Sand& Gravel
Allen Borden,Mason County
Mary Ann Shawver,Div.of Geology
C Phone:(360)427-9670 Ext.450 Jerry W.Hauth,PE,PLS
Fax: (360)427-8425 Director
� 0
u DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
N COURTHOUSE BLDG 1, 411 NORTH 5TH STREET
®
TP.O.BOX 1850 SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584
N Y a
October 20, 1999
Richard Medeiros
NE 2481 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair, WA 98528
Re: Culvert Installation at the 2400 Block of Old Belfair Highway
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your concern regarding the recently installed culvert near your property at 2481
Old Belfair Highway. I am informed by the County's maintenance engineering manager, John
Flynn,that the culvert was installed according to the approved plans.
Development of the final plans went through several revisions as a result of Fisheries and Corps
of Engineer's reviews. The final approved plan (copy enclosed) is the result of reviewing agency
requirements. During development of the plans and during meetings with Fisheries at the project
location,Fisheries habitat managers observed small fish in the "wetland" adjacent to the
highway, which resides mainly on your property. Fisheries required that, whatever
improvements the County undertook,they be fish passable, and also required that the County's
work did not affect the wetland ecosystem/water elevation. Fisheries wanted the pond neither
lowered or deepened as a result of our work. With the original culvert, catch basin, and catch
basin weir, the catch basin weir controlled the depth of the water in the wetland most of the time.
Fisheries would not allow a new pipe to be installed that was lower than the existing weir's
elevation.
I've been in contact with Chris Byrnes of Fisheries and discussed the completed project with
him. He informed me that he hadn't had an opportunity to look at the completed installation up
close, but has been by the location, and his casual observation was that it appears to be installed
as he expected.
The new pipe is expected to perform as designed. The design did not attempt to lower the water
elevation in the wetland,but is intended to make sure during storm events,that the wetland water
elevation will not reach the level of the highway and overflow across the Old Belfair Highway.
During the design of this project,the entire drainage area contributing to the wetland and culvert
were modeled, and the pipe was sized to provide for fish passage, while at the same time
provided for a method of ensuring that the wetland water surface would not be able to achieve an
elevation that would result in water running across the roadway. In this respect,the culvert is
considered to be properly designed and installed, and though the culvert will act more as an
overflow structure, needed during storm events,than as a relief for stormwater runoff stored in
your wetland, it is not considered either a waste or unnecessary
I hope these explanations satisfy your concerns about this project. Please feel free to contact me
at County 461 if you feel this issue needs further discussion or attention.
Sincerely,
TAM �
A AN A. TA ,
County Hydraulic Engineer
Encl: Final Approved Project Plans as revised 10/9/98
Medeiros letter dated 19 October, 1999
cc: Commissioners; Bolender,Cady, & Olsen
P/W Director; Jerry Hauth
WDF&W Habitat Manager; Chris Byrnes
P/W Maint. Engr. Mngr; John Flynn
DCD Director; Gary Yando
1 ill lJi 1JJJ
19 October, 1999
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway pC� 19 1999
Belfair, Washington 98528
#Pages
Allan Tahla
Mason Countv Department of Engineering
Post Office Box 1850 RECEIVED
Shelton, Washington 98594
Fax: (360)427-8425 DCT 0 1999
Re: Culvert across Old Belfair Highway MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
Dear Mr. Tah1a
In our last conversation(phone), we discussed the recent culvert installation under the
Old Belfair l I ighway on the southeast area of my propety.
In our conversation I informed you of my conversation with Mr. Burns of the Department
of Fish and Wildlife. In our discussion, Mr. Burns looked at the plans and noted that the
plans were not followed. In the plans it called for the new culvert to be installed at the
same depth and the existing culvert. The existing culvert is at a depth of 97 inches. The
new culvert must be within that level.
Please for&,t' me. but the culvert must be placed at the proper de t order for it t
work. If not placed at the proper depth and a ditch dug up to the new culvert, it
becomes a big waste of taxpayers money, not to mention that it has no purpose.
The proper installation is very important as we all know, the Allen Shearer Sand and
Gravel, formerly Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc.,release millions and millions of gallons
of drainage from the mine site onto my property and the Old Belfair Highway. This has,
and continues to he a danger to the public and myself and family.
The two cul-crts that are in place at this tome are of no use to anyone, and have no
purpose other than to cause damage to my property.
1 hope you %.III address this problem immediately, as the rainy season is close at hand.
