HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEP2013-00009 Asphalt Plant - SEP Determinations - 2/7/2013 • ' r ��1 20i� -0000`1
' f
RECEIVED
FEB 0 4 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
426 W. CEDAR ST.
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 RCW, requires all
governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making
decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with
probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this
checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your
proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal,if it can be done)and to help the
agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your
proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental
impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring the preparation of an EIS. Answer the
questions briefly,with the most precise information known, or give the best description you
can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully,to the best of your knowledge. In
most cases,you should be able to answer the question from your own observations or project
plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question
does not apply to your proposal,write"do not know" or"does not apply". Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and
landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the
governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal,even if you plan to do them over
a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will
help describe the your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit
this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or to provide additional information
reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals,even though questions may be answered
"does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR
NONPROJECT ACTIONS (Part D).
For nonproject actions,the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant,"
and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic
area," respectively.
1
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Belfair Asphalt Plant
2. Name of applicant:
Granite Construction Company
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Brad Estes, Washington Materials Manager
1525 E. Marine View Dr.
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 551-3100
4. Date checklist prepared:
January 31, 2011
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Mason County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Begin plant operations in the Spring of 2013
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No future additions or further activities are anticipated.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
In 2003 a previous application and environmental checklist was submitted to the Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency for the establishment of a portable asphalt plant. A Determination of
Non-Significance was issued to establish and operate a new asphalt plant at the 47 acre site
zoned industrial by Mason County.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No applications are known at this time.
2
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known.
A Notice of Construction is currently submitted to Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA),a final Order of Approval will be required to commence plant operations.This order
is pending ORCAA review and a SEPA determination by Mason County.
A Sand and Gravel General Permit will be required from the Washington State Department of
Ecology to address stormwater management and spill prevention.
11. Give brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agency may modify this form to include additional specific information on project
description.)
Similar to previous asphalt operations at the Peninsula Top Soil Landscaping facility, Granite
Construction proposes to operate a portable asphalt plant to produce asphaltic concrete for local
private and public road maintenance and construction projects.Granite will be utilizing a portion
of the exis ing47/acre industrial site for asphalt lant operations including aggregate sto kpile
areas. �O!►s �f /—�nf D�t�.aZ`�p..f �i y o�c r.�.y ��� OL i
12. Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project,including a street address,if any,and section,township,
and range,if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographical map,if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required
by the agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
applications related to this checklist.
24943 NE HWY 3
Belfair, WA 98528
The 47 acre site is comprised of a total of four parcels.
Mason County Parcel # 12321-34-00010, -00030, -00040, -00090
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountains,
other Previously graded and disturbed.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 0-2%
3
c. What general types of soils(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat,muck)? If you know the
classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Sandy Gravel
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
None
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe.
No clearing of vegetation is required to prepare the site
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 2 acres will be occupied by portable plant equipment.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Site will be stabilized with gravel roads and stockpile working areas.
4
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from this proposal (i.e. dust, automobile,
odors,industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
An emission summary has been submitted to ORCAA and is attached as Appendix A.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
None known at this time
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The asphalt plant is equipped with a bag house to reduce particulate matter emissions from the
drying of aggregate. The bag house is 99%efficient at capturing suspended particulate matter.
Water shall be applied to any areas within the project location known or suspected to generate
dust during dry periods and/or high wind events. The typical maritime climate on the Kitsap
Peninsula keeps stockpile moistures relatively high which will minimize dust during aggregate
handling.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater,lakes,ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type
and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
No surface water bodies occur on-site, all storm water is captured, retained, and discharged to
groundwater.
2) Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Not applicable.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of the fill material.
Not applicable.
5
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so,note location on the site plan.
Proposed project does not lie within a 100 year floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No discharge of waste materials is associated with this proposal.
b. Ground:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Proposed project will not impact groundwater withdrawal or discharge.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals.. .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the
number such systems,the number of houses to be served(if applicable),or the number
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not applicable.
c. Water Runoff(including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Storm water is the only expected run off source. Site has an existing storm water treatment
system. This project is not expected to impact storm water runoff.
6
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts,if any:
This site has a storm water treatment system in place.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_X_evergreen tree: fir, ceder, pine, other
shrubs
grass
_pasture
crop or grain
_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
No vegetation will be removed or altered as a result of this project.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Nothing proposed.
7
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
All of Western Washington is part of the Pacific flyway for migratory birds.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy(electrical,natural gas,oil,wood stove,solar)will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
The asphalt production facility will use electricity to power the manufacturing equipment. Propane
will be used for heating at the production facility.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Facility will be insulated to reduce heat loss and to conserve energy. Large electric motors will be
powered by soft starts or variable frequency drives where possible to reduce electric demand.
Propane burners will be tuned regularly to achieve optimum efficiency. Production temperatures
will be monitored and minimized to the extent possible to reduce energy consumption.
8
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals,risk of
fire and explosion,spill,or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal?
If so, describe.
Up to 50,000 gallons of asphalt binder will be stored on site.Asphalt binder solidifies at ambient
temperatures. Asphalt binder,therefore,will not travel long distances and does not penetrate the
ground surface. Up to 18,000 gallons of liquefied propane gas will be stored on site. No
hazardous waste will be generated as result of this project.
1) Describe any emergency services that might be required.
Fire Department
2) Propose measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Granite is contracted with emergency response contractor's in-case the unlikely occurrence of a
spill.A spill containment and counter measures plan will be prepared for the project as required
by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
The current uses of the site include asphalt plant operations,ready mix concrete plant operations,
truck parking, and aggregate and topsoil stockpiling and resale.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term basis(for example:traffic,construction,operation,other)? Indicate what hours
noise would come from the site.
Noise will be created by the asphaltic concrete manufacturing process. The noise levels will be
consistent with the existing uses of the property. Typical business hours associated with this
project will be Monday through Friday from lam until 5pm. Additional hours may be required
based on the schedules of short-term construction projects.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Mobile equipment will be equipped with"white noise"back up alarms. Material stockpiles will
be positioned to mitigate potential offsite noise impacts. The burner for the aggregate heating
and drying will be a total air burner with a noise mitigation shroud to minimize noise impacts.
9
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
This is an industrial site. The site is currently used to product ready mix concrete and asphaltic
concrete. The site is also used for truck parking as well as for aggregate and topsoil stockpiling
and resale. Adjacent properties are used to produce recycled aggregate as well as for topsoil
production and resale.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
The site is not used for agricultural activities, although top soil sales support hobby farmers
within the area.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
This project will require a portable asphaltic concrete production facility as well as product load
out bins. The project will also use the existing office and other facilities at the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? if so,what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
General Commercial with Business Industrial Overlay
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
This site is part of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The land use is General Commercial with
Business Industrial Overlay.
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
N/A
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Four employees would be employed by this project.
10
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
This proposal is consistent with current zoning and comprehensive plan designation. An asphalt
production facility has been permitted at this site for approximately ten (10) years. This
proposed use has been recognized as an allowed use by Mason County Planning Department.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,middle
or low-income housing.
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
N/A
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not including antennas;what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The majority of the production facility is less than fifteen (15) feet tall. The product load-out
bins are approximately seventy(70)feet tall. The exterior of the structure is painted steel. The
steel is painted neutral colors.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Production facility will be painted with neutral colors.
11
11. Light and Glare
a. What kind of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Security lighting may be required for this proposal. Any lights would be directed towards the
ground to prevent glare.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Applicant will ensure that night time lighting levels are maintained at the minimum level
necessary for security and safety at the project site. All night time lighting shall be shielded and
aimed appropriately to prevent any upward illumination or light directed at adjacent properties.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
None
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
No impact
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
N/A
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A
12
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans if any.
Proposal shall use existing access points from State Highway 3. Developer agreement with
WSDOT (File#UC03266) already constructed new approaches and highway widening.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
N/A
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
None
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
This project will use the existing access points from State Highway 3.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
This proposal replaces a previously permitted portable asphalt plant. This proposal is expected
to contribute an additional fifteen average daily truck trips. Peak volumes are based upon the
demands of local construction projects as well as public works maintenance. Local agencies
attempt to schedule these projects and maintenance activities around peak traffic periods to avoid
impacts on motorists.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
N/A
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
N/A
13
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water,refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service,and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Electric power — Mason County PUD #3 — Primary power service to be provided by existing
electric service.
Water—Belfair Water District#1 —Existing water service.
Refuse Service—Mason County Garbage—Existing service
Telephone— Centurylink—Existing service
Septic System—Existing system available on site
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: .2 A/
14
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs
irther analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon,
trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as
endangered, threatened or being considered for listing.
If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project
has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help
determine if the ESA listings will impact your project.
The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can
provide information for the following two questions.
1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located?
YES )( NO_ Please describe.
2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed?
YES_ NO �_ Uncertain_ Please describe.
If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the
remainder of this checklist.
PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity.
1. Name of watershed: 0
2. Name of nearest Ovaterbod :y O r1I n n l l
V
3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: a M Often a buffer
between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish.
4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland,
etc.)?
5. Is the project above a:
* natural permanent barrier (waterfall) YES_ NO
* natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES_ NO
* man-made barrier (culvert, dam) YES_ NO_✓
• other(explain):
6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage?
YES_ NO_ Don't know — a t_
1 J�
7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement& roof area)? --�X d�,S 0
_F
Mason County SEPA Checklist 11 /� pa " 1
00
5u� -�e-
FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult
and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration.
1. Does the project require the withdrawal of:/
a. Surface water? YES NO V/
Amount
Name of surface water body
b. Ground water? YES NO
Amount
From where
Depth of well
2. Will any water be rerouted: YES_ NO
If yes, will this require a channel change?
3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES `� NO
If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface
water body? If to a surface waterbody, please give the name of the waterbody.
YES_ NO
4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES_ NO v
Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat.
5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES_ NO
6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES_ NO
If yes, describe the changes.
7. Will the project involve y reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows?
YES_ NO _
If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project?
WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could adversely impact water quality.
Such impacts can cause problems for listed species.
Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces, altering water temperature, discharging
contaminants, etc.
1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed?
YES_ NO & If yes, describe.
Mason County SEPA Checklist 12
1
2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody?
YES_ NO If yes, describe.
Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in
shade.
3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants
(fertilizers, other waste di charges, or runoff)to the waterbody? If yes, describe.
YES — NO—✓/
4. Will turbidity be increase because of construction of the project or during operation of the project?
YES— NO
In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity.
5. Will your project require long-term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for
vegetation management, clearing of parking lots?
YES_ NO If yes, please describe.
VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation,
thereby, adversely impacting salmon.
1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks:
YES _ NO
If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed.
2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant?
YES _ NO If yes, what types of plants will you use?
/moo ✓405el- C/4, j1 L. bl i-t ovB G" i 1 M 4/
The above answers are true and c lete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make ' ecisio r
Applicant Signatur Date: �3
Mason County SEPA Checklist 13
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Corbit Site- Granite Construction
From: Mike Wnek <mike@wnekeng.com>
To: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/6/2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Corbit Site- Granite Construction
CC: "Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com>
Allan...
Granite has submitted their SEPA checklist for installation of an asphalt plant (paving mix) at the Corbit Site in Belfair.
We are working on the design plans &structural analysis for the foundation system for the mix-silos &the weight-scale
platform. Granite will submit these for a Mason Co. building permit (BP), as soon as they are ready.
To hopefully streamline the BP process, and due to the unique nature of the foundation requirements, we will have an
independent review of the structural analysis &plans accomplished; which will be submitted with the BP application.
It seems that the BP is not directly tied to the SEPA process; in that SEPA can proceed before the BP is submitted.
It is our intent to finalize the design as soon as possible, so that the BP can be turned-in.
If you feel the BP must be on file with the County before the SEPA can be processed, please let me know.
Thanks,
...Mike Wnek
WNEK ENGINEERING
Consulting Civil Engineer
3388 NW Byron St., Ste. 200
Silverdale, WA 98383
Office: (360)692-3802
Cell:(360)509-5890
file://C:IDocuments and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTempVPgrpwise1511227E5Mason mail 1001626A6811 D93... 2/6/2013
7
Off.STAr MASON COUNTY
le
BPS C °� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
M
o s° = Planning Division
~ 0 T L? P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
Y to~ (360)427-9670
1864
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-340)
SEP2013-00009
Description of Proposal: Operate portable asphalt plant to supply materials for road
maintenance or construction projects; mixing operations and scale
to occupy 5 to 6 acres of the 47 ac. industrial site. State air
quality and stormwater permits necessary for operations.
Proponent: GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
Location of Proposal: 100 NE PENINSULA BLVD (ASPHALT) BEI
Parcel Number: 123214200090
Legal Description: TR 9 OF W1/2 SE; S 28/106 PCL 4 BLA#03-14(R)AF#1779502
Directions to Site: State Route 3 in Belfair, left at Peninsula PI., property on right
adjacent to highway.
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request.
Please contact Allan Borden at ext. 365 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC
197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown
below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community
Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 2/21/2013. Appeal of this determination
must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County
Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals.
71
Auth rized Local Government Official Date
r '
STA MASON COUNTY
PC, �
A o N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o N z Planning Division
x Y y P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
�° (360)427-9670
1864
NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETENESS
February 07, 2013
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
1525 MARINE VIEW DR
EVERETT WA 98201
Parcel No.: 123214200090
Project Description: FOUNDATION FOR SILOS FOR PORTABLE ASPHALT PLANT
Dear Applicant.-
You have submitted a permit application (case no. COM2013-00013) for proposed construction or
development in the county. Upon review of your application, I have determined that the
application is complete for the purposes of beginning the permit review. This review is pursuant
to Mason County Code, Title 15 (Mason County Development Code.)
I will proceed with the review process of your permit application; however, additional information
may be required by another department at a later date.
Please call me at (360)427-9670, ext. 365 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
1
/Allan Borden
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
Comments:
The SEPA environmental checklist is subject to a comment period that ends on Thurs. February 21,
2013. Review of the project elements (buildings, layout of development, elements of operation) will
continue.
2/7/2013 Page 1 of 1 COM2013-00013
d
m Q'
DR
NE >
w
z 111
NE NEWKIRK RD
N
FSgNoy w
P
0
o
z �o
2 NE MCKNIGVA a
NE FERN WAY
e
rr
9
�E JAKE DR�o 1
T23NR1W o
O r
CO
aE LARS°NO�J NE ANCH Kitsap
_V
A E STATE ROLU
O
o
2 NE BYERLY DR
r
Y
,
7
gd
A
g�
7
9
/NE SQUIRE LN �
T
106
it
22NR1 W
a
N 3 , Ovc9(g R
1 inch = 2,000 feet �-
W
1 inch = 0 miles
S
r
�O
� c
9,Q
G
o
-
,cr
d
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i 1
123213100031 j ti 1
Y}_
R �
tl Y a d I
12z3213190032
k.
m
zi
- 1232 9003
0 623214200000 -
123213190033 .,
123213400030
12.3219999999 w�q .tr
�? OF
k �
Q
' r 123213400010 Ilk
2�
AL
,� '*`• 123214300010� ��` 123214300000
-41
F
123213400030
123214360100
123213490080
123213490050
7!-
123218888888 `" = i?3 214 39'Jl20,'
r=
123213400000 _� v
123282190040
119123282-19004011111111111111111111111
1 inch = 200 feet
1 inch = 0 miles
S
It o(vo
# dp
m
4, /
rk
cr
// e 1-FIRE HYDR TEE
1-FIRE HYDRANT LY
'• CONqW BLOCKIN p�C
�NCRE -PLANTS ;
_ R E S
3' 4,-00010ID otl
?�\
Ca �,
BEGIN WATER MAN CONSTRUCTION
• \S\ J�\ "CORBIT •PHASE-B EXTENSION" V`
REMOVE EX. BLIND FLANGE&THRUST BLOCK ` G
REDUCER
tx
1, #1 2321-43-f
! RJR
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Belfair Asphalt Plant
From: "Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com>
To: "AHB@co.mason.wa.us" <AHB@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/7/2013 8:28 AM
Subject: Belfair Asphalt Plant
Allen,
Just checking in on the SEPA review and I am curious if the public notice was going to get circulated this week. I left you a
message and I understand that you will be out of the office tomorrow so I am hoping that I can get an update sometime
today.
I appreciate your time and help on this project.
Thank You
James Essig
Project Manager
Vancouver/Olympia/Everett
18208 A SE 1 st ST
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-410-8117
MMITE
fife://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise151136595Masonmai11001626A6811 D94... 2/7/2013
Page 1 of 3
Allan Borden - Re: Belfair Asphalt Plant
From: "Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com>
To: "'Ahb@co.mason.wa.us"' <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/7/2013 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Belfair Asphalt Plant
CC: "Estes, Bradly" <Bradly.Estes@gcinc.com>, "Brickey, Bill" <William.Brickey@gcinc.com>
Allan, Thank you for the clarification.
James
From: Allan Borden
To: Essig, James
Sent: Thu Feb 0713:21:35 2013
Subject: RE: Belfair Asphalt Plant
James Essig:
Public notice would start today Thurs. Feb. 7,2013.