to a ly, d d�
chard Medeiros
cc: Commissioner Bolender, Cady, Olsen
cc: Mr. Burris ; Fish and Wildlife
rrrrnL-r urny Application of vApprox,
C❑NSTRUCTI❑N & MATERIAL N❑TESi 2 Cubic Yards of Rirap Rock
18' HDPE Pipe Shall Conform To The AASHT❑ Class, Type S Over a 6'x8' Area (0,0011 acres)
Installation Of This Pipe Shall Be In Accordance With (1' Countersunk)
ASTM Recommended Practice D2321
To Provide Scour Protection
River End Of Ditch to be Extended Approx. 20' to Top of ❑HWL Roughly Equals Line
of Vegetation Along River Shore
River Bank, Bank From Top of Bank Down To ❑HW To Receive A
1' Think Layer of Riprap Quarry Spalls for Erosion Protection No FiU Below ❑HW:
Erosion Pad Approx, 1'x6'xB'- Install Filter Fabric Beneath Armoring
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS References, Army COEi 98-4-01745
OLD BELFAIR HIGHWAY DRAINAGE ENHANCEMENT SEPAL SHR98-0101
County Road No.i 9825 Flle, OBH-RVI,DWG EP Flle, BLFR-S&G Revis, w X-Culvert
Plan Preparers A Tah ja Scale, 1160 (8,5' x 11' Sheet) Dates June 3, 1998 Rev. Oct. 9, 1998 Ref, 98-4-01745
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
�oN.STA
P 'c
o A°u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o T RCPLANNING - SOLID WASTE -UTILITIES
z� N T BLDG. I 9 411 N. 51 ST. e P.O. BOX 578
of 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
September 14, 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:
The Mason County Department of Community Development has received your recent letter,
dated August 30, 1999, asking questions on the issuance of a wood waste permit and revised
surface reclamation plan for Belfair Sand and Gravel. With this letter, this Department
would like to clarify certain points made in your letter and the status of the revised surface
reclamation plan review.
From what this Department understands, it appears the court order that you refer to is the
FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER to the Pollution
Control Hearings Board case PCHB No. 94-274 (Belfair Sand & Gravel and Jeffrey Hartman
versus Mason Co. Dept. of Health Services), dated 31st of May 1995. It appears that this
decision concluded that a solid waste permit was properly required and Health Services did
properly deny the application for such permit in May 1994. The accompanying Order did
remand to Health Services to require additional information from the permit applicant that
they deem appropriate, impose conditions necessary and appropriate to comply with
minimum functional standards and county solid waste management plan and ordinances, and
further impose reasonable conditions in light of past violations. Based upon discussions with
Health Services staff, the Department of Community Development shall coordinate the intent
of this Order in the operational strategy and standards of the Belfair Sand and Gravel revised
surface reclamation plan; that is not to say that Health Services should not move forward
with conditions at this time.
Mason County Department of Community Development is now in the middle of reviewing
issues on the proposed revised surface reclamation plan, having made a determination of
significance. The environmental evaluation through the environmental impact statement 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.
Recycled
In addition, in a discussion with Gary Yando, Director of the Department of Community
Development, Mr. Yando wanted to make sure that you were informed that he received a
copy of your letter of September 9, 1999, regarding the culvert on Old Belfair Highway, and
as he discussed with you, this issue needs to be discussed with the Department of Public
Works to aid in responding to your concerns.
Once again, a decision on the proposed revised surface reclamation plan has not yet been
made. Aspects relating to compliance with state and county solid waste regulations will be
included in the evaluation and completed review of Belfair Sand and Gravel's plan of
operation. 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.2701.
Sincerely,
I?V(At 6V-A
Allan Borden, Senior Planner
October 4, 1999
Richard Medeiros
NE2481 Old Belfair Highway
Belfair Washington 98528
Fax# (360)275-9186
Allan Bordon
Mason County Dept. of Community Development
Courthouse Building III
426 W. Cedar
Shelton, Washington 98584
Re: Revised Reclamation Plan and Wood Waste Violations plus.
Dear Mr. Borden,
In the past I have sent so many letters to Mason County Department of Community
Development (M.C.D. C. D.), and Mason County Department of Health Services/
Environmental Health(M.C.D.H.S.). In the letters I have addressed my complaints over
and over about non-compliance with the former mine operations such as Anderman
Enterprises, Inc., Belfair Sand and Gravel, Inc., and the current operation, Allen Shearer
Sand and Gravel, LLC.
Issues of non-compliance consist of Wood Waste, Tires, Demolition Waste,
Construction Debris, Yuperfund Waste, Garbage, illegal culverts, improper
construction of settling pond, underground storage tank, plus other solid waste issues
and violations. All of the issues require a permit, and no permit was ever issued.
Although no permit were applied for or issued, the various operators were allowed to
disposed of and bury these substances at the mine site with Mason County Department of
Health Service blessings.
Because of so many non-compliance issues, I feel it would be appropriate to once again
remind you of the issues at stake.
First of all you should know,or should have known, that in 1993 the legislature revised
the RCW 78.44 statute, to read, (a) reclamation jurisdiction would be the department of
natural resources. (b) water quality would be the jurisdiction of the department of
ecology. (c)operations would be the iurisdiction of local government.
Issue#1: Allan Shearer Sand and Gravel, LLC, mining without a reclamation permit.
Under statute RCW 78.44.081, After July 1, 1993, no miner or permit holder may
engage in surface mining without havine first obtained a reclamation permit from the
department.