Agencies will receive email of SEPA with notice of completeness; adjacent landowners will receive paper copy in mail.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range&Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>>> "Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com> 2/7/2013 11:37 AM >>>
Allan,
Does that mean the public notice timeline begins today?
You speak to agency review I'm just wondering about the adjacent land owners as well?
Thanks
James
From: Allan Borden [mailto:Ahb@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 201310:48 AM
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5113AAFOMasonmail1001626A6811 D96... 2/7/2013
Page 2 of 3
To: Essig, James
Cc: Allan Borden
Subject: Re: Belfair Asphalt Plant
James Essig:
I will have the threshold determination sheet completed today and will circulate that determination &checklist for agency
review via email later today.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>>> "Essig, James" <James.Essig Z( gcinc.com> 2/7/2013 8:27 AM >>>
Allen,
Just checking in on the SEPA review and I am curious if the public notice was going to get circulated this week. I left you a
message and I understand that you will be out of the office tomorrow so I am hoping that I can get an update sometime
today.
I appreciate your time and help on this project.
Thank You
James Essig
Project Manager
Vancouver/Olympia/Everett
18208 A SE 1 st ST
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-410-8117
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise15113AAFOMasonmai11001626A6811 D96... 2/7/2013
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden -Granite asphalt plant SEP2013-00009 environmental checklist
, . . M/MK ....,.;.,,, .
From: Allan Borden
To: James Essig; SEPA review list
Date: 2/7/2013 4:46 PM
Subject: Granite asphalt plant SEP2013-00009 environmental checklist
CC: Allan Borden
Attachments: Granite asphalt plant SEP2013-00009 list.pdf
SEPA Reviewer:
Please find the SEP2013-00009 SEPA checklist review for the proposed portable asphalt plant on industrial land in Belfair
Urban Growth Area. Cover sheet and the checklist as a PDF format document is attached. Comment Deadline
is February 21, 2013.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5113DA70Masonmail1001626A6811 D97... 2/7/2013
� 1
,7
A. BACKGROUND G7 ` 0(20"
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Belfair Asphalt Plant
2. Name of applicant:
Granite Construction Company
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Brad Estes, Washington Materials Manager
1525 E. Marine View Dr.
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 551-3100
4. Date checklist prepared:
January 31, 2011
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Mason County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing,if applicable):
Begin plant operations in the Spring of 2013
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No future additions or further activities are anticipated.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
In 2003 a previous application and environmental checklist was submitted to the Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency for the establishment of a portable asphalt plant. A Determination of
Non-Significance was issued to establish and operate a new asphalt plant at the 47 acre site
zoned industrial by Mason County.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No applications are known at this time.
2
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known.
A Notice of Construction is currently submitted to Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA),a final Order of Approval will be required to commence plant operations. This order
is pending ORCAA review and a SEPA determination by Mason County.
A Sand and Gravel General Permit will be required from the Washington State Department of
Ecology to address stormwater management and spill prevention.
11. Give brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agency may modify this form to include additional specific information on project
description.)
Similar to previous asphalt operations at the Peninsula Top Soil Landscaping facility, Granite
Construction proposes to operate a portable asphalt plant to produce asphaltic concrete for local
private and public road maintenance and construction projects.Granite will be utilizing a portion
of the exass g/47 acme industrial site for asphalt lant operations including aggregates sto�kpile
areas. /�%s�J h. / /-��� Q�tewe, . .r v.'� C/�
12. Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise
location of your proposed project,including a street address,if any,and section,township,
and range,if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographical map,if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required
by the agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
applications related to this checklist.
24943 NE HWY 3
Belfair, WA 98528
The 47 acre site is comprised of a total of four parcels.
Mason County Parcel# 12321-34-00010, -00030,-00040, -00090
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountains,
other previously graded and disturbed.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 0-2%
3
c. What general types of soils(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat,muck)? If you know the
classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Sandy Gravel
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
None
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe.
No clearing of vegetation is required to prepare the site
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 2 acres will be occupied by portable plant equipment.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Site will be stabilized with gravel roads and stockpile working areas.
4 "
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from this proposal (i.e. dust, automobile,
odors,industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
An emission summary has been submitted to ORCAA and is attached as Appendix A.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
None known at this time
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The asphalt plant is equipped with a bag house to reduce particulate matter emissions from the
drying of aggregate. The bag house is 99% efficient at capturing suspended particulate matter.
Water shall be applied to any areas within the project location known or suspected to generate
dust during dry periods and/or high wind events. The typical maritime climate on the Kitsap
Peninsula keeps stockpile moistures relatively high which will minimise dust during aggregate
handling.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater,lakes,ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type
and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
No surface water bodies occur on-site, all storm water is captured, retained, and discharged to
groundwater.
2) Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Not applicable.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of the fill material.
Not applicable.
5
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so,note location on the site plan.
Proposed project does not lie within a 100 year floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No discharge of waste materials is associated with this proposal.
b. Ground:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Proposed project will not impact groundwater withdrawal or discharge.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...;agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the
number such systems,the number of houses to be served(if applicable),or the number
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not applicable.
c. Water Runoff(including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities if known)., Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Storm water is the only expected run off source. Site has an existing storm water treatment
system. This project is not expected to impact storm water runoff.
6
r
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts,if any:
This site has a storm water treatment system in place.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_X_ deciduous tree: alder,maple, aspen, other
_X_evergreen tree: fir, ceder, pine, other
shrubs
_grass
_pasture
_crop or grain
_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup,bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
_water plants: water lily, eelgrass,milfoil, other
_other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
No vegetation will be removed or altered as a result of this project.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Nothing proposed.
7
r '
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer,bear, elk,beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
All of Western Washington is part of the Pacific flyway for migratory birds.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy(electrical,natural gas,oil,wood stove,solar)will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
The asphalt production facility will use electricity to power the manufacturing equipment. Propane
will be used for heating at the production facility.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Facility will be insulated to reduce heat loss and to conserve energy. Large electric motors will be ,
powered by soft starts or variable frequency drives where possible to reduce electric demand.
Propane burners will be tuned regularly to achieve optimum efficiency. Production temperatures
-will be monitored and minimized to the extent possible to reduce energy consumption.
8
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals,risk of
fire and explosion,spill,or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal?
If so, describe.
Up to 50,000 gallons of asphalt binder will be stored on site.Asphalt binder solidifies at ambient
temperatures. Asphalt binder,therefore,will not travel long distances and does not penetrate the
ground surface. Up to 18,000 gallons of liquefied propane gas will be stored on site. No
hazardous waste will be generated as result of this project.
1) Describe any emergency services that might be required.
Fire Department
2) Propose measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Granite is contracted with emergency response contractor's in-case the unlikely occurrence of a
spill.A spill containment and counter measures plan will be prepared for the project as required
by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
The current uses of the site include asphalt plant operations,ready mix concrete plant operations,
truck parking, and aggregate and topsoil stockpiling and resale.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term basis(for example: traffic,construction,operation,other)? Indicate what hours
noise would come from the site.
Noise will be created by the asphaltic concrete manufacturing process. The noise levels will be
consistent with the existing uses of the property. Typical business hours associated with this
project will be Monday through Friday from lam until 5pm. Additional hours may be required
based on the schedules of short-term construction projects.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any:
Mobile equipment will be equipped with"white noise"back up alarms. Material stockpiles will
be positioned to mitigate potential offsite noise impacts. The burner for the aggregate heating
and drying will be a total air bumer with a noise mitigation shroud to minimize noise impacts.
9
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
This is an industrial site. The site is currently used to product ready mix concrete and asphaltic
concrete. The site is also used for truck parking as well as for aggregate and topsoil stockpiling
and resale. Adjacent properties are used to produce recycled aggregate as well as for topsoil
production and resale.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
The site is not used for agricultural activities, although top soil sales support hobby farmers
within the area.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
This project will require a portable asphaltic concrete production facility as well as product load
out bins. The project will also use the existing office and other facilities at the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? if so,what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
General Commercial with Business Industrial Overlay
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
This site is part of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The land use is General Commercial with
Business Industrial Overlay.
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
N/A
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Four employees would be employed by this project.
10
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
L Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans,if any:
This proposal is consistent with current zoning and comprehensive plan designation. An asphalt
production facility has been permitted at this site for approximately ten (10) years. This
proposed use has been recognized as an allowed use by Mason County Planning Department.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,middle
or low-income housing.
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
N/A
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not including antennas;what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The majority of the production facility is less than fifteen (15) feet tall. The product load-out
bins are approximately seventy(70)feet tall. The exterior of the structure is painted steel. The
steel is painted neutral colors.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Production facility will be painted with neutral colors.
11
11. Light and Glare
a. What kind of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Security lighting may be required for this proposal. Any lights would be directed towards the
ground to prevent glare.
b. Could light or glare from the fmished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Applicant will ensure that night time lighting levels are maintained at the minimum level
necessary for security and safety at the project site. All night time lighting shall be shielded and
aimed appropriately to prevent any upward illumination or light directed at adjacent properties.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
None
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
No impact
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
N/A
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A
12
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans if any.
Proposal shall use existing access points from State Highway 3. Developer agreement with
WSDOT (File #UC03266) already constructed new approaches and highway widening.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
N/A
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
None
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
This project will use the existing access points from State Highway 3.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
This proposal replaces a previously permitted portable asphalt plant. This proposal is expected
to contribute an additional fifteen average daily truck trips. Peak volumes are based upon the
demands of local construction projects as well as public works maintenance. Local agencies
attempt to schedule these projects and maintenance activities around peak traffic periods to avoid
impacts on motorists.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
N/A
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
N/A
13
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water,refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service,and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Electric power — Mason County PUD 43 — Primary power service to be provided by existing
electric service.
Water—Belfair Water District 41 —Existing water service.
Refuse Service—Mason County Garbage—Existing service
Telephone—Centurylink—Existing service
Septic System—Existing system available on site
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
14
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs
irther analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon,
trout and chars, e.g. bull trout For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids` is defined as fish species listed as
endangered, threatened or being considered for listing.
If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project
has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help
determine if the ESA listings will impact your project
The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can
provide information for the following two questions.
1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located?
YES X NO Please describe.
2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed?
YES_ NO �_ Uncertain_ Please describe.
If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the
remainder of this checklist.
PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specfc to the project and vicinity.
1. Name of watershed: a f
2. Name of nearest waterbody: 91z,
I
3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water a rn Often a buffer
between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish.
4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland,
etc.)?
5. Is the project above a:
" natural permanent barrier (waterfall) YES_ NO_
natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES_ NO
" man-made barrier (culvert, dam) YES_ NO
• other(explain):
6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage?
YES_ NO_ Don't know _ L( A
7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement& roof area)? �S d !
Mason County SEPA Checklist ,1�%S 10 Lb
FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult
and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration.
1. Does the project require the withdrawal of
a. Surface water? YES NO ✓
Amount
Name of surface water body
b. Ground water? YES NO
Amount
From where
Depth of well
2. Will any water be rerouted: YES_ NO
If yes, will this require a channel change?
3. Will there be retention or detention ponds? YES NO
If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface
water body? If to a surface waterbody, please give the name of the waterbody.
YES_ NO
4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES— NO—
Increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat.
5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES— NO
6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES— NO v
If yes, describe the changes.
7. Will the project involve y reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows?
YES_ NO ✓
If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project?
WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could adversely impact water quality.
Such impacts can cause problems for listed species.
Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces, altering water temperature, discharging
contaminants, etc.
1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed?
YES— NO If yes, describe.
Mason County SEPA Checklist ��
2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody?
YES_ NO_Z"If yes, describe.
Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in
shade.
3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants
(fertilizers, other waste cli charges, or runoff)to the waterbody? If yes, describe.
YES — NO—
4. Will turbidity be increase because of construction of the project or during operation of the project?
YES_ NO
In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity.
5. Will your project require long-term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for
vegetation management, clearing of parking lots?
YES_ NO✓ If yes, please describe.
VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation,
thereby, adversely impacting salmon.
1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks:
YES _ NO
If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed.
2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant?
YES _ NO If yes, what types of plants will you use?
f
/ ! L
The above answers are true and c lete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make " ecisio r
Applicant Sig natur Date: �3
f
Mason County SEPA Checklist �7
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - ECY 13-0615- Belfair Asphalt Plant project-Comments
From: "Mendoza, Sonia (ECY)" <Smen461 @ECY.WA.GOV>
To: "Ahb@co.mason.wa.us" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/21/2013 11:28 AM
Subject: ECY 13-0615- Belfair Asphalt Plant project- Comments
CC: "Smith, Joyce M. (ECY)" <josm461 @ECY.WA.GOV>, "Mercuri, Joyce (ECY)" <jmer461 @ECY.WA.GOV>,
"Cornett, Deborah (ECY)" <DCOR461 @ECY.WA.GOV>
Attachments: 13-0615.pdf
Mr. Borden,
Attached are Ecology's comments for the Belfair Asphalt Plant project(Ecology SEPA No. 13-0615). Comments are due
today 2/21/13.
Attached is the original final copy.
Please reply to this message for confirmation. Thank you.
Sonia Mendoza
Department of Ecology-SWRO
SEPA Coordinator
P:360-407-6313 & F:360-407-6305
son ia.mendoza@ecy.wa,gov
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTempVPgrpwise1512604E8Masonmai11001626A6811DA... 2/21/2013
Page 2 of 2
Pat Loudin
From: Allan Borden
To: Patrick Loudin
Cc: Allan Borden
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Notice of application
Pat Loudin:
I will be posting this notice on the property and at the post office on Friday Feb 22, 2013. 1 will email you a copy of the
notice on 2/22 before 10 AM. I have noted your concerns and you may comment in writing within the next 14 days.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal Settings\TemplXPgrpwise1512E344EMason mail 1001626A6811 DB... 2/27/2013
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 -Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 -(360)407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service -Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
February 21, 2013
Mr.Allan Borden Your address
Mason County ~' is in the
Department of Community Development
Planning Division watershed
PO Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
Dear Mr. Borden:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the
Belfair Asphalt Plant project(SEP2013-00009) located at 100 Northeast Peninsula Boulevard in
Belfair as proposed by Granite Construction Company. The Department of Ecology(Ecology)
reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s):
TOXICS CLEANUP: Joyce Mercuri(360)407-6260
If contamination is suspected,discovered, or occurs during construction,testing of the
potentially contaminated media must be conducted. If contamination of soil or groundwater
is readily apparent, or is revealed by testing,Ecology must be notified. Contact the
Environmental Report Tracking System Coordinator at the Southwest Regional Office at
(360)407-6300. For assistance and information about subsequent cleanup and to identify the
type of testing that will be required, contact Joyce Mercuri with Ecology's Toxic Cleanup
program at the phone number given above.
SEPA REVIEWER: Sonia Mendoza
WATER QUALITY CONTACT: Deborah Cornett (360) 407-7269
Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in
violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW,Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington,and is subject to
enforcement action.
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading,or construction.
These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil
and other pollutants into surface water or stormdrains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,
silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
Soil in stockpiles should be stabilized or protected with sediment-trapping measures to
prevent soil loss. All exposed areas of final grade or areas that are not scheduled for work,
whether at final grade or otherwise, shall not remain exposed and un-worked for more than
February 21,2013
Page 2
two days,between October 1 and April 30. Between May 1 and September 30, no soils shall
remain exposed and un-worked for more than seven days.
This project may require a construction stormwater permit(also known as National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)and State Waste Discharge General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction). This permit is required for projects
which meet both of the following conditions:
1. One or more acres of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities.
2. The site already has offsite discharge to waters of the state or storm drains or will
have offsite discharge during construction.
An application with instructions can be downloaded from Ecology's website at:
hqp://www.ecy.wa.sov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/-Application. Construction
site operators must apply for a permit at least 60 days prior to discharging stormwater.
Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such,they
may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal
requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments,please contact the
appropriate reviewing staff listed above.
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(SM:13-0615)
cc: Deborah Cornett, WQ
Joyce Mercuri,TCP
Joyce Smith,HQ/WQ
Granite Construction Company(Proponent)
4 -
wir
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775•Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 .(360)407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service •Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
MEMORANDUM
February 25, 2013
Mr. Allan Borden
Mason County Department of Community Development
Planning Division
PO Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
RE: SEP2013-00009 Comment—Sand&Gravel General Permit Required.
Dear Mr.Borden:
Chris Johnson(Sand&Gravel General Permit Manager)at the Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office provides the following comments concerning the determination of
non-significance (Ecology SEPA#13-0615)for the Belfair Asphalt Plant project(SEP2013-
00009)located at 100 Northeast Peninsula Boulevard in Belfair,proposed by Granite
construction Company. The Department of Ecology reviewed the environmental checklist and
submitted comments on February 21,2013. Since then,our Sand&Gravel General Permit
Manager received additional information on the project. Comments below are based on that
addition information:
• All asphalt batch plants require Sand& Gravel General Permit Coverage,and must be in
compliance with the conditions this General Permit prior to operating.
• Furthermore"All sites"having crushing,classifying,or stockpiling activities associated
with mining or processing operations must obtain Sand&Gravel General Permit
Coverage. This would include any crushing of rock,recycled concrete, and/or recycled
asphalt on or in the vicinily of the proposed batch plant facility.
Refer to Special Condition S1.PERMIT COVERAGE,SI.A. on Pages 5-7; and APPENDIX B
—DEFINITIONS on page 44 of the Sand and Gravel General Permit
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Chris Johnson
Sand&Gravel General Permit Manager
Department of Ecology/Southwest Region
(360) 407-7194
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/25/2013 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Notice of application
Allan, thanks for the copy of the SEP2013-00009, you must not have heard my question about the storm
water ponds that are refered to on pg.6 C 1, also pg 7 letter D. Were the applicant states that there is a
storm water system in place, I would like to make a formal records request to view the drawings of said
system.( I am surte you have them out for review for this permit) If you have any questions give me a call
or shoot me an email when I can come review these documents. Thanks Pat Loudin
From: Allan Borden
To: Patrick Loudin
Cc: Allan Borden
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Notice of application
Pat Loudin:
I will be posting this notice on the property and at the post office on Friday Feb 22, 2013. 1 will email you
a copy of the notice on 2/22 before 10 AM. I have noted your concerns and you may comment in writing
within the next 14 days.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/25/2013 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: Notice of application
Allan, one other question i have is about the hand drawn "haul road". Will this be a dirt road or pavement
when it is constructed?
Also, there is only a 14 day comment period from the postings, seems like this would be a 30 day
comment period, please correct me if
if I am wrong on this matter. Thanks Pat Loudin
---Original Message-----
From: Allan Borden
To: Patrick Loudin
Cc: Allan Borden
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Notice of application
Pat Loudin:
I will be posting this notice on the property and at the post office on Friday Feb 22, 2013. 1 will email you
a copy of the notice on 2/22 before 10 AM. I have noted your concerns and you may comment in writing
within the next 14 days.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
GRAn'TE Phone(509)248-6823 •Fax(509)576-7056
WA Reg.#GRANIN1943QP/OR Reg.#174516
February 25, 2013
To Whom It May Concern:
In regards to Granite Construction Company's application for portable coverage under the Sand and
Gravel Permit for an asphalt plant in Belfair, WA, Granite Construction would like to clarify that our
proposed moved is in fact a portable operation. We understand that other contractors' asphalt operations
have preceded us at this site, and that is likely due to the bidding environment of that market and the
convenience of the site location. It is understood that continuously rotating portable plants through a site
is not what the portable permit program is meant to cover and the site would require permanent Sand and
Gravel Permit coverage for this to occur. Should Granite Construction see an opportunity to stay on the
Belfair site for longer than a year or two,we will obtain permanent site coverage.
Also,the source of aggregate for this asphalt operation will be trucked onto the site from the actively
operational Bear Creek mine approximately three miles to the southwest. The rock is crushed at the mine
site, not at the plant site.
Thank you,
Dana Stringer
IVICIV�UI' CI��UV T
Granite Construction Company
80 Pond Rd.
Yakima WA, 98908
Phone: 509-454-8581
Fax: 509-576-7056
dana.stringer@gcinc.com
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
T.i3F
E^`
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 -Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 -(360)407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service -Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
MEMORANDUM
February 25, 2013
Mr.Allan Borden
Mason County Department of Community Development
Planning Division
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: SEP2013-00009 Comment—Sand&Gravel General Permit Required.
Dear Mr. Borden:
Chris Johnson (Sand &Gravel General Permit Manager)at the Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office provides the following comments concerning the determination of
non-significance (Ecology SEPA#13-0615) for the Belfair Asphalt Plant project(SEP2013-
00009) located at 100 Northeast Peninsula Boulevard in Belfair, proposed by Granite
construction Company. The Department of Ecology reviewed the environmental checklist and
submitted comments on February 21,2013. Since then, our Sand&Gravel General Permit
Manager received additional information on the project. Comments below are based on that
addition information:
• All asphalt batch plants require Sand&Gravel General Permit Coverage, and must be in
compliance with the conditions this General Permit prior to operating.
• Furthermore"All sites"having cru hin>?, classifying, or stockpiling activities associated
with mining or processing operations must obtain Sand&Gravel General Permit
Coverage. This would include any crushing of rock,recycled concrete, and/or recycled
asphalt on or in the vicinity of the proposed batch plant facility.
Refer to Special Condition Sl.PERMIT COVERAGE,SI.A. on Pages 5-7; and APPENDIX B
—DEFINITIONS on page 44 of the Sand and Gravel General Permit.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Chris Johnson
Sand& Gravel General Permit Manager
Department of Ecology/Southwest Region
(360) 407-7194
Department of Ecology - Environmental Report Tracking System
ERTS # 608220
Department of Ecology - Environmental Report Tracking System
Initial Report External Reference#
Caller Information Where did it happen
First Last Berth Anchorag
Name KEN VAN BUSKIRK Location Name PENINSULA TOPSOIL
Busines Name PRIVATE CITIZEN Street Address 24943 NE STATE ROUTE 3
Street Address Other Address
Other Address City/Place BELFAIR State WA Zip
City State WA Zip County-Region MASON SWRO FS ID
E-mail Confidential—FL WIRA#
Phone Ext Type Waterway Type
(360)801-0550 Home Latitude Longitude
Topo Quad 1:24:000 BELFAIR
Direction/Landmark(mile post,cross roads,township/range)
What happened Spills Program Oil Spill? N
Incident Date 9/10/2008 Received Date 9/10/2008 11:14
Medium STORM WATER RETENTION POND-WET
Material WATER Primary Potentially Responsible Party Information
Quantity Unit First Last
10000 GALLON Name
Source COMMERCIAL Business Name PENINSULA TOPSOIL
Street Address
Cause UNKNOWN
Other Address
Incident Type
Activity OTHER City BELFAIR State WA Zip
Impact OTHER Phone Ext Type
Vessel Name E-mail
Hull Number
Additional Contact Information
Name Phone Ext Type
More Information
CALLER IS REPORTING THAT PENINSULA TOPSOIL HAS BEEN PUMPING LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER FROM THEIR
RETENTION POND. THE WATER THAT IS BEING PUMPED IS GOING INTO A DITCH ALONG STATE ROUTE 3. CALLER BELIEVES
THIS IS IN VIOLATION TO THEIR STORM WATER PERMIT.
PICTURES SENT TO SWRO CENTRAL FILES 09/11/2008
Entry Person SMITHERMAN,OPAL Entry Date 9/10/2008
Thursdav,November 20,2008 '"'The Initial report contains only information provided to Ecology from the Page I of 3
complainant.
Department of Ecology - Environmental Report Tracking System
ERTS # 608220
Referral
Referral# 115917
Referral Method Person Referred to SHIRA,JASON Primary
Phone (360)407-7194 Fax (360)407-6305
E-mail ERTS number
E-mail jshi461@ecy.wa.gov
E-mail attachment
Program/Organization WATER QUALITY
Print
Address 300 DESMOND DRIVE
Telephone
City LACEY WA 98504-
Region/Location SWRO
Referral Date 9/10/2008
Referral# 115921
Referral Method Person Referred to ROCKETT,DEREK Primary
Phone (360)407-6697 Fax
E-mail ERTS number
E-mail droc461@ecy.wa.gov
E-mail attachment
Program/Organization WATER QUALITY
Print
Address
Telephone
City LACEY WA
Region/Location SWRO
Referral Date 9/11/2008
Referral# 115922
Referral Method Person Referred to STASCH,PAUL Primary
Phone (360)407-6273 Fax (360)407-6305
E-mail ERTS number
E-mail PSTA461@ECY.WA.GOV
E-mail attachment
Program/Organization WATER QUALITY
Print
Address
Telephone
City WA
Region/Location SWRO
Referral Date 9/11/2008
Thursdai,, Vovemher 20,2008 ***The Initial report contains only information provided to Ecology from the Page 2 of 3
complainant.
Department of Ecology - Environmental Report Tracking System
ERTS # 608220
Followup
Inspector Information Where did it happen
Referral# 115921 Berth Anchorag
Lead Inspector ROCKETT,DEREK Location PENINSULA TOPSOIL
Program/Organization WATER QUALITY Street Address 24943 NE STATE ROUTE 3
Other Address
Region/Location SWRO City/Place BELFAIR State WA
City/Place BELFAIR State WA Zip
#of Ecology Staff Action 1 Overtime Start Date End Date County MASON Regio SWRO FS ID
FIELD RESPONSE-INVESTIGATION 9/15/2008 9/15/2008 Waterway Type
WRIA#
What happened Spills Program Oil Spill? N Latitude Longitude
Incident Date 9/10/2008 Topo Quad 1:24,000 BELFAIR
Medium Direction/Landmark(mile post,cross roads,township/range)
STORM WATER RETENTION POND-WET
Material
WATER
Quantity Unit Est
10000 GALLON Potentially Responsible Party Information
Check if the primary PRP provided notice to
Source Primary First Last
COMMERCIAL Name
Cause Business Name PENINSULA TOPSOIL
UNKNOWN Street
Incident Tvpe Other Address
City BELFAIR State WA Zip
Activity Phone Ext Type
OTHER E-mail
Impact
OTHER
Vessel
Narrative
09/15/2008
Jason Shira and myself met with Steve Johnson who is the owner of Peninsula Topsoil. We explained the complaint and water quality
concerns. Mr.Johnson told us that he was doing maintenance on the stormwater pond and had asked his employees to drain the pond. He
said that his employees had made the mistake of pumping the pond to the roadside ditch rather than above ground on Peninsula Topsoil
property. Mr.Johnson said that they had pumped-1000 gallons and that the ditch did not go directly to surface water. Mr.Johnson said
that this would not happen again. We explained the potential violation to Mr.Johnson.
Jason and myself observed a hole in the roadside ditch next to a clogged road drain and just befor the railroad trestle. Mr.Johnson said
that this conveyance went under the trestle and daylighted on the other side.
I called DOT and confirmed that this drainage did daylight on the other side of the trestle.
Entry Person: ROCKETT,DEREK Entry Date 10/2/2008
Thursday,.November 20,2008 •`"The Initial report contains only information provided to Ecology from the Page 3 of 3
complainant.
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Fw: discharge onto highway 3 ERTS#608220
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/26/2013 8:25 AM
Subject: Fw: discharge onto highway 3 ERTS#608220
Attachments: Erts 608220.pdf; discharge onto highway 3
Allan, found this complaint from 2008, Its just shows that there are issues with these ponds/stormwater treatment systems.
----- Original Message-----
From: Ken and Peggy
To: 'loudin7'
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:06 AM
Subject: Fw: discharge onto highway 3 ERTS#608220
fyi
-----Original Message-----
From: Nelson, Debbie (ECY)
To: dukeof@hctc.com
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 11:48 AM
Subject: FW: discharge onto highway 3 ERTS#608220
Ken,
Please find attached a copy of the complaint 608220 that you requested.
Let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks!
Debbie K. Nelson
Public Disclosure Coordinator
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
PH 360-407-6365
From: Smitherman, Opal (ECY)
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 200811:15 AM
To: Ken and Peggy
Cc: Nelson, Debbie (ECY)
Subject: RE: discharge onto highway 3 ERTS#608220
Hello Ken,
Sorry for the delayed response. In looking at the follow-up report Derek Rockett and Jason Shira did an inspection at the
site. I have cc Debbie Nelson our Public Disclosure Coordinator so she can send the Report to you.
Thanks
Opal Smitherman
fite:HC:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\512C7190Masonmai11001626A6811 DB... 2/26/2013
Page 2 of 2
Southwest Regional Office
Environmental Response Coordinator
360-407-6300 Phone
odav461 @ecy.wa.gov
From: Ken and Peggy [mailto:dukeof@hctc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:27 PM
To: Smitherman, Opal (ECY)
Cc: Commissioner Sheldon; Allan Borden
Subject: Fw: discharge onto highway 3
1 sent the attached pictures to you a couple months ago, showing Peninsula topsoil pumping water from their storm water
pond and then discharging onto SR-3 and offsite. I estimated several thousand gallons of storm water. I don't think I ever
got a response and was curious if you had a chance to follow-up on that? There was some work done on the pond after it
was pumped dry and I wondered if the pond is now working properly? There is a pending Mason County zoning decision
next week on the same parcel on the west side of the RR tracks and I was curious. Thank You. Ken
----- Original Message-----
From: Ken and Peggy
To: odav461 @ecy.wa.gov
Cc: ibsen(cDhctc.com ; Peggy Hager
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 200810:19 AM
Subject: discharge onto highway 3
taken 9-10-08 at approximately 9 AM ken
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\512C7190Masonmail1001626A6811 DB... 2/26/2013
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden -Granite application
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/27/2013 8:28 AM
Subject: Granite application
Allan, this is a email from Bob Hagar talking about the ponds and problems they have from a meeting about this plant,
Thought you might put it in with the public comments. Thanks Pat Loudin
From: Bob Hager
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 4:42 PM
To: Vynne, Stacy
Cc: John Gunter
Subject: RE: Lower Hood Canal: Concerns over water quality-Asphalt Plant Application
Stacy-
I am familiar with this proposed asphalt plant as my church is located across Hwy 3 from the proposed location. land
members of our church met with Jack Johnson who owns the property and Brad Estes the CEO of Granite on Feb 15.
Brad Estes discussed the plant location and operation. The plant will use new technology similar to their other plants in the
state. Propane or natural gas is used to heat the aggregate but not the asphalt. Emmisions should be limited to steam. We
dicsussed acoustics, emmissions and visual impacts. The area for the plant will be paved, however the roadway and
surrounding area may not be paved. Jack Johnson said that any surface water from the site will go to into the piped
drainage system and into the holding pond for all the operations at his location. The pond uses retention and infiltration into
the ground. There have been several instances when the pond must be pumped as the pond does not drain well and the
bottom fines must be removed. There are other operations (concrete plant , topsoil/material sales,dirt dump site) in the
area. All the area is not paved and there may be some surface water infiltration into the ground separate from that going into
the pond.
Allen Borden, Mason County planning, sent the County's letter of non-significance to the church along with the SEPA check
list from the applicant. We reviewed it and had no comments from our church. An ORCAA permit is still required before
operation.
The area along Hwy3 where the new asphalt plant and a number other industrial operations are located is not in a
designated Critiical Aquifer Recharge Area. I am not aware of any hydrogeological studies that would tie ground water
infiltration from this area into the Union River Class II Critical Aquifer Recharge Area or into ground water in the lower valley,
although it is definitely possible.
The Lower Hood Canal Watershed Coalition has not discussed the asphalt plant but several members are currently involved
in reviewing Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas in Mason County. Ecology will be discussing Critical Aquifer Rechare Areas at
the LHCWC meeting on March 4. I'll cc John Gunter on this e-mail.
Bob
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\TempVPgrpwise\512DC39DMason mail 1001626A6811 D... 2/27/2013
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
From: Allan Borden
To: James Essig; Mike Wnek
Date: 2/27/2013 4:47 PM
Subject: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
CC: Allan Borden
Attachments: SEP2013-00009 Granite general DOE comments.pdf; SEP2013-00009 comments DOE sand&gravel
comments.pdf
James Essig and Mike Wnek:
To keep you current on inquiries or comments, I have attached the comment letters from WA Dept. of Ecology in response
to the review of SEP2013-00009.
The Water Quality comments refer to the NPDES permit review needed; no engineering report regarding the use of the
existing on-site stormwater system has been submitted.
Chris Johnson (the S &G general permit coordinator) states the need for a sand &gravel permit due to the crushing of
materials to be used in the Granite Constr. project; a separate permit must be submitted by Granite Construction or
Peninsula Topsoil/S &G. Johnson for his program review.
Due to these comments, I would conclude the application materials to Mason County for the Granite Construction asphalt
plant are incomplete: the engineering report for stormwater should be submitted and the separate sand &gravel permit is
submitted and reviewed by the S &G general permit coordinator.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
fite://C:\Documents and SettingslAhblLocal Setting s\TemplXPgrpwise1512E3888Mason mail 1001 626A681 1 DB... 2/27/2013
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
From: Allan Borden
To: Chris Johnson
Date: 2/27/2013 4:28 PM
Subject: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
CC: Allan Borden
Attachments: Loudin comment on past stormwater issues.pdf; Loudin & Hager comments on Granite Construction.pdf
Chris Johnson:
You have left messages regarding this proposal and SEPA review. From your 2/25/13 comments, Granite Construction
(the applicant) or Peninsula Topsoil (the landowners) will need to submit a sand and gravel general permit for DOE
review. In addition, their engineer will need to submit a report to show the NPDES standards are met using an existing on-
site stormwater system.
Due to these comments, I would conclude the application materials to Mason County for the Granite Construction asphalt
plant are incomplete until these reviews are concluded. The SEPA is still under review during the potential 14-day appeal
period. If the application materials are now found incomplete, the review period is suspended until these S &G general
and stormwater reviews conclude.
Patrick Loudin, a concerned nearby resident, has provided me with several comments that are attached.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
file://C:1Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise1512E3440Mason mail 1001 626A681 1 DB... 2/27/2013
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Re: Fw: Notice of application/copy of request of Granite Construction
From: Allan Borden
To: loudin7
Date: 2/27/2013 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Notice of application/copy of request of Granite Construction
CC: Allan Borden
Attachments: SEP2013-00009 Granite general DOE comments.pdf; SEP2013-00009 comments DOE sand&gravel
comments.pdf
Patrick Loudin:
In response to your inquiries, I have attached the comment letters from WA Dept. of Ecology in response to the review of
SEP2013-00009.