Allan fihearer Qand and travel I T (' is a canarate lava] Pntity and doing business in
--. _,, » .r».»._ leap] _.,.,�
this state iinder its own license mimher 61)1916?75 with a business location at N>F�493
Old Relfair Niahwnv Relfair Washington 98529. This account was onened on
Nnvemher 11, 1998 and has an nnan arrnimt
RPlfair Can(l and Gravel, Inc.. it is imrnnrtant to fi-rct an hack to Antlerman
Enterprises Inc on lanuary 2 1991 was adminktrativell, disysoliie(/
Reines administratively (liccnlvP(d ender ctatiitt- R(W ?IR 14 700 (A(drninictrativiAv
rjicsnluition— (jrouindcl (1) The cortnnratinn does not Cav env license fees or Cenalties
imnncPrd by this title whev they hecnme chip
RCW 23R 14.210. Administrative dissolution -Procedure and effect (71 A
rnrnoratinn athm;nistratiyely dissob,ed ivkntinties its 1—rnoratn erictertre brit may not
cam on any business except that neeessani to m, nd tip and hntiitlate its business and
affairs mmler R('W 7?R_ 1d, 1)51)and nnt_ifv claimants iintler R('W??R 14.0/1)_ t1989 r
165 ;ti Ihl,l
issuie 4-1 Anderman Fnterinricec inc, hi-'no, ArjminictrativPly diccnlved nn ianuary ?")
1991 had titan vears to reinstate itself Andermnn Fnterrnrises ins, rhnse not to reinstate
itself A ,rfJanisary 22, 1993, _4ntlerman Fnternrises, Mc no loner was rernani+etl
by th n state of Washington.
RPlfair Cann and Gravel, Inc. hename a nnrYnratinn on Tune 15, 1993 (l, n Tuily 1 1993
statute RCW 78.44 was revised. Then what took place in 1993 was a surface minims
permit that was assivnetl toAnilerman Fnt_enmisves 1n,- a nnn-lean) entity was r
transferrer]to Relfair Sand and(-ramel lnr The imnnrtnnt fntnr is the reclamatinn and
r�• �
nnaratinn nlan accianerd to Andoe an Fnternrises, Mc was not in corn_pliance and was
rejected and never apRroiierl However, the permit in 1993 was transferrer]anvwgv,
Nmm in 1999 a revised rPrlamatlnn nlan is in affect RPlfair Canrd And ('travel Tnr uc
.---, - .....»...». r -- ... »- .l....».. ..»._» »--» �--». -, - is
Linder rPvi PlA/to revise the Clan and in n c\vnrn tPctimnnv Ctate vC (viol t, dated hint- 9
1999 Teff_rPv Hartman (owner of Relfair Land and (vravel inc 1 testified " UP has not
infortned the Wiishinutnn,Cecretar), of Mate that Relfair_'and and Gravel is ni>lonuer
a_uoin_o ronrern " Hnwvirer the Wachin¢ton .Ctute Department of Reyenme, hoc
Relfair_'and and(ravel Inc. account number 601471415, elnsed nn Dei•einher 31,
199E
Tht-rP zhnidri hp nn need to an env fiirthar 14mvpNiar it mnv hp annrnnrintt- ht-rnncP it
- ..._ _. »_» -- --� _ » — a-' »--r -» - , ---..-•-., -- »� - »Yr. r..»._, ------- ..
annanr, vnn have mn(ip vnnr varcinn known nn several nccacinnc On all nncacinnc vrvu
atnrnear to he micinfnrmed, The fnllnwinj and the above is not only my version, bait also
the lPval varcinn of the ctatntac that annly
Issue #4: Wood waste: A brief history on the wood waste. From 1989 to 1993 wood
waste was deposited on the mine site. An average of four to six loads of 60 yards dump
truck loads per day. On this date in time over 105,000 vards of wood waste still remain
on site in three locations. ( photo's were submitted by me for reference to M.C.D.H.S.
showing the locations of the buried wood waste and amounts at each location )
Legal issues that pertain to wood waste are as follows. (a) WAC 173,304.300 (3) (c) (i)
(3) Waste recycling requirements.
(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;
or
(ii) Groundwater or surface water, air, and/or land contamination has occurred or
will likely occur under current conditions of storage or is case of fire, or flood
Upon such a determination by the jurisdictional health department 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 173.304.600 of these rules.
Allowing wood waste to remain on site without proper recycling is considered
storing or disposing of solid waste.
WAC 173-304-400 Solid waste handling facility standards.
(2) Standards for permits. The standards of WAC 173-304-405 through 173-304-490
shall be used as the basis for permitting as required in WAC 173-304-600.
(3) Effective dates.
(a) All existing facilities not in conformance with the following sections of the facility
standards shall be placed upon compliance schedules under W.4C 173-304-600
(1)(c) to assure full compliance within eighteen months of the effective date of
this regulation for:
(i) The general facility standards, WAC 173-304-405; General facility requirements
(iii) Ground water monitoring required in WAC 173-304-490;
(v) The tire pile standards of WAC 173-304-420(4); Requirements for fire piles.
(a) All applicable solid waste facilities shall be in compliance with the general
closure and post-closure standards of WAC 173-304-407 and the financial
assurance standards of WAC 173-304-467 and 173-304-468 by
twelve months after the effective date of WAC 173-304-407, 173-304-467, and
173-304-468, except for owners or operators of existing facilities that have a
closure plan approved by the jurisdictional health department in a solid waste
permit issued before the effective date of these amendments and are closing before
November 27, 1989. Existing solid waste facilities shall be placed upon
compliance schedules under WAC 173-304-600(1)(c) to assure compliance by the
effective date of this subsection.