The Water Quality comments refer to the NPDES permit review needed; no engineering report regarding the use of the
existing on-site stormwater system has been submitted.
Chris Johnson (the S &G general permit coordinator) states the need for a sand &gravel permit due to the crushing of
materials to be used in the Granite Constr. project; a separate permit must be submitted by Granite Construction or
Peninsula Topsoil/S &G. Johnson for his program review.
Due to these comments, I would conclude the application materials to Mason County for the Granite Construction asphalt
plant are incomplete: the engineering report for stormwater is submitted and the separate sand &gravel permit is
reviewed by the S & G general permit coordinator.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>>> "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com> 2/27/2013 7:19 AM >>>
Hi, Allan here is a copy of the email I had sent on monday, Just wondering when we can come look at these drawings?
also looking for an answer on the comment period time line. Thanks Pat Loudin
-- Original Message-----
From: loudin7
To: Allan Borden
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Notice of application
Allan, thanks for the copy of the SEP2013-00009, you must not have heard my question about the storm water ponds that
are refered to on pg.6 C 1, also pg 7 letter D. Were the applicant states that there is a storm water system in place, I would
like to make a formal records request to view the drawings of said system.( I am surte you have them out for review for this
permit) if you have any questions give me a call or shoot me an email when I can come review these documents. Thanks
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\TemplXPgrpwise\512E344EMasonmail1001626A6811 DB... 2/27/2013
From: "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>
To: "Barbara Adkins" <Barba rA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason....
CC: "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Date: 3/8/2013 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Please confirm Public Comment Receipt
Thanks Barbara. Will the e-mails be attached to the public comment as
requested?
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 11:50 AM
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>; "Trish Woolett"
<Tw@co.mason.wa.us>; "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>
Cc: "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Subject: Re: Please confirm Public Comment Receipt
> John -our email did not have a request read receipt attached to it. I
> have received the email, Trish is not here and Allan is in the field.
> Barbara A. Adkins, AICP, Director
> Department of Community Development
> Post Office Box 279
> Shelton, WA 98584
> 360/427-9670 ext. 286
> Email: BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us
»» "John Gunter' <john@seattleluxury.com> 3/8/2013 11:17 AM >>>
> Hi Barbara, Trish, or Allan,
> Could you please confirm the receipt of my public comments I sent to you
> for the Granite Construction application for an Asphalt plant on the
> Johnson property? I added a"Request read receipt"to the e-mail. I
> received it back from Pat Loudin, but haven't received back from any of
>you yet.
> If you could confirm as soon as possible, I would appreciate it very much.
> Sincerely,
> John Gunter
Page 1 of 3
Allan Borden - Public Comment for
From: "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>
To: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Trish
Woolett" <Tw@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/8/201310:23 AM
Subject: Public Comment for
CC: "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Attachments: Approximate Odor Location copy.jpg; Contiguous parcel layout.jpg; Grinding2 sm.jpg; Parcel
Breakdown.docx; Proposed Asphalt Plant 2.jpg; Proposed Asphalt Plant.jpg; Thurston County-gravel-
mines-and-asphalt-plants-7.pdf
Hi Barbara, Allan, and Trish,
Please attach this e-mail along with the all the attached documents to public comments for: COM2013-00013 and
SEP2013-00009 relating to Peninsula and Granite Construction's application for an asphalt plant. My understanding is
that today is the last day for public comments to be given.
Here is a summary:
Please do NOT issue this permit. Many neighbors will be disrupted
1. We already have experienced horrendous, eye-watering and nose-burning odors from that property on March 5,
2013 relating to Asphalt generation of some kind. (They either must already have an asphalt making permit or
they are operating without a permit relating to asphalt generation).
2. If you issue a permit and you allow them to proceed, you are violating many private residence and neighbor rights
in the Belfair area. We have a right to quiet enjoyment of our property. The odors alone will disrupt our right to
enjoyment. You should NOT issue this permit.
3. There are streams running into the Union River and eventually Hood Canal off the the west side of the RR tracks
on a hilly slope near property they own. There is a danger of those waters being contaminated. Please see
Thurston County-gravel-mines-and-asphalt-plants-7.pdf attached to public records.
4. The owners of the property have a histrionic record of cutting corners when it comes to environmental safety and
consideration for citizens in the local area. There is no reason to believe ALL environment protection precautions
will be followed since they appear to have already started work in asphalt prior to obtaining a permit and given the
history of"forging" ahead with their plans without consideration or care of others in the immediate vicinity.
5. There is a very real danger of water table contamination if water from asphalt seeps through the ground because
of"cutting corners" and improper leakage of chemicals.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
50 NE Hillside Acres Lane
PO Box 3178
Belfair, WA 98528
360-620-0083
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTempVPgrpwise15139BC3EMasonmail1001626A6811 DC... 3/8/2013
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "John Gunter" <john@belfair.n...
CC: "Genie McFarland" <Gmm@co.mason.wa.us>, "Trish Woolett" <Tw@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/8/2013 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction
asphalt plant in Belfair
Attachments: DSC_0297.JPG; DSC_0301.JPG
Barb, My request is for the storm water system that is referred to in the
SEPA report.
Here is a copy of the original question sent to Allan on 2/25
"Allan, thanks for the copy of the SEPA 2013-00009, you must not have heard
my question about the storm water ponds that are referred to on pg.6 C 1,
also pg 7 letter D. Were the applicant states that there is a storm water
system in place, I would like to make a formal records request to view the
drawings of said system.( I am sure you have them out for review for this
permit) If you have any questions give me a call or shoot me an email when I
can come review these documents. Thanks Pat Loudin"
So there is no confusion that is what lam asking for. It is hard to make an
educated comment on this permit without having the documentation in hand or
at least be able to view it. Since the permit was incomplete will that
extend the public comment period? and the fact that the information I have
asked for has not been provided to me.
Also, attached is a picture taken last week when construction has started on
the foundations, which I find odd when no permit has been issued, and the
other pic is of the asphalt grinding which Chis Johnson from Dept. of
Ecocolgy said they have no permit to do so.
Thanks Pat Loudin
-----Original Message -----
From: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>
To: "John Gunter' <john@belfair.name>; "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>;
"loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Cc: "Genie McFarland" <Gmm@co.mason.wa.us>; "Trish Woolett"
<Tw@co.mason.wa.us>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite
Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
John -
I'm forwarding this e-mail to our public records officers so that they can
log it in and get you a response letter. Allan will compile the information
you have requested, or contact you if he has any questions.
Thank you,
Barbara
Barbara A. Adkins, AICP, Director
Department of Community Development
Post Office Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
360/427-9670 ext. 286
Email: BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us
>>> "John Gunter" <john@belfair.name> 3/6/2013 4:01 PM >>>
Hi Allan,
Could I get the same documentation that Pat Loudin is asking for? How soon
will be available?
Sincerely,
John Gunter
From: loudin7
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:38 PM
To: Allan Borden ; Ken and Peggy ; John Gunter
Subject: Re: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite
Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
Allan, Thanks but I think you are not understanding the question that I have
been asking. I am looking for the drawings for the storm water system that
are refered too in the SEPA application that was incomplete, this would be
for the existing ponds that are on site now.
Not the ones that they are coming up with after the fact of people asking
qurestions about hese ponds. If you are still not clear what I am looking
for please give me a call 360-275-4783 Thanks Pat Loudin
-----Original Message -----
From: Allan Borden
To: Patrick Loudin
Cc: Allan Borden
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite
Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
I am forwarding this message that I received today from the civil engineer
who has prepared the stormwater plan for the Corbit site owned by Steve and
Jack Johnson and where the Granite Construction site is located. The
Construction Stormwater Plan that is to address site-specific stormwater
controls at the Granite site will be submitted at the end of this week by an
engineer working with Granite Construction.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
Example of what some might construe as deceptive practices and ethically"borderline":
The application I've attached to the e-mail was filled out for the ONE parcel in Blue ONLY.
That parcel is only 18.10 acres,yet the application claims the asphalt plant might be placed
somewhere on the 47 acres they own. They did not include the other contiguous parcels.
One of those parcels (Orange Below) lies partially on extremely steep slope toward the Union
River Valley where all the wetlands lie.Nothing seems to prevent the applicant from using that
parcel since they seemed to have included the term(portions of a 47 acre site).
12321-42-00090 (Parcel Number)
12321-42-00090
JOHNSON,JACK E & KATHY L ETAL
91 -Undeveloped- Land
Total Acres: 18.10
12321-34-00010 (Parcel Number)
12321-34-00010
81 NE PENINSULA BLVD BELFAIR
S &J JOHNSON LLC
91 -Undeveloped- Land
Total Acres: 4.89
12321-34-00030 (Parcel Number)
12321-34-00030
120 NE PENINSULA PL BELFAIR
S & J JOHNSON LLC
66 - Services - Contract
Total Acres: 19.1
12321-43-00010 (Parcel Number)
12321-43-00010
JOHNSON ETAL, JACK E& KATHY L
91 -Undeveloped- Land
Total Acres: 2.53
12321-42-90083 (Parcel Number)
12321-42-90083
25241 NE SR 3 BELFAIR
KRUEGER PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC
91 -Undeveloped - Land
Total Acres: 2.20
12321-42-90084 (Parcel Number)
12321-42-90084
25241 NE SR 3 BELFAIR
KRUEGER PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC
91 -Undeveloped- Land
Total Acres: 2.00
12321-42-90082 (Parcel Number)
12321-42-90082
25241 NE SR 3 BELFAIR
KRUEGER PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LLC
91 -Undeveloped- Land
Total Acres: 2.20
Total Accumulative Acreage for the 4 parcels: 51.02
' r
<„ L
i
f:
ALM
o fi Pr p ed asphalt plant
ere inN4 section of 51 acres
iL ,w
R=3 R=
3
P;P rtd �Vetiands '
r
I � �
� 1
i
T '1�
� e
r
,J
ands I _
F ti a�
Pr P ed as ha It plant
ere in thi section of 51 acres
31 `
e
F R=3 Rm5
Y 1`
I �
Ra 3
P Wetlands
Nnd
h
Qe
Siting Issues for Gravel Mines and Asphalt Plants
Subcommittee Report to the Thurston County Planning Commission
Tom Cole, Chris Earle,Liz Kohlenberg, Scott Nelson- October 2009
Table of Contents
2 Introduction
2 Gravel Mines
2 Processes, Permitting and Regulations
2 Gravel Mines and the Natural Environment
4 Gravel Mines and Adjacent Land Uses
4 Reclamation Aspects
6 Asphalt Plants
6 Regulation and Permitting
6 Processing and Emission Control
7 Asphalt Plants and the Natural Environment
8 Asphalt Plants and Adjacent Land Uses
8 Odor Control Aspects of Asphalt Plants
9 Siting Standards for Gravel Mines and Asphalt Plants
11 Economic Aspects of Siting Criteria for Asphalt Plants
13 Literature Cited
14 Appendix 1
1
Introduction
The Growth Management Act(GMA) requires that each county designate and conserve
mineral lands. In so doing, counties must ensure that land uses adjacent to mineral
lands do not interfere with mining and best management practices of mining.
There is no GMA requirement that the county manage asphalt production. However,
asphalt plants need gravel as a raw material, so the manufacturers prefer to locate
asphalt plants on or near gravel mines.
Thurston County has approximately 20 existing gravel mines. Together they hold
enough gravel to support over 20 years of projected Thurston County development.
Of those 20 mines, two have functioning asphalt plants. One of those plants, within
Holroyd's gravel mine in the Nisqually Subarea, was opposed by the community, the
County planning staff and the County Commisioners, because it was inconsistent with
the Nisqually Subarea Plan. That plan had banned recycled asphalt as a permitted use,
and that ban was upheld by the Hearing Examiner and the courts. However, because
the plan had not specifically prohibited new asphalt plants, the new asphalt plant was
permitted by the Hearing Examiner and the courts as an accessory use to a gravel mine.
The possible impacts, siting issues and regulatory oversight for gravel mines and
asphalt plants are quite different. Therefore, this report describes them separately. We
cover first the possible impacts of gravel mines and their related siting issues, and
second, the possible impacts of hot mix asphalt plants and those related siting issues.
Gravel Mines
Processes and Regulations
Pit Mine Processes: There are two main forms of gravel mining- open pit mines which
remove gravel from the land, and mining from rivers. This report covers only pit
mines; river mines do not occur in Thurston County and none are likely to be proposed
due to the extreme permitting problems of development in such a sensitive
environment. Pit mines remove vegetation and topsoil, dig a hole, sift gravel from dirt,
sort the gravel into various sizes using sieves, store it in piles. Then the material is
shipped to where it is needed,usually by truck,but also by train or barge. Finally the
site is reclaimed as required by a DNR reclamation plan.
Siting, Permitting and Regulatory Processes: With the passage of the 1993 Surface
Mine Reclamation Act, responsibilities for regulation of gravel mining were divided as
follows:
County and city governments issue permits for location and daily operation;
2
• the Department of Ecology (Ecology) issues permits for water quality and water
resources http://fps.ecy.wa.gov/12ermithandbook/permitdetail.asl2?id=111;
• Ecology and local clean-air agencies regulate air quality;
• the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issues reclamation permits;and
• the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) environmental review process
analyzes the direct impacts of all proposed mining-related permits.
Gravel Mines and the Natural Environment
Possible Impacts on Land Quality.Surface gravel mines have potentially substantial
impacts on topography and soils of the sites where they are located-removing plant
cover and topsoil, digging deeply beneath the surface, removing gravel, and altering
contours.
Gravel mines are generally expected to last a period of years to decades. However,
eventually they are exhausted. During the permitting process prior to mine approval,
the mining operators are required to file reclamation plans with DNR. These plans
detail how the operators will return the site to some other useful condition when they
have exhausted the mining capabilities, as detailed in the Reclamation section and
Appendix 1.
Gravel mines affect adjacent lands through the dust and sand which accumulates
around them. They can also affect surrounding land through modifications of ground
water and stream flows, as detailed in the Water Resources section.
Land Relevant Siting Issues: It is important to site gravel mines away from areas where
the land is unstable (such as steep or hazardous slopes,seismic zones, areas of
subsidence, and other areas of soil instability).
Potential Impacts on Water Resources and Quality. Gravel mines can alter ground
water flows. In the area of the mine itself, they tend to concentrate ground water, and
because they remove vegetation,which absorbs and deflects rain, they may contribute
to increased peak flows in nearby streams,which can destabilize stream channels,
degrade aquatic habitat, and contribute to downstream flooding.
Gravel mining increases both dissolved and suspended solids in the aquifer,and in the
streams and rivers fed by those aquifers,because it typically leads to increased erosion.
"Mining activities typically begin by removal of the overburden to expose the desired material.
Removing topsoil and disturbing the land surface has a number of consequences that increase the
potential for adverse consequences to surface and ground water quality. Removing the vegetative
cover and disturbing the soil makes the area more susceptible to erosion. Stormwater will readily
suspend the exposed soil and carry it to nearby surface water. Sediment can be very harmful to
the health of aquatic life and surface water bodies. Vegetation and soil also serve to protect
ground water from pollutants. They provide filtration, chemical and physical reactions, and
biological activity that often will remove pollutants before they can enter ground water.
3
Therefore mining activities which remove vegetation and topsoil will typically make underlying
ground water more vulnerable to pollution." (Ecology Fact Sheet, page 4)
Sand and gravel mines are required to adhere to conditions of a general water quality
permit issued by Ecology. In order for the permit to be effective in protecting water
quality, however, the operator must adhere to all conditions. In areas deemed critical or
highly sensitive, Ecology recommends that sand and gravel mining not take place, since
no process can be assumed to operate with complete adherence.
Don Mead, of Thurston County Environmental Health, carried out a 1995 review of
Ecology files. He documented 20 hydrocarbon spills in or near gravel mines around the
state between 1987 and 1992. Many of these appear to be associated with underground
storage tanks or poor housekeeping practices within the plants. He concluded that
"excavating above the water table with no associated activities such as vehicle maintenance or
asphalt batch plants causes a relatively low risk to ground water quality and quantity."
However,he stated that mining below the water table, or in conjunction with an asphalt
plant, causes greater risks.
King County, in their Best Available Science review for their critical area ordinance,
documented the possible loss of ground water due to breach of an aquifer plug or site
water consumption. In October 1993, mining activities at the High Rock gravel mine
near Monroe Washington caused a loss of water supply due to a breach of the aquifer
plug (Garland and Liszak 1995).
Water Siting Issues: Ecology recommends not permitting gravel mining in critical areas
such as flood plains or areas of coastal flooding, and locating mines away from
wetlands, aquifer recharge areas, or groundwater wells providing water for domestic
purposes. Buffer around streams and rivers.
Possible Impacts on Plant and Animal Habitats: Gravel mines can lead to
sedimentation in nearby surface waters, which can be detrimental to fish spawning and
rearing habitat.
Siting Issues to Consider. Streams and associated wildlife habitat (riparian habitat)
should be protected by a buffer. Buffer critical or endangered species habitat, natural
area preserves, or wildlife refuges.