(b) All existing solid waste facilities not in conformance with facility standards other
than those in(a) and (b) of this subsection shall be placed upon compliance
schedules under WAC 173-304-600(1)(c) to assure full compliance within
four years of the effective date of this regulation.
(c) All new and expanded facilities other than those in(b) of this subsection shall meet
the facility standards of WAC 173-304-405 to 173-304-490 after the effective date
of this regulation.
[Statutory Authority: RCW 70.95.215. 88-20-066 (Order 88-28), §
173-304-400, filed 10/4/88. Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.21A
RCW. 85-22-013 (Order 85-18), § 173-304-400, filed 10/28/85.]
WAC 173-304-462 Woodwaste landfilling facility requirements.
(1) Applicability. These requirements apply to facilities that landfill more than two
thousand cubic yards of woodwaste including facilities that use woodwaste as a
component of fill Woodwaste is defined in WAC 173-304-100. These standards
are not applicable to woodwaste landfills on forest lands regulated under the
Forest Practices Act, chapter 76.09 RCW.
(2) Minimum functional standards.
(b) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall maintain a record of the
weights or volumes of waste disposed of at each facility.
(c) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall not accept any other wastes
except woodwaste.
(d) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall prevent run-on from a
maximum twenty-five year storm.
(e) All wood waste landfills having a capacity of greater than ten thousand cubic
yards at closure shall either:
(1) Have a ground water monitoring system that complies with WAC 173-304-490
woodwaste landfill meet the performance standards of W.AC 173-304-460(2); or
(ii) Have a leachate collection and treatment system.
(f) O►rners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall not deposit woodwaste in lifts
to a height of more than ten feet per lift with at least one foot of cover material
between lifts to avoid hot spots and fires in the summer and to avoid
excessive build-up of leachate in the winter, and shall compact ivoo&vaste as
necessary to prevent voids.
(g) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall prevent unauthorized disposal
during off-hours by controlling entry (i.e., lockable gate or barrier), when the
facility is not being used.
(h) Owners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall close the facility by leveling and
compacting the wastes and applying a compacted soil cover of at least two feet
thickness.
(i) (hvners or operators of woodwaste landfills shall obtain a permit as set forth in
WAC 173-304-600 from the iurisdictional health department.
[Statutory Authority: Chapter 4321A RCW. 85-22-013 (Order 85-18), § 173-304-462,
filed 10/28/85.1
WAC 173-304-490 Groundwater monitoring requirements.
(1) Applicability. These requirements apply to owners and operators of landfills,
piles, landspreading disposal facilities, and surface impoundments that are
required to perform ground water monitoring under WA 173-304-400.
(2) Ground water monitoring requirements.
(a) The ground water monitoring system must consist of at least one background or
upgradient well and three down gradient wells, installed at appropriate locations
and depths to yield ground water samples from the upper most aquifer and
all hytlraulically connected aquifers below the active portion of thefacilitr
(3) Corrective action program. An owner or operator required to establish a
corrective action program under this section must, at a minimum with the
approval of the iurisdictional health officer:
(a) Implement a corrective action program that reduces contamination and if possible
prevents constituents from exceeding their respective concentration limits at the
compliance point by removing the constituents, treating them in place, or other
remedial measures;
(b) Begin corrective action according to a written schedule after the ground water
performance standard is exceeded;
(c) Terminate corrective action measures once the concentrations of constituents are
reduced to levels below the limits under WAC 173-304-460 (2)(a).
[Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.21A RCW. 85-22-013 (Order 85-18), § 173-304-490,
filed 10/28/85]
WAC 173.304.600 Permit requirements for solid waste facilities.
jLaJ All facilities which are subject to the standards of WAC 173.304.130,
173.304.300, and 173.304.400 are required to obtain permits.
(j) The action results in an overall improvement of the environmental impact of the
site:
(i) The action does not require or result in additional waste being delivered to the site
or increase the amount of waste of contamination present at the site.
(ii) The facility standards of WAC 173.304.400 are met; and
(iii) The jurisdictional health department is informed of the actions to be taken and is
given the opportunity to review and comment upon the proposed corrective action
plans.
(c) Effective dates. The effective requirements of this section apply to all existing
waste handling facilities eighteen months after the effective date of this regulation.
[ Statutory Authority: RCW 70.95.215 . 88-20-066 (Order 88-28), § 173.304.600, filed
10/4/88.
Statutory Authority: Chapter 43.21A RCW . 85-22-013 (Order 85-18), § 173.304.600,
filed 10/28/85.]
(2) Procedures for permits.
(a) Any owner or caerator subject to the permit requirements who intends to operate
a facility must apply for a permit with the iurisdictional health department
filing shall not be complete until two copies of the application have been signed by
the owner and operator and received by the jurisdictional health department, and
the applicant has filed an environmental checklist required under the State
Environmental Policy Act rules, chapter 197-11 WAC.
The issues above pertaining to wood waste are brief and more regulations apply.
Issue #5: Tires.
A brief history on the tire buried at the mine site. Tires were brought into the mine site
and stockpiled beginning at 1991, and continued for several years. The tires total over
3500 tires. In the several years, from time to time tires were buried on the site I have
made numerous complaints on the tire violations and have supplied several detailed
photo's to M.C.D.H.S. of each of the locations were tires are buried and the amounts at
each burial site. In the past M.C.D.H.S. were totally aware under statute 70.95. et seq.
that it was and is illegal to dispose or deposit tires on any propero, without first
obtaining a permit
Tires have been in violation from the day the first tires were brought onto the mine site in
1991. The statute that pertain to the tire issues are as follows.
(1) RCW 70.95.500 Disposal of vehicle tires outside designated area prohibited—
Penalty—Exemption. (1) No person may drop, deposit, discard, or otherwise
dispose of vehicle tires on any public property or private property in this state or
in the waters of this state whether from a vehicle or otherwise, including, but not
limited to any public highway, public park, beach, campground, forest land,
recreational area,trailer park, highway, road, street, or alley unless;
(2) A violation of this section is punishable by a civil penalty, which shall not be
less than two hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars for each
offense 1985 c 345§4. J
RCW 70.95.550 Waste tires—Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires
otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 70,95.555
through 70.95.565
(1) "Storage"or "storing"means the placing of more than eight hundred waste
tires in a manner that does not constitute rinal disposal of the waste tires.
(2) "Transportation" or"transporting" means picking up or transporting waste tires
for the purpose of\storage or final disposal.
(3) "Waste tires"means tires that are no longer suitable for their original intended
purpose because of wear, damage, or defect [ 1988 c 250 § 3. ]
RCW 70.95.560 Waste Tires—Violation of RCW 70.95.555 —Penalty.
Any person who transports or stores waste tires without a license in violation of
RCW 70.95.555 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and upon conviction
shall be punished under RCW 9A.20.021 (2). /1989 c 41 §95; 1988 c 250§5. J
RCW 70.95.565 Waste Tires—Contracts with unlicensed persons prohibited.
No business may enter into a contract for.
(1) Transportation of waste tires with an unlicensed waste Lire transporter, or
(2) Waste Lire storage with an unlicensed owner or operator of a waste Lire storage
site. [1988 c 250§6. J
Issue#6 Culvert directed to my property, purposely causing damage by flooding.
The culvert I am referring to is located about 25 feet into the mine gate, on the south side
of the mine property. This culvert was installed in November of 1991, and still remains
to this day. I have made continues complaints with no results.
Anderman Enterprises. Inc. was denied the use of the said culvert, and was never
approved This culvert was part of the plan transferred in 1993. The reclamation plan
was transferred with all departments knowing the culvert was not approved and was
causing continuous damage to my property. M.C.D.C.D. and M.C. D.H.S. was sent
many copies of a letter from D.N.R., stating they were aware that the culvert was never
approved, because the drainage coming out of the culvert was deliberately aimed at my
property and was known that damage would occur. (see your files for copies of letters)
The culvert issue not only violates state and federal statutes, it also involves my
constitutional rights under article one, section sixteen.
Issue# 7 Demolition Waste: Demolition waste was brought onto the mine site on
several occasions and buried at several locations throughout the mine site. The
demolition waste consist of concrete and asphalt from the 4`s Street project
Amounts and locations were documented and are in my possession. All locations were
reported to M.C. D. H. S. The demolition consist of concrete with 1 inch of asphalt.
Demolition waste is defined in WAC 173.304.100 (19)
"Demolition waste" means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the
demolition or razing of buildings, roads and other man-made structures.
Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous
concrete,wood and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, and
minor amounts of other metals like copper. Plaster(i.e., sheet rock or plaster
board) or any other material, other than wood, that is likely to produce
gases or a leachate during the decomposition process and asbestos wastes are
not considered to be demolition waste for the purposes of this regulation.
Other regulations also apply to the demolition waste, such as Mason Counties own
ordinances, Articl IX —Mason County Solid Waste Handling and Facilities Ordinance
(section 3.03) which states:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in solid ivaste
handling or disposal or to allow such activities to take place
except at a facility under permit from the Health Department
and consistent with the Alason County Comprehensive Solid
Waste Management Plan."
But most of all, City of Bremerton required the concrete and asphalt to be disposed of at a
permitted site. Mark Souza of City of Bremerton Engineers called and talked to Mike
Tokos about the disposal at the site. Mr. Souza supplied Mike Tokos with a copy of the
requirements. It stated "The contractor shall provide the waste site for disposal of any
and all waste materials at no expense to the city. The Contractor shall obtain approval
of the Engineer before using any intended site. Approval of the ivaste site by the
Engineer shall not relieve the Contractor of sole responsibility for compliance with all
City, County, .State and Federal Provisions nor for the responsibility to comply with
any and all provate agreements relative to said waste site."
Mason County Department of Health Service was supplied with a letter from Mark
Souza, stating "the ivaste site must be permitted to except the waste.
Mason County Department of Health, allowed the waste to be buried on site without
first applying or receiving a permit.
Issue 98 Superfund waste.