Gravel Mines and Adjacent Land Uses
Possible Impacts: Truck traffic causes an increase in traffic, noise, and dust affecting
residential and recreational uses, as well as placing stress on roadways, increasing
maintenance/repair needs.
Siting Issues to Consider. Distance to residential areas,buffers to separate mining from
other land uses. and from recreational use areas. Road impacts (heavy trucks).
Consider similarities to other industrial uses.
4
Reclamation Aspects of Gravel Mining
There is a concern that undesirable environmental or economic consequences may arise
when gravel mines reach the end of their useful life. Foreseeable consequences of pit
abandonment include erosion;proliferation of undesirable vegetation; nuisance and
hazard posed by the excavation, which may contain water; and abandonment of
equipment and trash. Additional, unforeseeable adverse impacts could occur if the
abandoned pit were not reclaimed to a condition consistent with other land uses in the
area,chiefly, rural uses for grazing and/or forestry.
Brief Review of Facts
All mines are subject to the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA).
Water quality, discharges, and withdrawal and hazardous waste management related
to mining operations are regulated by the Ecology.
The DNR regulates the reclamation of non-coal surface mines in Washington. The
Surface Mining Act requires a permit for each mine that: (1) results in more than 3 acres
of mine-related disturbance, or (2) has a high-wall that is both higher than 30 feet and
steeper than 45 degrees (chapter 78.44 Revised Code of Washington [RCW], chapter
332-18 Washington Administrative Code [WAC]). DNR is responsible for ensuring that
reclamation follows completion of surface and underground mining. DNR has
exclusive authority to regulate mine reclamation and approve reclamation plans.
A reclamation plan is required for each surface mine. Mandatory features of the plan
include:
• what the topography,vegetation and drainage for the site will be following
mining;
• a sequence of mining and reclamation that will avoid unnecessary earth-moving;
• the economic limit of mining for the site based on the area available for mining
and the grade of the mineral deposit,
• how the mine permit-holder will achieve acceptable reclamation, the equipment
necessary and how much it will cost,
• how environmental impacts will be mitigated;
• maps and cross sections must be included'; and
• the surface mine operator must post a security bond based on the projected costs
of reclamation.
1 A typical reclamation plan includes maps showing: 1) pre-mining topography;2)reclamation sequence map
showing the direction,extent and mining boundaries as well as designated areas for setbacks, buffers and storage
areas for topsoil and overburden;and 3)final reclamation map showing the final elevations,contours,drainage,
slopes, roads and other features of the site following reclamation.
5
Reclamation of the mine site must meet or exceed the minimum reclamation standards
required by the Surface Mining Act A reclamation plan should be simple,practical and
easy to implement. The final land surface will have natural contours that blend with the
surrounding topography.
Local governments must formally approve mine sites and/or the subsequent use of the
mine site (RCW 78.44.091)prior to issuance of a reclamation permit This approval
process generally makes local jurisdictions the lead agency according to State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) rules (chapter 43.21C RCW).
DNR's surface mining reclamation program is fully set forth at:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/MiningEnergyResourceRegulation
/Pages/smr.aspx.
As of 2006, there were approximately 20 sand and gravel reclamation sites in Thurston
County (map on the above web site). Mining regulations in Washington are detailed by
Norman(2000). Those regulations were given a detailed review in 2006 (Surface Mine
Reclamation Advisory Committee 2006),and the recommendations of the Committee
reflect areas where local regulation may serve to strengthen the regulation of surface
mining. Relevant recommendations of the Committee include:
• DNR should have authority to immediately stop any of the following four
violations without first seeking judicial enforcement~ a. Mining outside of any
authorized permit boundary(whether mining without a permit,or permitted but
mining outside of a permit boundary);b. Violations causing immediate danger to
environment or to public's health,safety,or welfare;c. Unauthorized removal of
topsoil from the permitted site; or d. Violation of a final DNR order.
• DNR should have statutory right of entry authority for: a. Reclamation when
authorized under the Act, Rules,or Permit;and b. Compliance inspections.
• Judicial warrant authority should be granted where access is denied or probable
cause for a violation exists.
• DNR should not delegate enforcement authority to local governments at this
time. (The committee is not recommending that the legislature remove
delegation authority from the Act)
• Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of local government and DNR
should be discussed and pursued.
It is noteworthy that these recommendations reflect a concern over the limitations on
DNR enforcement authority under the Surface Mining Act. It appears that existing,
recognized shortcomings in the Act contribute to the potential for violations that
threaten the natural environment and public safety, and it is appropriate to enact local
regulation that addresses these shortcomings.
6
Relevance of Facts to Siting Criteria
It appears that existing reclamation standards established under the Surface Mining
Act, coupled with opportunities for local review and conditioning of individual permit
applications provided under SEPA,are sufficient to assure high confidence that mines
are planned and permitted in a manner that protects local jurisdictional concerns,
specifically including concerns about environmental protection and safety in connection
with the reclaimed mine facility. There remain concerns about enforcement of existing
regulation, and collaboration between the County and DNR is appropriate in efforts to
resolve those concerns.
Asphalt Plants
Regulation and Permitting Processes
Under the current law,responsibilities are divided as follows:
• County and city governments issue permits for location and daily operation;
• Ecology issues permits for water quality and water resources;
• Ecology and local clean-air agencies regulate air quality; and
• the State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) environmental review process
analyzes the cumulative impacts of all mining-related permits
Processing and Emission Control
"The asphalt drum mix process involves the grading and storing of various rocks and sands for
mixing and conveying to a rotary kiln for heating and additional mixing. As the heated product
leaves the kiln, it is combined with refined petroleum to form the finished product. This material
is then conveyed to large overhead hopper bins for storage prior to being loaded into delivery
trucks.
The most common toxic emissions from asphalt concrete plants are from acetaldehyde, acetone,
benzene,ethyl benzene,formaldehyde, toluene, and xylene.
The most common emission control system at these plants is a baghouse and a wet scrubber.
Exhaust gases from the process are manifolded through a wet scrubber to remove the particulates
before being vented to the atmosphere from a circular or rectangular exhaust stack."
(Washington State Dept of Ecology, 1998).
Asphalt Plants and the Natural Environment
Land Environmental Issues with Asphalt Plants: Hot mix asphalt plants can result in
spills, leaks or emissions from chemicals used in the asphalt manufacturing process or
absorbed through prior uses of recycled asphalt. Spills and leaks can occur which occur
either through some sort of natural disaster, improper storage of materials, or human
error in the manufacturing, transporting and storage processes. Emissions occur if the
7
equipment used to contain them does not function properly,which happens even in the
best of plants. Recycled asphalt will contain unknown chemical contaminants through
its prior uses.
Siting Issues: Reduce risk of natural disasters through avoiding land-defined critical
areas- particularly steep and hazardous, slide-prone slopes, seismic zones, areas of
subsidence,and other areas of soil instability.
Possible Impacts on Air Quality: During manufacturing,asphalt plants may emit
significant levels of both particulate matter and gaseous volatile organic compounds
(VOCS). These pollutants are considered detrimental to human health(some are
suspected carcinogens). The most significant ducted source of emissions in an asphalt
plant is the mixer. Storage piles and transport may also emit pollutants.
While these pollutants can be minimized by technology and proper emission control
systems at the plant, and by requiring periodic inspection and reporting, such
technology is by no means perfect. Where it fails,or human operators make errors,
plumes of gases that are not fully cleaned are released,even from"state of the art"
plants.
Siting Issues: Distance to vulnerable residents who would be harmed. Distance to
residential areas is also relevant because of the odor which the plants can create.
Possible Impacts of Asphalt Plants on Water Quality. Asphalt plants can contaminate
ground water through spills and leads of chemicals. This contaminated ground water
could then travel to other lakes and rivers.
The common co-location between gravel mines and asphalt plants adds to the possible
ground water contamination. "Batch plants are often located in conjunction with gravel
mining operations. This increases the potential for pollutants to affect underlying ground water.
Trucks, loaders and other equipment are common on site. Spills and leaks from associated
equipment in the manufacturing and delivery process pose a significant potential to contaminate
waters of the state. In addition to good housekeeping and best management practices to minimize
spills and leaks,facilities often channel stormwater to avoid contamination or remove oil by
skimming it off the surface or through use of oil/water separators." (Department of Ecology
Fact Sheet,2005,page 6)
Siting Issues: Do not site asphalt plants in flood plains. Locate away from areas that
slide or that are subject to coastal flooding. Locate away from wetlands, and aquifer
recharge areas. Site away from ground water intake for domestic purposes.
Possible Impacts of Asphalt Plants on Plant and Animal Habitat: Asphalt plants can
contaminate habitat through spills and leakage of chemicals.
8
Siting Issues to Consider. Locate away from critical or endangered species habitats,
state/federal natural area preserves, and state/federalwildlife refuges.
Asphalt Plants and Adjacent Land Uses
Possible Impacts: Odor. Air pollution. Added truck traffic if"recycled" asphalt is
permitted.
Siting Issues to Consider: Distance to residential areas, "buffers" from other land uses
through setbacks.
Odor Control Aspects of Asphalt Plants
The odor from asphalt plants has periodically become an emotional issue for Thurston
County residents living,working, or recreating in the vicinity of these plants.
Therefore, the key issue is what should be the required minimum distance of the plants
from residential communities and certain specified public facilities.
Brief Review of Facts: In past years asphalt plants have caused unacceptable odor
conditions to nearby residents and individuals working or recreating in certain public
facilities. Without question,new technologies and improved business practices are
now capable of reducing the adverse impacts of odors. The Olympic Region Clean Air
Agency (ORCAA) has set specific odor control standards and reviews all permits for
new asphalt plants. However,no processes are perfect. Even the newest asphalt plant
in Thurston County has released plumes of pollution and odor upon several occasions.
Relevance of Facts to Siting Criteria: Although the Thurston County request for
information from ORCAA has yet to be received, existing odor control standards are in
place. However, there are no specific offset distance standards set by ORCAA,and
there will always be fumes associated with asphalt production. Weather inversions and
wind conditions are of course not predictable,but it appears that some of the offset
distances recommended by the Asphalt Advisory Task Force are not adequate to
protect residents from air pollution or odor.
Siting Standards for Gravel Mines and Asphalt Plants
The table below summarizes siting standards suggested or codified in several
documents,including:
• the mineral mining designations of nearby counties (King,Pierce,Snohomish
and Kitsap). Generally these ordinances do not cover asphalt plants explicitly.
• Our Thurston County draft critical areas ordinances for both gravel and asphalt
plants. These are incomplete,because at some point in drafting the critical areas
ordinances,we decided to suspend review of mining issues until we had heard
from the task forces.
9
• For asphalt plants,we have included,in addition to our draft critical area
ordinances, siting criteria from Washington State Administrative Code (WAC
173-303-282)for incinerating waste management facilities,which like asphalt
plants can impact groundwater,air quality and the land itself, and which,like
asphalt plants,can be mitigated but not perfected by good management. The
WAC does not apply directly to asphalt plants,but it does apply to incinerated
waste management plans,which have similar management and siting issues.
The rows in the table specify land uses in which mining or asphalt plant operations are
to be permitted, or not permitted,either on the site or adjacent to it. If the cell is blank,
that means that particular land use was not addressed in the gravel mining ordinances
from those counties. If it says"yes",it was included. If it says"no", the land uses were
found incompatible.
The county ordinances vary in their approaches to the designation/permitting process.
Some ordinances handle most environmental or hazard issues at the permitting stage,
through the SEPA and other processes. If those issues were cited in the ordinance, they
are listed as "handled during permitting." Others counties remove certain kinds of
areas-for example,urban uses or historic sites,or flood plains--at the beginning
stages of the designation,by removing certain types of overlay land uses from the
beginning mineral overlay map.
Most counties are adding notification of the fact that the new mineral overlay district is
a"mining district" or"mineral' district on plats and titles. Notification is required
within 500 feet of a resource parcel(RCW 36.70A.060 (1) (b). This would of course have
an impact on land values,at least for residential land uses. For example:
"This property lies within an area of land designated Mineral Resource Lands by Pierce
County. A variety of mineral resource extraction.activities occurs in the area that may be
inconvenient or cause discomfort to area residents. This may arise from the use of
chemicals and extractions of minerals which occasionally generates dust, smoke, noise
and odor. Pierce County has established Mineral Resource Lands, and residents of
adjacent property should be prepared to accept such inconveniences or discomfort from
normal, necessary mineral extraction lands. An application might be made for mining-
related activities, including mining,extraction, washing, crushing, stockpiling, blasting,
transporting and recycling of minerals." (Pierce County Ordinance).
10
Table 1: Siting Standards
Open Pit Gravel Mines Asphalt Plants
Land Use or King Pierce Snohomish Kitsap Draft Draft WAC 173-303-
Siting Issue CAO CAO 282
Mining Asphalt "incineration'
Land Use Compatibilities(okay in these districts or adjacent)
Forest Districts yes yes
Open Space yes Yes
Natural Areas 500 feet
Rural Industrial Yes yes
Other Mining ves
Subarea plans no
that specify no
mining
Agricultural Land Uses
PrimeAg Soils, no no no 500 feet
Ag districts
Commercial no No-but yes for
Farmland adjacent
Land Stability Impact issues
Hazardous or Addressed no no no
steep slope during
permitting
Marine bluff Addressed no no
during
permitting
Erosion and yes no
subsidence
Volcanic seismic yes 500 feet from a
areas fault
Water Impact Issues
Shorelines no no no no no 500 feet
100 yr Flood no no no no no
Plain
500 yr flood no
lain
Acquifer Addressed Addressed No in 1, No in 1 Not over sole
Recharge Areas during during 5&10 yes in 5 source
permitting permitting year and 10 acquifer,500
feet from
groundwater
protection
areas
Rivers,lakes, Addressed Addressed no no 500 feet from
ponds,streams during during perennial
permitting permitting water bodies
Channel no no no
Migration Zone
High Ground Addressed no no no
Water Hazard during
permitting
11
Open Pit Gravel Mines Asphalt Plants
Land Use or King Pierce Snohomish Kitsap Draft Draft WAC 173-303-
Siting Issue CAO CAO 282
Mining Asphalt "incineration"
Coastal flooding no no no
areas
Wetlands Addressed Addressed 500 feet
during during
permitting permitting
Wildlife Habitat Protection
Wildlife Habitat Addressed Not within 300 500 feet from
protection areas during feet of critical wildlife
permitting Chinook/trout habitat,
corridors. natural areas
Others and wildlife
addressed refuges
during
permitting
Urban Land Uses,Residential Densities,Public Facilities,Historical Sites and Traffic Safety and Roads
Residential 10-20 houses per
Densities acre ok.
Urban Area no No or UGAs
Public facilities no 1/4 mile from
e.g.cemeteries, public
schools, gathering
libraries,parks, places
trails,hospitals
Historic or no no
archeological
Size of setback 1/2 mile from
within the site, actual
distance from residences.200
residences. feet from own
property line,
Roadway Addressed Addressed
adequacy and during during
safety permittingpermitting
Economic Impacts of Siting Criteria for Asphalt Plants
Personal use: The average Washington resident uses 12-14 tons of aggregate, 1.3 cubic
yards of concrete, and 1.25 tons of asphalt per year. The average 2,000 square foot home
in Western Washington uses almost 210 tons of aggregate in driveways,foundations,
sidewalks,base materials,and streets. A mile of county road will contain about 4,600
tons of aggregate. (http://www.washingtonconcrete.org/14/fun-facts.html). Thus the
residents of Thurston County have a clear need for the materials provided by gravel
mines and asphalt plants for private and public uses,such as buildings,roads, trails,
and others.
12
Moving an Asphalt Plant: One of the recommendations of the Asphalt Advisory Task
Force (http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/asphalt-advisory-task-
force/docs/AATF-final-report of-recommendations.pd f) is to only allow asphalt plants
to import gravel from a"nearby' mine. (nearby is 1/2-1 mile) This would require major
investments to be made to move mines. The cost of moving a plant would be about one
million dollars; this would not include other costs.
Other costs may be
• Permits- federal, state,and local
• Site Prep -electricity,propane/gas, grading
• Upgrades- improvements to actual plant
• Legal Expenses- to get permits,fight opposition
The purchase price of a new asphalt plant is about$3.5 million, plus about$500,000 to
set up the plant(Source,personal communication, ).
Recycled Asphalt Product (RAP)
Cost of hauling used product: Many projects require the removal of old asphalt. If
asphalt is to be hauled from the jobsite to the plant, those trucks can be used hauling
material both ways. If a plant is not allowed to use the recycled asphalt, that material
must be hauled to a different site (usually a landfill). This would most likely require
trucks hauling old material away from the jobsite while other trucks haul the new
material in. This adds overall truck traffic to our roads, and requires the trucks to run
one way empty, reducing efficiency. (Note,however, that recycled asphalt leads to
more truck traffic around the asphalt plant itself).
Cost of hauling excess product: Asphalt plants that can't recycle asphalt must move
excess product off site.
Cost of covering RAP: Covering a limited supply of RAP is economically feasible and
sensible. Dry RAP requires less heat to mix, since not as much heat would be used to
dry the product.
Covering all RAP on site in a roofed building would be costly, as the size of the
structure would be cost prohibitive. Buildings with an eave of up to16' are
conventional size and cost is based mostly on total square footage. As the height of the
eaves goes above 16' the cost rises much faster. Also a 30'to 40' building without walls
would do little to protect the RAP from rain when the wind is blowing.