As this issue is long and violates State, County and Federal Statutes, I am going to be
very brief. The material from Jachson Park Navel Housing Complex, is classified as a
superfund site. The waste ivhich consist of concrete from ammunitions bunkers,
identified as bunker 103 and 104.
The only point I will bring up at this time is, that it is classified as demolition waste,
and requires a permit for disposal. The department of the Navy required the site to be
permittet4 and Mason County Health Department approved the disposal without any
permit or application for a permit
Issue # 8 Lower settling Pond:
The lower settling ponds were constructed in 1985 and 1986, and from that time to now,
have been modified many times. Once again, because so many issue relate to the lower
settling ponds I will be brief The pond has no liner, and M.CD.H.& has allowed
superfund waste to be disposed of in and around the pond, and allowed leachate and
septic waste to be mixed in the 10,000 gallon underground storage tank to be pumped
into the pond M.CD.KS. has been aware that the lower settling pond cannot contain
the drainage that goes into it and overflows from the pond into the Medeiros property
and the Union River. The disposing of the waste and the pumping on the 10,000
underground storage tank has been documented and photographed
Issue#9 Middle settling Pond:
The settling pond located at the midlevel of the site on the south area. This area is very
unstable and in the past several years have collapsed and caused thousands of yards of
material to be washed onto my property causing extensive amount of damage. This
pond is constructed on over 650 yards of fill dirt. This fill dirt was brought onto the site
from the location were the Peninsula Community Credit Union is located. The 650 loads
were documented and photographed by me, and Mr. Hoover.
The fill cannot contain the water that goes into the pond M.CD.H.S., and M.CC.D.
has been aware of this problem and this problem still continues to this day.
Issue#10 Underground storage tank;
On October 16, 1994, a 10,000-gallon underground tank was installed without first
applying for a permit A permit was issued after the fact. In 1994, the underground
tank was installed for the collection of leachate from the wood waste stockpile.
This issue covers many statutes that are in violation, such as, Federal Statutes, State
Statutes, and Local Ordinances and requires a lengthy letter to explain all the statutes that
apply and would be in violation. You should be aware of those statutes.
Please understand that there are many more issues involved. For the purpose of this
letter, what information I am supplying should be sufficient to confirm my view. All the
information placed in this letter can be confirmed with photo's or documentation. If you
need any more information please respond in writing.
erely
Richard Medeiros
Cc: D.N.R. Cc: D.O.E.
Cc: Commissioner Olsen Cc: Commissioner Cady
CC: Commissioner Bolender Cc: Randy Loun
Cc: Fish and Wild Life Cc: Gary Yando
Cc: Andrea Unger
�oN. S TA TF O�
� DEPARTMENT OF COMt
DEVELOPMENT
� - o � N
o AC x
o � 2
T
Y �o� Planning - Landfill - Utilities
1664
TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING STAFF, DEPT. OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
Please publish the attached
on the following
day(s)
Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Department of
Community Development to pick up from you office (and send /
copies to the following
Please charge y Q � � for the
publication at: � � ��'�� SUS--
Thank youP'a.44'-&dA-'
`Mason County Planning Staff
Gary Yando, Director of Community Development - Erik Fairchild, Planning Director
Mason CoLinty Bldg. M - 426 W. Cedar - P. 0. Box 573 - Shelton, WA 98584 - (206) 427-9670
BELFAIR SAND AND GRAVEL
An existing sand and gravel pit, owned by the current owner Jeffrey Hartman since 1990,
has operated for over 15 years. The property is 40 acres in size but only about 60 percent
has been worked. Belfair Sand and Gravel has applied for a revised surface mining
reclamation plan through the Department of Natural Resources. Mason County Department
of Community Development is conducting the environmental review of the proposed 14 year
plan of operation. Due to various issues related to the present proposal and the past aspects
of operations, Mason County has released an environmental determination of significance as
part of the review of the proposed plan of operation.
At this point the public is encouraged to comment on the scope of review of the proposed
surface reclamation plan. In this way all issues and concerns can be addressed as the plan is
evaluated for a decision to be made in cooperation with the Department of Natural
Resources.
C,
May 13, 1999
Richard Medt iros
O
N ,24 9 1 Oldfkelf'Rit 14vvY CO
BelFair, Wa 98528
Mason Count Department Of Health Services
pest Office B x 1666
I �
S�elton, Was iington 98584 L
Re: Wood wiste I. 13
• Dear Mr 'Bat ner, 'OMMISSIONERS
This letter is reminder that Mason County is allowing the illegal removal of woad waste
from Allen St ear Sand and Gravel, from the mine site to Allen Shear place of bu4iness
lAcated on bi hway 3.
11 is in your ji irisdiction to stop the removal, and have the wood waste brought to a
proved site for disposal of wood waste. It'wood waste continu6 to be
permitted and app
roved
removed, is ill be the responsibility of Mason County Department of Health forlthe
�our department has several pboto's of illegal wood waste buried on the mine site that
e�ceeds 75,000 yards, This wood waste must be dug up and removed to a permitted site.
I'have ask yd'ur department (Andrea) to test the wood waste for contents, Do}you know
hat is in th9 wood waste??? What ever mi
ght be in the wood waste you are Allowing
to be spread loin one place to many others.