As the RAP is required to be in an area that will contain runoff, the industry has
suggested using a tarp or small building to contain enough material for the short term
could provide the same benefit as a larger more expensive building. However, such
covering would not protect against the environmental impacts of recycled asphalt,
which include the leaching of pollutants from the asphalt pile into the ground water
and then into nearby streams.
13
Citations
Garland D &Liszak 11995. "The High Rock Aquifer Break of October 1993.
Washington State Department of Ecology, NWRO Technical Memorandum, December.
Norman, D. K. 2000. Mining regulations in Washington. Washington Division of
Geology and Earth Resources Open File Report 2000-3. Available:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_ofr2000-3_mining_regulations.pdf.
Accessed September 23, 2009.
Surface Mine Reclamation Advisory Committee. 2006. Report to the Legislature of the
State of Washington: Recommendations Regarding the Administration of the Surface
Mine Reclamation Act,Chapter 78.44 RCW. Washington Department of Natural
Resources. Available:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/ger_leg_report_6175_smra_200609.pdf.
Accessed September 23, 2009.
Washington State Dept of Ecology, 1998. Washington State Air Toxic Sources and Emission
Estimation Methods (Ecology: Olympia WA) Document# 98-207.
hqp://www.egy.wa.gov/programs/air/"pdfs/asphalt3.pdf
Washington State Department of Ecology, 2005. Fact Sheet Sand and Gravel General
Permit.
hM2://www.e�:y.wa.gov/programs/wq/sand/SandandGravelFactSheet2005.pdf.
WAC 173-303-282. Siting Criteria for Dangerous Waste Management Facilities.
14
APPENDIX 1: Article from Division of Geology and Earth
Resources Newsletter on Regulation and Mining
Website: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/Vol.4,No.2, Summer 2007
Surface mines in Washington—Who Regulates What?
The world as we know it couldn't exist without mines. There would be no roads and
high-rise buildings. There would be no pots and pans. No cars and computers.
As necessary as mines are, they face a major obstacle: nobody wants a mine in their
backyard, especially an open gravel pit accompanied by dust,industrial clamor,busy
truck traffic, and a gaping hole in the landscape.
The resulting regulation of this complicated economic and environmental issue has
created frequent confusion,not only with the miners,but also with the government
agencies that monitor them.The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
plays a significant role in regulation of Washington s 1100 mines.
Under the state's 1971 Surface Mining Act, the DNR was responsible for regulating all
mining operations and subsequent reclamation efforts. But under the more
comprehensive 1993 Surface Mine Reclamation Act and the Metal Mining and Milling
Act,DNR's role narrowed to issuing permits and regulating reclamation. DGER's role
in the regulation of surface mines is explained at
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/minerecl.htm.
Network of Agencies Responsible With the passage of the 1993 mining law,the state
legislature faced the growing conflict,with the state's booming population stretching to
rural areas where gravel pits once operated in seclusion. DNR, the Department of
Ecology (DOE),county governments,and some cities regulate mines. Other agencies
can be involved in peripheral aspects of mine operation, such as
the Department of Labor and Industries' oversight of mine safety.
Under the current mining law,the responsibilities are divided as follows:
• County and city governments issue permits for location and daily operation
• DOE issues permits for water quality and water resources
• DOE and local clean-air agencies regulate air quality
• Department of Natural Resources issues reclamation permits
• The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA) environmental review process
analyzes the cumulative impacts of all mining-related permits
15
If residents miss the opportunity to register concerns over proposed mining permits
during earlier city/county,DOE,and DNR hearings, they can always comment during
the SEPA review process. For more detailed information on mining regulations,see
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/pdf/
ofr00-3.pdf and http://www.ora.wa.gov/permithelp/default.asp.
Even though many of DNR's responsibilities were shifted to DOE and local
governments, DNR's workload did not diminish. Under the law, DNR examines the
permits of every mine in the state to assure that adequate plans are made for
reclamation. (The law defines'mines' as larger than 3 acres of disturbed ground and/or
a high wall higher than 30 feet and steeper than 45'.)
Mining Still a Contentious Issue Mining remains a contentious issue as the public and
mine operators try to navigate through the network of government agencies and the
current requirements. "Most miners are conscientious business people who want a
viable business with a good reputation," said mine inspector Chris Johnson.
There is confusion over which agency is regulating which requirement. Who makes
determinations?Who should hear the complaints or answer questions?
"Local governments regulate mine operations—including blasting,grading,noise, and
traffic. DOE monitors water quality and water resources and,in some counties without
a clean-air agency,air quality. DNR inspects mines to make sure they are following
their reclamation plan," Chris said.
In another common misunderstanding of government roles,buyers of new homes are
upset over the close proximity of their housing development to an established mine
with 100-to 200-foot cliffs.
"Mines are long-term operations," Chris said. "One quarry in Clark County has been
operating for more than 100 years. Mines are expected to last at least 50 years."
The Growth Management Act encourages local governments to preserve these much-
needed resources by locating housing developments far enough away from active
mines, through proper zoning and setbacks, that they may peacefully coexist until the
mine is exhausted.
Material for Infrastructure
Washington's most common mines are gravel surface mines that yield gravel, sand,and
rock-not coal mines,which are regulated by the federal government.
16
"Washington has outstripped itself. The state needs to build infrastructure, such as
roads and buildings," Chris said. "It needs rock. So the delicate balance is to allow
surface mines near enough to urban areas to keep down the hauling costs."
Another little-known fact is that the state's own Department of Transportation operates
more mines—for building roads— than any other mining operation. "Whenever
possible, DNB's inspectors work with officials of other agencies to provide seamless
monitoring and regulation," Chris said.
What Constitutes Reclamation?
A surface mine drastically and permanently alters a landscape's soil and topography.
Mine owners are not required to 'fill in' a completed mine,which would be
economically prohibitive. "The word'reclamation doesn t imply'restoration'," said
Chris. "You could never return an area back to its natural and original condition. In
nearly all cases, a large hole is left. Our job is to make sure that it has stable slopes,and
the land is returned to a beneficial second use."
Plans may call for a golf course (Fig. 1) or a business park. Old mining sites have been
converted to excellent fishing lakes,which can be used for recreation or wildlife habitat.
But gravel pits are not merely filled with water to make a lake. They are modified with
variable depths and meandering shorelines to approximate the terrain of natural lakes
to maximize habitat:
To ease public tensions over a mine operation,many operators'segment' their
mines into multiple phases of excavation and reclaiming (Fig. 2). Each section is treated
like a separate mine: mined and reclaimed before another section begins. This keeps
mined areas small with reclamation ongoing at the same time, rather than sustaining a
large pit.
Living with Surface Mines
Chris believes that many gravel pit problems can be solved through county zoning
ordinances. DNR can help with this process by providing mapping and GIS data.
"Counties need accurate maps which locate mineral resources and show where they
need to dig for minerals. Proper zoning will help protect other resources and home
buyers from the problems of living near a quarry."
17
To:
Barbara Adkins
Allan Borden
Department of Community Development
Mason County,Washington
LETTER OF PROTEST for Permit: COM2013-00013 and SEP2013400009
Dear Barbara and Allan,
I am writing this letter as an official protest against the permits above listed above relating to Peninsula
Topsoil and/or owners of said properties and/or owner(s)of Granite Construction.
Please see public comments submitted earlier for reasons for the protest(re-attached to the e-mail).
I am sending this as a signed PDF file. I don't have time to run down today and deliver by hand.The
public comments period ends today and I was just notified of the need for this letter of protest. My e-
mail address should be sufficient evidence this is coming from the person of John Gunter at 50 NE
Hillside Acres Lane in Belfair,WA 98528. 1 have had numerous correspondence with county officials and
workers using the e-mail address of iohn@seattleluxury.com and john@belfair.name.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
i
Page 1 of 4
Allan Borden - LETTER OF PROTEST-COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009
From: "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>
To: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Trish
Woolett" <Tw@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/8/2013 2:48 PM
Subject: LETTER OF PROTEST- COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009
CC: "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Attachments: Approximate Odor Location copy.jpg; Contiguous parcel layout]pg; Grinding2 sm.jpg; Parcel
Breakdown.docx; Proposed Asphalt Plant 2.jpg; Proposed Asphalt Plant.jpg; Thurston County-gravel-
mines-and-asphalt-plants-7.pdf; Letter of Protest- COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009.pdf
Hi Barbara and Allan,
I have attached a letter of protest to the e-mail below. Please add all this to public comments, and file the letter of protest
against the applications.
Added to public comments:
1 wrote the e-mail below to Jack Johnson about odors on his property of fresh asphalt on said date below, and he
has not responded to me.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
From: John Gunter
Sent: Friday, March 08, 201310:22 AM
To: Barbara Adkins ; Allan Borden ; Trish Woolett
Cc: Pat Loudin
Subject: Public Comment for
Hi Barbara, Allan, and Trish,
Please attach this e-mail along with the all the attached documents to public comments for: COM2013-00013 and
SEP2013-00009 relating to Peninsula and Granite Construction's application for an asphalt plant. My understanding is
that today is the last day for public comments to be given.
Here is a summary:
Please do NOT issue this permit. Many neighbors will be disrupted
1. We already have experienced horrendous, eye-watering and nose-burning odors from that property on March 5,
2G13 relating to Asphalt generation of some kind. (They either must already have an asphalt making permit or
file://C:1Documents and SettingsWhblLocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise15139FA21 Masonmail 1001 626A681 1 DC9... 3/8/2013
C i _.
sa�t.�..t .,.
S.0 Y�xR. .� f fd
�Rr } h.,
4�'
.
w
'o
r
AA �fr
k
r
. .a
b
n ♦w
r
2 y err �.►
._ �. F fti. - ..� y' � �f•`+'#� ...� tit
.. .. 'i 6 d3S '?t)1f3�.r. �wM rr�YY{:'.3� i✓� n .�y^ ..rw. i
,m„�"n ' .. �t a'.�, � a, '�"'"-n ,a`� � sw "*.9 .�• .,ri....rw� "� ,,,*AE„t: .r�aw.;:�. _ .
n .
�� . jai>:z +.'�'�"`�= s. ��`S :-`-_ _ �•aa� Sir
"
v'
,-
7' e
tt m
f
�R
slt�
W. Page 1 of 1
Subject: Records request
Created By: Tw(W.co.mason.wa.us
Scheduled Date:
Creation Date: 5/28/2013 10 36 AM
From: Trish Woolett
Recipient Action Date&Time Comment
To:john@belfair.name Qohn@belfair.name) Transferred 5/28/2013 10:37 AM
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/51 A488C3Masonmai11001626B6... 6/4/2013
A. Page 1 of 1
Trish Woolett - Records request
From: Trish Woolett
To: john@belfair.name
Date: 5/28/2013 10:36 AM
Subject: Records request
Attachments: Trish Woolett.vcf
Mr. Gunter,
We have continued to hold the records you requested to view regarding the Granite Construction asphalt plant.
Could you please contact me at your earliest convenience with a date you would be in to view the files. If you no
longer wish to view these files please let me know. If I do not hear back from you by Friday May 31st, 2013 I will
send the files back to file.
Thank you
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
Mason County Community Dev.
360.427.9670 ext. 281
fax 360.427.7798
tw@co.mason.wa.us
County Web Site: www.co.mason.wa.us
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/51 A488C3Masonmai11001626B6... 6/4/2013
SEPA CHECKLIST
$385 - Single Family
$630 - Non-Single Family 0 to 9.99 Acres
$755 -10 to 20 Acres
g$945 - Over 20 Acres
$2,525 + 70/hr - EIS (DS)
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of
this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or
avoid impacts from the proposal) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for Applicants:
Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are
significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or
give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be
able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really
do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply".
Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental
effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional
information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact.
There is a fee required, for the processing of the checklist, see above for the appropriate fee. Please make your check
payable to"Mason County Treasurer".
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project: CONCRETE & ASPHALT RECYCLE FACILITY
2. Name of applicant: PENINSULA TOPSOIL LLC
Property owner: S & J JOHNSON LLC
3. Applicant mailing address: P.O. BOX 640, BELFAIR, WA 98528
Applicant phone numbers: (360) 275-1000
4. Date checklist prepared: 03-15-13
5. Agency requesting checklist: MASON COUNTY
Mason County SEPA Checklist I
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
MAY 2013, NO PHASING
7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,
explain.
NO
8 List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to
this proposal.
MASON COUNTY: SEP95-0200 (SEPA& MDNS)
MASON COUNTY: GRD95-0033 (LAND MODIFICATION PERMIT)
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the
property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION (2013) SEPA& SAND AND GRAVEL GENERAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A
PORTABLE ASPHALT PLANT.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known.
SAND & GRAVEL GENERAL PERMIT (WDOE)
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and
site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.
You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional
specific information on project description.)
CRUSH DEMOLITION CONCRETE AND ASPHALT,AND RECYCLE TO GRAVEL PRODUCTS.THE"PROJECT"WILL OCCUR
WITHIN 3 ACRES OF AN 18 ACRE"PARCEL";WHICH IS PART OF A+35 ACRE"SITE"(PERMITTED IN ITEM 8 ABOVE).
IN REFERENCE TO THE ELEMENTS DISCUSSED IN THIS CHECKLIST:
"PROJECT" REFERS TO THE 3 AC. PROPOSAL
"PARCEL"REFERS TO THE 18 AC.TAX PARCEL
"SITE"REFERS TO THE+35 AC. ORIGINAL PERMITS
12 What is-the-location-of-the-proposal? Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location-of--
your proposed project including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site
plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related
to this checklist.
PARCEL # 12321-42-00090
T23N, R1W, SECTION 21, NW1/4SE1/4
50 NE PENINSULA BLVD.
VICINITY MAP ATTACHED.
Mason County SEPA Checklist
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one)- Flat, rolling, hilly, steep
slopes, mountainous, other
PRE\/101 I9I Y C,RAr)Fr) FI AT I INnFR I AND
MODIFICATION PERMIT GRD95-0033.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
±2%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example,
clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of
agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
EVERETT GRAVELY LOAMY SAND.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? if so, describe.
NO
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
NONE
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If
so, generally describe.
YES, AN EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
PLAN WITH BE IMPLEMENTED DURING SITE
DEVELOPMENT.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
100% GRAVEL SURFACE.
3
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts
to the earth, if any:
PROPER EROSION CONTROL BMP'S DURING SITE
DEVELOPMENT, AND ACTIVE OPERATIONS.
2. Air
a 1A/hat b1pac of emiccinnc to the air ium ilrl race ilt frnm thin nrnnneal
(i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during
construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
DUST DURING CRUSHING OPERATIONS. EXHAUST
FROM MACHINERY.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect
your proposal? If so, generally describe.
NO
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other
impacts to air, if any:
AIR PERMIT THROUGH ORCAA.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater,
lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names.
If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
NO
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within
200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
NO
4
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate
the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of
fill material.
NONE
4 Will the proposal re uire surface water withdrawals or
aversions. Give genera description, e,
quantities if known.
NO
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so note
location on the site plan.
NO
6) Does the proposal involve any discharge of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
NONE ANTICIPATED. THERE IS NO DISCHARGE TO
SURFACE WATERS FROM THE SITE. SEE ITEM 3.b.1)
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities if known.
NO GROUND WATER WITHDRAWL PROPOSED.
STORM RUNOFF 'FLOW-CONTROL' & WATER QUALITY' FOR
THE ENTIRE SITE (+35 ACRES) IS INFILTRATED IN A STORM
RETENTION POND SYSTEM AT THE SOUTH END OF THE SITE;
DESIGNED & CONSTRUCTED PER "PHASE-II DRAINAGE
REPORT" OLYMPIC ENGINEERING, 10-27-95.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground
water from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example..
domestic sewerage; industrial, containing the following
chemicals...: agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the
system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to
be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
NONE.
5
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if
known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other
waters? If so, describe.
CONTAINED AND ROUTED TO A PRESETTLING BASIN
FOR SETTLEMENT OF SEDIMENTS.
PRIOR TO ENTERING THE PRESETTLING BASIN ALL
SURFACE RUNOFF WILL BE ROUTED THROUGH A
CATCH BASIN TO TRAP FLOATING OIL. ADDITIONAL
TRAPPING OF FLOATING OIL CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN
THE PRESETTLING BASIN BY EMLOYING AN OIL-
ABSORBING BOOM.
THE PRESETTLING BASIN WILL DISCHARGE TO THE
SITE'S STORM SEWER SYSTEM, WHICH FLOWS TO THE
SITE'S RETENTION POND.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so
generally describe.
THERE IS NO DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS FROM
THE SITE, ALL STORM RUNOFF IS INFILTRATED AT THE
SITE'S RETENTION POND. THE PROJECT WILL
CONSTRUCT WATER QUALITY BMP'S TO MEET THE
WATER QUALITY DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SAND & GRAVEL GENERAL PERMIT.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any:
THE SAND-&-GRAVEL PERMIT WILL REQUIRE A SWP-P-P- - -
AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN FOR STORM
WATER DISCHARGED FROM THE PROJECT. ALL
RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT WILL BE MONITORED &
TESTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SAND &
GRAVEL GENERAL PERMIT PRIOR TO DISCHARGE
FROM THE PROJECT.