Andrea assutl-d me that test holes would be dug to reveal the buried wood waste and tires
buried on the mine site. To this day no test holes have been dug.
Please do no ignore this situation, enforcement is necessary immediately, All wood waste
-,
both under d above the ground must be removed and placed in a permitted anA
ai
approved sit for disposal.
Sincerely
l ichard Medeiros
r,,c: Randy Loun
cc: Commi sion Olsen
I k
WASHING-TON STATE DEPARTiVIENTOF
Natural Resource's 1ENNIFER M.BELCHER
Ccmmissioner of Public Lands
June 22, 1999 R E C E I v r IRS
JUN 2 3 1999
Allan Hoover
2491 NE Old Belfair Hwy MASON G0,PLk V1141VG DEpr
Belfair, WA 98528
SUBJECT: Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066; Belfair Sand & Gravel
Dear Mr. Hoover;
Please forgive the delay in response to your letter dated May 15, 1999 which included a letter
dated January 25, 1999 and to another letter dated January 28, 1999. As of mid-June I have
taken over administration of the reclamation permits in Mason County. I will try to respond to
your concerns within our realm of regulatory authority which, as you know, is strictly
reclamation. Please keep in mind that I have done only a cursory review of the permit file and
have only briefly visited the site so my knowledge of the situation is not intimate.
There seems to have been confusion over the past few months on who is the permit holder and
who is the landowner. Belfair Sand& Gravel remains the legal permit holder. Apparently the
corporate officers have recently changed so that now Mr. Jeffrey Hartman now acting as the
president of Belfair Sand& Gravel. Allen Shearer Sand & Gravel is the operator having a
contractual relationship with Belfair. The Hartman Family Trust, with Mr. Hartman acting as
trustee, remains the landowner. There has been no transfer of the permit just a change in
operator.
It appears that Mr. Pierce responded to your public disclosure request with his letter dated March
29, 1999 and with copies of requested documents enclosed with that letter.
It seems that your concerns about encroachment onto your property and into required setbacks
have been visited many times over the years. Typically, the department considers a dispute over
the location of a property line to be a civil matter between the disputing parties and should be
dealt with in civil court. During my brief visit it appeared that one of the setback areas of
concern, between the lower pond and what I understand to be your property, is well vegetated
with trees and shrubs. To disturb this area may actually create more of a problem than a solution.
CENTRAL REGION 1 1405 RUSH RD 1 CHEHALIS 1 WA 98532-8763
FAX:(360)748-2387 1 TTY:(360) 740-6841 1 TEL:(360) 748-4-383
= ate Equal OpportunitviAffirmative Action Emplover ECYCLED PAPER i�
Allan Hoover
June 22, 1999
Page 2
In regards to Mason County's comment number 3 on the copy of the undated letter you sent with
your January 28" letter, we do not attach compliance with the Department of Ecology's General
Permit as a condition our permit. Chapter 78.44 RCW clearly limits the department's regulatory
authority to reclamation. We may regulate operations indirectly only if they impact reclamation.
Generally,this would apply only things like mine phasing, soil management, and the extent of
the disturbed area.
I did briefly discuss the issue of water control at the site with Mr. Bill Leman during my recent
site visit. He mentioned their plan to change the water control system currently in place. After
they have made their improvements, it is my intent to attain reclamation of as much of the slopes
adjacent to the ponds as quickly as possible. I intend to work with Mr. Leman to limit the
disturbed area through improved mine phasing and interim revegetation. I believe that helping
Mr. Leman implement these improvements will significantly reduce runoff, erosion, and
sedimentation and thus, alleviate many of your concerns. However, before I can adequately deal
with all of this, I need the opportunity to get on board with the modified plan and current site
conditions.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at the Central Region Office at (360)740-6805.
i cerely,
ep a E. Zurenk
Geologist/Reclamation Specialist
/sz
c: Allen Borden, Mason County Community Development
Scott Morrison, DOE
Jeffery Hartman,Belfair S&G
Bill Leber,Allen Shearer S&G
Art Tasker, SPS
Mary Ann Shawver, Geology
file 12066
Tickle 7/21/99
v
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
Natural Resources Commissioner
M.BEfPubl
Commissioner of Public Lands
a
Ply
�^ rC: Frl
August 23, 1999
�1VIA AUG 2 6 1999
MASON Co.NL4jVMiV6
Gary Yando, Planning Director
Mason County
Department of Community Development
PO Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
SUBJECT- Distribution of notices and SEPA documents related to mining
Coordination of mine permitting efforts between DNR and Mason County
Dear Mr. Yando;
As you are aware, as of mid-June I took over administration of the DNR reclamation
permits for surface mines in Mason County. I finally had the opportunity to do a brief
review of the files and review the summary given to me by my predecessor Mr. Dave
Pierce. I also had the opportunity to talk with Pam Bennett-Cummings of your
department. She provided me with helpful information and gave me a status up-date
on several permitting efforts.
As a consequence of the reviews and discussion with Ms. Bennett-Cummings, I would
like to initiate an effective cooperative and communicative relationship with your
department. I will provide your department with any information regarding our permits
and permit requirements and also to help coordinated permit requirements and
environmental review when ever possible. And 1 respectfully request that your
department provide our SEPA Center with all notices, announcements, and SEPA
documents which are related to any aspect of mining. Our SEPA Center would then
distribute the documents to me for action or for my information. I know that the SEPA
Center receives many of the SEPA documents from the county already but, I would like
to make sure that I receive all the additional notices which the SEPA Center may not
currently receive. I realize this request puts an additional burden on your staff.
However, I have found that, when I receive all notices, I can better track the progress
and issues related to a particular mine site or mining proposal.
Additionally, in my dealings with other counties, I have found it valuable to coordinate
permitting efforts in the early stages of a proposal. I would be willing to attend pre-
application conferences to help define issues and concerns. I am more than willing to
provide my expertise related to mine reclamation, the Surface Mining Act, and geology.
truly believe such efforts will benefit both agencies.
CENTRAL REGION 1 1405 RUSH RD 1 CHEHALIS 1 WA 98532-8763
FAX. (360) 748-2387 1 TTY:(360)740-6841 1 TEL:(360) 748-2383
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer RECYCLED PAPER C�
Gary Yando, Planning Director
August 23, 1999
Page 2
Please provide my name to your staff. They are welcome to call me anytime at
(360)740-6805 or email me at stephanie.zurenko@wadnr.gov. I have enclosed a few
cards for distribution.
The DNR SEPA Center mailing address is: Dept. of Natural Resources, SEPA Center,
PO Box 47015, Olympia, WA 98504-7015
Sincerely,
ephanie E. Zurenk o
Geologist/Reclamation Specialist
enclosure
c: Hoa Le, SEPA Center
Garry Gideon, Central
Mason County file (sz)
�-,��fa�7r �-"�' z�-v'✓G ;Z �r�I�l�s/ tfini
ME MEMO MEMNON somplimom
ME WE M mmmmomme ■W./■AS■■■■■®■
■■NUN ��t��%I�!`'a■i1rA(A s;i ''.:�:f�.uac-R�G.�■N
■■ ■■ ■■C�■n■■■► ■■■■EN■■■■■N Mom
R■■
MMMM
■ ■■■■■■■K MEM■ ■■■■�■■■G■■■■■
vj FA
FFS
�ir��ii� �■�r1M■■■■ MENEM No!.�' ■ �■ ,�!����� NOON
■■N■■■■■■■■■■■i�■■■■■ ■■�� ■■■
■■■■■■■■■ No or ■■N�i�■■■■■■ ■■■■
MIMMONEEM ■ MEMEMEMEM
■ENE ONE MEN ' ,` ■■N NOON
■ ■■■■■■■■� ■■
■ �� ■ ■!!■ ■ ■ ■
NNE
■■■■� ■■■/'��■,/■■■■■■� ■ ■
./ ■ ■ ■
■G■ �■■■ ■
NONE G
ME
ON
WON E■■NN G G
N■■■GE■■.■■■■■■■ . ■ .
N■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■.■■■■■■■■■ NONE■. .
ON■E■E MEN■■E■ ■■■E■.O■NONON■NE ■loom
E■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■E■■N■■■NO■ N
/�
00AP,
v
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTOF
JENNIHER
Natural Resources Comm ER M.Bof Public
Commissioner of Public Lands
July 12, 1999
rtFr.F1NfFn-
JUL 15 1999
MASON CO.PLANNING IXPT
Allen Borden,Planner
Department of Community Development
411 North Fifth Street
PO Box 578
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Surface Mine Reclamation Permit No. 70-012066 -Belfair Sand and Gravel
Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS SEPA
Number Sep99-0036
Dear Mr. Borden:
The department has worked with the proponent's consultant,Robert Gatz of A.D.A. Engineering,
LLC to develop a reclamation plan that is acceptable to the department and meets the
requirements (1993 standards) of the Surface Mine Reclamation Act RCW 78.44.
The reclamation plan containing four sheets, sheet numbers 1 and 2 dated January 1998 and sheet
numbers 3 and 4 dated April 27, 1998,meet the above requirements. Therefore, the department
provides conceptual approval for the referenced reclamation plan.
Please include our comments in your SEPA review of the proposed revised reclamation plan with
the other operational aspects currently under review.
Due to administrative boundary changes within the department, the South Puget Sound Region in
Enumclaw will no longer have administration involvement in the Surface Mine Reclamation Act
including existing and future reclamation permits in Mason County.
The Central Region in Centralia will be assuming these duties. This change affects only the
Administration of Surface Mine Reclamation Act. All other administrative duties and
responsibilities will remain with no other changes anticipated. This change became effective
June 14, 1999.
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 r.J
Allen Borden
Page 2
July 12, 1999
I will be contacting all existing surface mine permit holders of the administrative duties transfer
and responsibilities within the department.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have additional
questions, please contact Stephanie Zurenko of our Central Region Office at 1-800-527-3305.
Sincerely,
David S. Pierce
Surface Mine Field Inspector
DSP/bh
JUL99Borden
f
GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR
STA)-
o A°u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
r o T i PLANNING - SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES
z� N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578
of 1864 �o SHELTON, WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670
DETERNUNATION 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
s
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.
Reslin"sibleV6 4cial 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.