6
THE PROPOSED PROJECT MAY CREATE STORM
RUNOFF WITH A pH VALUE ABOVE ACCEPTABLE
LEVELS, DUE TO CEMENT. METHODS WILL BE
PROVIDED TO NEUTRALIZE THE pH IN THE
PRESETTLING BASIN, WHEN NECESSARY, PRIOR TO
DISCHARGE.
TURBIDITY AND SEDIMENTS OF STORM RUNOFF ARE
PRESETTLING BASIN WILL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE
THE NECESSARY SETTLEMENT TIME.
OIL & GREASE DRIPPINGS COULD BE PRESENT DUE TO
MACHINERY OPERATING OR FROM RECYCLED
ASPHALT. MEASURE WILL BE PROVIDED TO
ADEQUATELY TRAP OILS PRIOR TO DISCHARGE.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site- (NONE)
deciduous tree- alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
_ grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage,
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
NONE
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
_ _site.
NONE KNOWN
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any.-
NOT REQUIRED PER ZONING CODE.
7
5. Animals
a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or
near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Pileated Woodpecker
Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: (NONE)
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site.
NONE KNOWN
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
NONE KNOWN
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
NONE
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar)
will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe
whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
DIESEL MACHINERY.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by
adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
NO
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the
plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or
control energy impacts, if any.
NONE WARRANTED.
8
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire or explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that
could occur as a result of this proposal? If so describe.
NONE PROPOSED.
1) Describe emergency services that may be required.
NONE
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
NONE
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may effect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
INDUSTRIAL ZONE AREA, TYPICAL EQUIPMENT
OPERATING.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for
example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
hours noise would come from the site.
CRUSHER. EQUIPMENT. TRUCKS. DAYTIME OPERATING
ONLY.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
NOISE LEVELS WILL BE BELOW 75dBA RANGE ALLOWED
FOR CLASS C EDNA (INDUSTRIAL) PER THE MASON
COUNTY NOISE ORDENANCE.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
INDUSTRIAL.
9
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
NO
c. Describe any structures on the site.
PENINSULA TOPSOIL OFFICE.
a. Will any structures a emo is e so, what?
NO
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
GC-BI
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
UNKNOWN
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
NO
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
contemplated project?
2-3 EMPLOYEES
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
NONE
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if
any:
NOT WARRANTED.
10
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any.
MASON COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
N/A
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure)s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
CRUSHER LESS THAN 15-FT TALL. STOCKPILES MAY BE
+20-FT TALL.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
NONE WARRANTED.
11
11. Light and Glare
a. What types of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time
of day would it mainly occur?
NONE
h Could light nr glare from the finished nmiPnt hp a -,afety.hazard o
interfere with views?
NO
c. What existing off-site light sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
NONE
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if
any:
NONE WARRANTED.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
NONE
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational
uses? If so, describe.
NO
c. Proposed -measures-to reduce or control impacts on recreation
including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project
applicant, if any:
NONE WARRANTED.
12
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national,
state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site?
If so, generally describe.
NONE KNOWN
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next
to the site.
NONE KNOWN
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
NONE WARRANTED.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe
proposed access to the existing street system. Show on the site plans,
if any.
STATE HIGHWAY 3 (SR-3).
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If no, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
UNKNOWN
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
NO NEW PARKING REQUIRED.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or
improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If
so generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
NO NEW IMPROVEMENTS WARRANTED. THE SITE WENT
THROUGH A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT WITH WSDOT
13
IN 2003 TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE TURN LANES ALONG
SR-3 FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION OF THE SITE.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail,
or air transportation? If so generally describe.
NO. THE US NAVAL RAILROAD IS ADJACENT TO
PORTIONS OF THE SITE, HOWEVER IT IS NOT
PROPOSED TO USE RAIL TRANSPORTATION FOR THIS
PRO IEGT
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
N/A. TRAFFIC GENERATION FOR THIS PROJECT IS
INCLUDED IN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR THE 2003
WSDOT DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT.
g. Proposed measure to reduce or control transportation impacts, if
any:
NONE WARRANTED.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services
(for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools,
other)? If so generally describe.
NO
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any:
NONE WARRANTED.
16. Utilities
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, gas,
water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other
14
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility
providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site
or in the immediate vicinity that might be needed.
NO NEW UTILITY SERVICES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT.
C. SIGNATURE
I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its
decision.
Signature:
MICR L F. WNEK, P.E.
PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER
Date Submitted: MARCH 14, 2013
ATTACHMENTS:
VICINITY MAP
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
15
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs
further analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA(Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon,
trout and chars, e.g. bull trout. For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids" is defined as fish species listed as
endangered, threatened or being considered for listing.
If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project
has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help
determine if the ESA listings will impact your project.
The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can
nmvidp information for thp fnUnwinn two nupstinns_
1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located?
YES NO X Please describe.
2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed?
YES_ NO X Uncertain_ Please describe.
If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the
remainder of this checklist.
PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity.
1. Name of watershed:
2. Name of nearest waterbody:
3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water: Often a buffer
between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish.
4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland,
etc.)?
5. Is the project above a:
--`---natural-permanent-barrier(waterfall) YES_ NO
natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES_ NO
man-made barrier(culvert, dam) YES_ NO_
• other(explain):
6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage?
YES NO Don't know
7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface(including pavement& roof area)?
Mason County SEPA Checklist 16
PENINSULA TOPSOIL WNEK ENGINEERING
Concrete & Asphalt Recycle Facility March 14, 2013
VICINITY MAP
Mason County, Washington
® .
{
e r ..�..
i TAHUYA of s`� •"�.
1 �1
.r
L Project
Location
FOREST i _
_. wP $gLfAIR
41
tkLLYN V
8EIGHTS
4 d
J fT
1 REflM AS NECESSARY I I I I I
c .x I11 1'� k.-. .•., �•" 4;r TO ISOIATE/CONTAINI--
y• 'sue ! '� PROJECT SfoRM RUNOFF I I I I
O Qm
IRA :/ CON IRE NO F J�
Na 1�?yl� - a 1 r1t F i0P FA - o
7-0�
1—l/4":MINUS 1 1'�2'CLEANCRUSHEDCRUSHED''CONCRETE CONCR =STOCK.ILE STOC LE - - --�-- --i-- gy q
vlcum NM
a,� ,yk oa vl \ar' RAP) CRUSHER c ��{� r yr`tit A ocl(PILE d�Ile
4 DEPTH GRAVEL
WORKING
REC G" DEMOLITION. . yo
1-. �,y ASPFIALT B
�\�•. f +/ f �'' ? 0 BS STOCK-1, flow.
DEMOLITION CONCRETE f
STOCKPILE. . fill
e� �a
CR W/SPILL CONTROL RISER .. �. ol
_ _ •,/r'4/ \�_ �PJ mw At R'CEssyFl"'
_ TOLSOIASTORMNI
.PROIECT'SRMtY
Tje
aE ABSORRINT 900M- h •ay'/�} d� 8
-1029
iEJr 1 _ .4�\ Ali EL:31J 66
5511
"�' a �.: ^.? 10 §•r('C�' �,r,' j�i' T a --:6:�. x ii/,r7 's!'' IF PLOTTED DRAWNG SIZE IS NOT 2� a
2636',DRAWNG SCALE WILL BE
DIFFOBT THAN THE SCALE SHOWN
I�cmmw1rt.Ora ww5 a a Z V
BAP T6.10 ETTDN BA9N •�� /, ¢wM ME urzsr miriul of a 4¢
.+>h "'"1+;"' AgS J •� " // R�:`5• t'+}j. .� p •i w[..�wncta n�rt ocnwnrNr 6 EL Q
r .'/ / r�Wlvonunorrs ROQ. d w5�; r \ . /Y`. /`' •r'• �.� mcanc�nmaFixMucnW®ors i3w
.. ,r 5 C_ ; ^ •t<G �, /. �a A Q ; .unovu ( } H V m
..,r: tr vt� � :kttt�p[ct pao'9t'il>¢�o�h`�.r _/o4 r/ x''t�:Q`/ r�Fq� .�•� '� ,. 'SQ ' ./r/��'' MSfR�uCTqC.5v�¢R p N =0
p12321-} 0 10 0MW-l= �o.a4
Y / _jO< ��
z
lei
0 u a
i ` I �,.4• cR Hlc � //� /�%: \\GRAP c scAtE(m Fc.0 a Cl
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - FW: Permit fees
From: "Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com>
To: "AH B @co.mason.wa.us" <AHB@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/4/2013 8:22 AM
Subject: FW: Permit fees
From: Essig, James
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 8:21 AM
To: 'AHB@co.mason.wa.ua'
Subject: Permit fees
Allan,
Can you confirm the permit fees for the SEPA review and building permit for the silo foundations?
This is for the Belfair Asphalt Plant.
Will the County take a credit card?
Thank You
James Essig
Project Manager
Vancouver/Olympia/Everett
18208 A SE 1 st ST
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-410-8117
GFLAMTE
file:HC:\Documents and Seftings\Ahb\Local Seftings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51OF6FCBMasonmaillOO1626A681 1 D8... 2/4/2013
S & J JOHNSON LLC LYNDA DEAN FERGUSON
P O BOX 488 P O BOX 692
BELFAIR,WA 98528 BELFAIR, WA 98528
LAURENCE JR & PATRICIA GIFFORD KRUEGER PROPERTY
P O BOX 164 INVESTMENTS, LLC
BELFAIR, WA 98528 14241 E. STATE ROUTE 106
BELFAIR, WA 98528
STATE OF WASHINGTON
MICHAEL & LISA EDDY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
P O BOX 2940 STATE LANDS DIVISION
BELFAIR, WA 98528 P O BOX 47440
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
OVERTON & ASSOCIATES NORTH MASON
P O BOX 1477 UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
TACOMA, WA 98401 P O BOX 1197
BELFAIR, WA 98528
TerraScan TaxSifter-Mason County Washington Page 2 of 2r.
r +
Property Images
No images found.
1.0.4776.17257 TX_RollYear_Search:2012
http://property.co.mason.wa.us/Taxsifter/Assessor.aspx?keyId=3065628&parceINumber=l... 2/12/2013
123213190011 123217 00010
.123713190022
123213190010
123213190012 123213101000
J 123214200070
0082 123214200060
123213190051 f
12321 190070
123213101020 121429008
123213190052
a 12
Y
0081
Z
123213100031 \\12 0084
Z
123213190034;
123 31 2000 42000 0- »•
123213190033 �OJ
T23 R1
123219999999
123213400030/ - /
�2
23 N 1 W 12321340001AMMMEEMNW-
Q
P4
�J
123214 0000
NE PEN�� 12 21430 10 `
\ 123219999999
123214300130
03
123213490080 12321 60100 123214400006
123213490070 \
1232134900501 12 14300110
123218888888 123214300120
1 123213400000
123282190040
1232 0060 00
123282190040
T 28 1 12� 999 123282100000
123280003000
/123280060000
123282100000
N
1 inch = 300 feet
W E
1 inch = 0 miles
S
PATRICK LOUDIN
P.O. BOX 1191
BELFAIR WA 98528
SON-SrAr, MASON COUNTY
�P C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
k MO
�
0 s , Planning Division
~ 0 T �? P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
of Y (360)427-9670
1864
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
(WAC 197-11-340)
SEP2013-00009
Description of Proposal: Operate portable asphalt plant to supply materials for road
maintenance or construction projects; mixing operations and scale
to occupy 5 to 6 acres of the 47 ac. industrial site. State air
quality and stormwater permits necessary for operations.
Proponent: GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
Location of Proposal: 100 NE PENINSULA BLVD (ASPHALT) BEI
Parcel Number: 123214200090
Legal Description: TR 9 OF W1/2 SE; S 28/106 PCL 4 BLA#03-14(R)AF#1779502
Directions to Site: State Route 3 in Belfair, left at Peninsula PI., property on right
adjacent to highway.
Lead Agency: Mason County
The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is
available to the public upon request.
Please contact Allan Borden at ext. 365 with any questions. This DNS is issued under WAC
197-11-340(2). The Lead Agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date shown
below, when the determination is final. Comments must be submitted to Dept. of Community
Development, P.O. Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 by 2/21/2013. Appeal of this determination
must be filed within a 14-day period following this final determination date, per Mason County
Code Chapter 15.11 Appeals.
kW 7,
Auth rized Local Government Official Date
oN-STATE MASON COUNTY
P� A o °N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
o N Z Planning Division
N Y y P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
1864
NOTIFICATION OF COMPLETENESS
February 07, 2013
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
1525 MARINE VIEW DR
EVERETT WA 98201
Parcel No.: 123214200090
Project Description: FOUNDATION FOR SILOS FOR PORTABLE ASPHALT PLANT
Dear Applicant:
You have submitted a permit application (case no. COM2013-00013) for proposed construction or
development in the county. Upon review of your application, I have determined that the
application is complete for the purposes of beginning the permit review. This review is pursuant
to Mason County Code, Title 15 (Mason County Development Code.)
I will proceed with the review process of your permit application; however, additional information
may be required by another department at a later date.
Please call me at (360)427-9670, ext. 365 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Allan Borden
Land Use Planner
Mason County Planning Department
Comments:
The SEPA environmental checklist is subject to a comment period that ends on Thurs. February 21,
2013. Review of the project elements (buildings, layout of development, elements of operation) will
continue.
2/7/2013 Page 1 of 1 COM2013-00013
z O '
9
e DR
D R _
NE MA�ELA w �
w ( u J
z JJJ JJJ
NE NEWKIRK RD �^)
� w
A
HF SANS I
Co
0 a
\ z �p l
-2 - NE MCKNIGN(
0 NE FERN WAY`
£ � a
I
t E JAKE DR�p
T23NR1 W �" p
L I Q a
0 . �N Oy�O
v t
/ NE LA IRso�� NE A�Cti Kitsap
NE STATE ROVE
w
Co ' t
w
0
2 NE BYERLY DR �
t
a
_ C
/NE SQUIRE LN
_..
22NR1W
N t 3 , 0C3(9�R ��^Ccvicci Sf
1 inch = 2,000 feet ( j ,r�L �-
1 inch = 0 miles
S
�D
Q
y'<
, f
,
et
u ,
a ,
,
JAI
��. !.'� '�""� �' ayht 1 i
123213100031
123213190032 �_ 11 If
;
F ;
123213102000 '^
123213190034
123213190033
i
123213400030
123219999999
123213400010 OF
123214300 01 6� 123214300000
123219999999
�,41 fi
123214360100
123213490080 1 °*r? s T y" !ram { \
`'a r
123218888888 �k„%
r
123213400030 ,
123282190040 4r
123282190040
E
1 inch = 200 feet ply", aDhl���y�
W r
1 inch = 0 miles
S
• - _A21
�\
.•� -.i � � 1 N. .7• � �j � 7-FlRE HYDR 1FE }.
1-FlRE HYDRANT EA®LY
/ CONCRETE BLOMIN p�C
)NCRE -PLANT'
.CPES
X
-.34 01-000 ?/\
N x
Z\• + RIR C' � / Il
F, nil
10,
m \ .` y .;;� BEGIN WATER MAN CONSTRUCTION �P_ , "CORBIT PHASE-B EXTENSION° .t
` REMOVE EX. BLIND FLANGE&THRUST BLOCK G� -
\ \y
Q'REDUCER
fa \9rp�Q� t OHt �\
Rax. o
as l
A. BACKGROUND le�ClY 9-0 r `'eooq
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Belfair Asphalt Plant
2. Name of applicant:
Granite Construction Company
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Brad Estes, Washington Materials Manager
1525 E. Marine View Dr.
Everett, WA 98201
(425) 551-3100
4. Date checklist prepared:
January 31, 2011
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Mason County
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Begin plant operations in the Spring of 2013
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No future additions or further activities are anticipated.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be
prepared, directly related to this proposal.
In 2003 a previous application and environmental checklist was submitted to the Olympic
Region Clean Air Agency for the establishment of a portable asphalt plant. A Determination of
Non-Significance was issued to establish and operate a new asphalt plant at the 47 acre site
zoned industrial by Mason County.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
No applications are known at this time.
2
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,if known.
A Notice of Construction is currently submitted to Olympic Region Clean Air Agency
(ORCAA),a final Order of Approval will be required to commence plant operations.This order
is pending ORCAA review and a SEPA determination by Mason County.
A Sand and Gravel General Permit will be required from the Washington State Department of
Ecology to address stormwater management and spill prevention.
11. Give brief,complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size
of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to
describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this
page. (Lead agency may modify this form to include additional specific information on project
description.)
Similar to previous asphalt operations at the Peninsula Top Soil Landscaping facility, Granite
Construction proposes to operate a portable asphalt plant to produce asphaltic concrete for local
private and public road maintenance and construction projects. Granite will be utilizing a portion
of the exxis mg 47 acre industrial site for asphalt lant operations including aggregate sttoo/ry`kpile
areas. �5��js //�/ //17 Cl��I4z',v—.r Ir/
12. Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for person to understand the r
P P p precise
location of your proposed project,including a street address,if any,and section,township,
and range,if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,provide the range or
boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and
topographical map,if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required
by the agency,you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any
applications related to this checklist.
24943 NE HWY 3
Belfair, WA 98528
The 47 acre site is comprised of a total of four parcels.
Mason County Parcel 4 12321-34-00010, -00030,-00040, -00090
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountains,
other previously graded and disturbed.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 0-2%
3
c. What general types of soils(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat,muck)? If you know the
classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland.
Sandy Gravel
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill.
None
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe.
No clearing of vegetation is required to prepare the site
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 2 acres will be occupied by portable plant equipment.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:
Site will be stabilized with gravel roads and stockpile working areas.
4
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from this proposal (i.e. dust, automobile,
odors,industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If
any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.
An emission summary has been submitted to ORCAA and is attached as Appendix A.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe.
None known at this time
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
The asphalt plant is equipped with a bag house to reduce particulate matter emissions from the
drying of aggregate. The bag house is 99% efficient at capturing suspended particulate matter.
Water shall be applied to any areas within the project location known or suspected to generate
dust during dry periods and/or high wind events. The typical maritime climate on the Kitsap
Peninsula keeps stockpile moistures relatively high which will minimise dust during aggregate
handling.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater,lakes,ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type
and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.
No surface water bodies occur on-site, all storm water is captured, retained, and discharged to
groundwater.
2) Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described
waters? If yes,please describe and attach available plans.
Not applicable.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of the fill material.
Not applicable.
5
4) Will the proposal require surface Rater withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Not applicable.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so,note location on the site plan.
Proposed project does not lie within a 100 year floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No discharge of waste materials is associated with this proposal.
b. Ground:
1) Will groundwater be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give
general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
Proposed project will not impact groundwater withdrawal or discharge.
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the
following chemicals...;agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the
number such systems,the number of houses to be served(if applicable),or the number
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not applicable.
c. Water Runoff(including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water) and method of collection and
disposal, if any (include quantities if known). Where will this water flow? Will this
water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Storm water is the only expected run off source. Site has an existing storm water treatment
system. This project is not expected to impact storm water runoff.
6
2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground,and runoff water impacts,if any:
This site has a storm water treatment system in place.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
_X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X evergreen tree: fir, ceder, pine, other
shrubs
_grass
_pasture
_crop or grain
_wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
_water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
_other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
No vegetation will be removed or altered as a result of this project.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site, if any:
Nothing proposed.
7
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to
be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon,trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
All of Western Washington is part of the Pacific flyway for migratory birds.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy(electrical,natural gas,oil,wood stove,solar)will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing, etc.
The asphalt production facility will use electricity to power the manufacturing equipment. Propane
will be used for heating at the production facility.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so,
generally describe.
No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List
other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Facility will be insulated to reduce heat loss and to conserve energy. Large electric motors will be
powered by soft starts or variable frequency drives where possible to reduce electric demand.
Propane burners will be tuned regularly to achieve optimum efficiency. Production temperatures
will be monitored and minimized to the extent possible to reduce energy consumption.
8
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals,risk of
fire and explosion,spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal?
If so, describe.
Up to 50,000 gallons of asphalt binder will be stored on site.Asphalt binder solidifies at ambient
temperatures. Asphalt binder,therefore,will not travel long distances and does not penetrate the
ground surface. Up to 18,000 gallons of liquefied propane gas will be stored on site. No
hazardous waste will be generated as result of this project.
1) Describe any emergency services that might be required.
Fire Department
2) Propose measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Granite is contracted with emergency response contractor's in-case the unlikely occurrence of a
spill.A spill containment and counter measures plan will be prepared for the project as required
by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example:
traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
The current uses of the site include asphalt plant operations,ready mix concrete plant operations,
truck parking, and aggregate and topsoil stockpiling and resale.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term basis(for example:traffic,construction,operation,other)? Indicate what hours
noise would come from the site.
Noise will be created by the asphaltic concrete manufacturing process. The noise levels will be
consistent with the existing uses of the property. Typical business hours associated with this
project will be Monday through Friday from lam until 5pm. Additional hours may be required
based on the schedules of short-term construction projects.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any:
Mobile equipment will be equipped with"white noise"back up alarms. Material stockpiles will
be positioned to mitigate potential offsite noise impacts. The burner for the aggregate heating
and drying will be a total air burner with a noise mitigation shroud to minimize noise impacts.
9
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
This is an industrial site. The site is currently used to product ready mix concrete and asphaltic
concrete. The site is also used for truck parking as well as for aggregate and topsoil stockpiling
and resale. Adjacent properties are used to produce recycled aggregate as well as for topsoil
production and resale.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
The site is not used for agricultural activities, although top soil sales support hobby farmers
within the area.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
This project will require a portable asphaltic concrete production facility as well as product load
out bins. The project will also use the existing office and other facilities at the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? if so,what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
General Commercial with Business Industrial Overlay
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
This site is part of the Belfair Urban Growth Area. The land use is General Commercial with
Business Industrial Overlay.
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so,
specify.
N/A
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
Four employees would be employed by this project.
10
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
N/A
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans, if any:
This proposal is consistent with current zoning and comprehensive plan designation. An asphalt
production facility has been permitted at this site for approximately ten (10) years. This
proposed use has been recognized as an allowed use by Mason County Planning Department.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,middle
or low-income housing.
N/A
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any:
N/A
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not including antennas;what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
The majority of the production facility is less than fifteen (15) feet tall. The product load-out
bins are approximately seventy(70)feet tall. The exterior of the structure is painted steel. The
steel is painted neutral colors.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
Production facility will be painted with neutral colors.
11
11. Light and Glare
a. What kind of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?
Security lighting may be required for this proposal. Any lights would be directed towards the
ground to prevent glare.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?
No
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
Applicant will ensure that night time lighting levels are maintained at the minimum level
necessary for security and safety at the project site. All night time lighting shall be shielded and
aimed appropriately to prevent any upward illumination or light directed at adjacent properties.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreation opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?
None
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
No impact
13.Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
N/A
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific, or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
N/A
12
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans if any.
Proposal shall use existing access points from State Highway 3. Developer agreement with
WSDOT (File #UC03266) already constructed new approaches and highway widening.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to
the nearest transit stop?
N/A
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?
None
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or
streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or
private).
This project will use the existing access points from State Highway 3.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe.
N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
This proposal replaces a previously permitted portable asphalt plant. This proposal is expected
to contribute an additional fifteen average daily truck trips. Peak volumes are based upon the
demands of local construction projects as well as public works maintenance. Local agencies
attempt to schedule these proj ects and maintenance activities around peak traffic periods to avoid
impacts on motorists.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
N/A
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
No
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
N/A
13
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water,refuse service,
telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service,and
the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Electric power— Mason County PUD #3 —Primary power service to be provided by existing
electric service.
Water—Belfair Water District#1 —Existing water service.
Refuse Service—Mason County Garbage—Existing service
Telephone—Centurylink—Existing service
Septic System—Existing system available on site
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted: .?/yz/3
14
ESA LISTED SALMONIDS CHECKLIST
This worksheet was designed to help project proponents, and government agencies, identify when a project needs
irther analysis regarding adverse effects on ESA (Endangered Species Act) listed salmonids. Salmonids are salmon,
trout and chars, e.g.. bull trout For our purposes, "ESA Listed Salmonids° is defined as fish species listed as
endangered, threatened or being considered for listing.
If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project
has the potential for affecting them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help
determine if the ESA listings will impact your project
The Fish Program Manager at the appropriate Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) regional office can
provide information for the following two questions.
1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed in which your project will be located?
YES X NO Please describe.
2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed?
YES_ NO g Uncertain_ Please describe.
If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions, you should complete the
remainder of this checklist.
PROJECT SPECIFICES: The questions in this section are specific to the project and vicinity.
1. Name of watershed: '
2. Name of nearest waterbody: Q n I n n t
I
3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water rn a-k—J Often a buffer
between the project and a stream can reduce the chance of a negative impact to fish.
4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland,
etc.)?
- r5
5. Is the project above a:
natural permanent barrier (waterfall) YES_ NO
natural temporary barrier(beaver pond) YES_ NO—
man-made barrier(culvert, dam) YES_ NO
• other(explain):
6. If yes, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage?
YES_ NO_ Don't know _ `Lit 1 A
1 n
7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement& roof area)?
Mason County SEPA Checklist -1'�(s i� ✓lf t0 Lb
FISH MIGRATION: The following questions will help determine if this project could interfere with migration of adult
and juvenile fish. Both increases and decreases in water flows can affect fish migration.
1. Does the project require the withdrawal of:
a. Surface water? YES— NO
Amount
Name of surface water body
b. Ground water? YES_ NO-
Amount
From where
Depth of well
2. Will any water be rerouted: YES_ NO
E K(�J4Yl �jCr1'1 o
If yes, will this require a channel change?
3. Wili there be retention or detention ponds? YES `� NO
if yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface
water body? If to a surface waterbody, please give the name of the waterbody.
YES_ NO
4. Will this project require the building of new roads? YES— NO—
increased road mileage may affect the timing of water reaching a stream and may impact fish habitat.
5. Are culverts proposed as part of this project? YES— NO✓am
6. Will topography changes affect the duration/direction of runoff flows? YES— NO ✓
If yes, describe the changes.
7. WII the project involve any reduction of the floodway or floodplain by filling or other partial blockage of flows?
YES_ NO
If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project?
WATER QUALITY: The following questions will help determine if this project could adversely impact water quality.
Such impacts can cause problems for listed species.
Water quality can be made worse by runoff from impervious surfaces, altering water temperature, discharging
contaminants, etc.
1. Do you know of any problems with water quality, in any of the streams, within this watershed?
YES_ NO V� if yes, describe.
Mason County SEPA Checklist XI)�
2. Will your project either reduce or increase shade along or over a waterbody?
YES_ NO If yes, describe.
Removal of shading vegetation or the building of structures such as docks or floats often results in a change in
shade.
3. Will the project increase nutrient loading or have the potential to increase nutrient loading or contaminants
(fertilizers, other waste dicharges, or runoff)to the waterbody? If yes, describe.
YES _ NO_✓/
4. Will turbidity be increase because of construction of the project or during operation of the project?
YES_ NO
In-water or near water work will often increase turbidity.
5. Will your project require long-term maintenance, i.e. bridge cleaning, highway salting, and chemical sprays for
vegetation management, clearing of parking lots?
YES_ NO✓ If yes, please describe.
VEGETATION: The following questions are designed to determine if the project will affect riparian vegetation,
thereby, adversely impacting salmon.
1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation from the stream banks:
YES — NO
If yes, please describe the existing conditions, and the amount and type of vegetation to be removed.
2. If any vegetation is removed, do you plan to re-plant?
YES _ NO ----'If yes, what types of plants will you use?
/moo ✓af t l.c t/o^ ,r �. b c �"' �� �<s a ^ IL
The above answers are true and c lete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make ' ecisio r
Applicant Signatur Date: f3
Mason County SEPA Checklist ,aj7
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Bog 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
COM2013-00013 NOTICE OF APPLICATION
AND SEP2013-00009 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Notice is hereby given that Granite Construction, who is the operator on the described property
below, has filed an application for a building permit for the development to:
Operate portable asphalt plant to supply materials for road maintenance or construction
projects; mixing operations and scale to occupy 5 to 6 acres of the 47 ac. industrial site. State air
quality and stormwater permits necessary for operations. To establish this land use, the
applicant must receive approval through a building permit review and SEPA review.
Parcel Number: 12321-42-00090 (portions of a 47-acre site)
Site Address: 24943 NE State Route 3 and 100 NE Peninsula Blvd., Belfair WA.
Location of Project: West of State Route 3 in the Belfair Urban Growth Area; within the
southeast 1/4 of Section 21, Township 23 N., Range 1 W. in Mason County Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to SEPA environmental and building permit review and
associated Belfair Urban Growth Area development standards. Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
The comment period is at least 15 days from the final date of notice given pursuant to MCC 15.07.
The new date of posting or mailing of notice is February 22, 2013.
Written comments will be accepted to the date of Friday March 8, 2013. Contact this office at (360)
427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
A Determination ofNonsignificance was issued on February 7, 2013 under WAC 197-11-340. Written
comments or appeals regarding this determination must be received by Friday March 8, 2013.
Page 1 of 3
Allan Borden - Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in
Belfair
From: Mike Wnek<mike@wnekeng.com>
To: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/5/2013 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
CC: James Essig <James.Essig @gcinc.com>, Bradly Estes <Bradly.Estes@gcinc.com>, 'Jack Johnson'
<jjc@hctc.com>
Attachments: Corbit Ph-2 Drainage Report(10-27-1995).pdf
Attached is the original drainage analysis for the Corbit site.
Note:
The concrete plant at the site is the only operation at the site that required specific storm treatment critiera. The concrete
plant was constructed with a separate sediment pond for these purposes.
...Mike Wnek
On 3/4/2013 5:16 PM, Allan Borden wrote:
James Essig and Mike Wnek:
In response to the Wnek email of Feb. 28th and the Essig email of March 4th, and based upon agency
comments received from SEP2013-00009, Mason County will need a review copy of the engineered
stormwater report and defined best management practices for the additional asphalt batch plant operations
by the Granite Construction and how stormwater treatment is provided in conjunction to the stormwater plan
for the Corbit/Peninsula Topsoil/ Johnson brothers property. The property now will have several land uses
not addressed by the original engineered stormwater report: a concrete batch plant, a topsoil preparation land
use, an asphalt batch plant, and crushing of recycled materials land use, as well as storage of soil materials
used for any of these land uses.
From this operations and stormwater review, conditions of operation for the Granite Construction asphalt
batch plant can be established to meet the concerns of all parties.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>>>"Essig, James" <James.Essig @gcinc.com> 3/4/2013 11:01 AM >>>
Allan,
Do you need the previously submitted engineered stormwater report for the Johnson property in Belfair? I am
of the understanding that this information was part of the original site development application. I need to make
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Setti ngs\Tem p\XPg rpwise\5135A3 F5M ason mail 1001 626A681 1 DCO... 3/5/2013
Page 2 of 3
sure that this project continues to move forward and that the application materials are deemed complete. The
S&G permit for a portable asphalt plant has been submitted by Granite and is currently being reviewed. This
application was made in the middle of February. The Johnson's will be applying for S&G site coverage for
the crushing of recycled materials in the next few days. As you know these operating permits are separate
and are being evaluated independently.
Thanks,
James
James Essig
Project Manager
Vancouver/Olympia/Everett
18208 A SE 1 st ST
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-410-8117
G ! TE
From: Allan Borden [mailto:Ahbna.co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:47 PM
To: Essig, James; Mike Wnek
Cc: Allan Borden
Subject: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
James Essig and Mike Wnek:
To keep you current on inquiries or comments, I have attached the comment letters from WA Dept. of Ecology
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhbIocal Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise15135A3F5Masonmai11001626A6811 DCO... 3/5/2013
Page 3 of 3
in response to the review of SEP2013-00009.
The Water Quality comments refer to the NPDES permit review needed; no engineering report regarding the
use of the existing on-site stormwater system has been submitted.
Chris Johnson (the S & G general permit coordinator) states the need for a sand &gravel permit due to the
crushing of materials to be used in the Granite Constr. project; a separate permit must be submitted by
Granite Construction or Peninsula Topsoil /S &G. Johnson for his program review.
Due to these comments, I would conclude the application materials to Mason County for the Granite
Construction asphalt plant are incomplete: the engineering report for stormwater should be submitted and the
separate sand &gravel permit is submitted and reviewed by the S & G general permit coordinator.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
WNEK ENGINEERING
Consulting Civil Engineer
3388 NW Byron St., Ste. 200
Silverdale, WA 98383
Office:(360)692-3802
Cell:(360)509-5890
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhb1ocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise15135A3F5Masonmail1001626A6811 DCO... 3/5/2013
Page 1 of 3
Allan Borden - RE: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in
Belfair
From: Allan Borden
To: James Essig
Date: 3/4/2013 5:16 PM
Subject: RE: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
CC: Allan Borden; Bradly Estes; 'Jack Johnson'; mike@wnekeng.com
James Essig and Mike Wnek:
In response to the Wnek email of Feb. 28th and the Essig email of March 4th, and based upon agency comments received
from SEP2013-00009, Mason County will need a review copy of the engineered stormwater report and defined best
management practices for the additional asphalt batch plant operations by the Granite Construction and how stormwater
treatment is provided in conjunction to the stormwater plan for the Corbit/Peninsula Topsoil/ Johnson brothers property.
The property now will have several land uses not addressed by the original engineered stormwater report: a concrete
batch plant, a topsoil preparation land use, an asphalt batch plant, and crushing of recycled materials land use, as well as
storage of soil materials used for any of these land uses.
From this operations and stormwater review,conditions of operation for the Granite Construction asphalt batch plant can
be established to meet the concerns of all parties.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
>>>"Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com> 3/4/2013 11:01 AM >>>
Allan,
Do you need the previously submitted engineered stormwater report for the Johnson property in Belfair? I am of the
understanding that this information was part of the original site development application. I need to make sure that this
project continues to move forward and that the application materials are deemed complete. The S&G permit for a portable
asphalt plant has been submitted by Granite and is currently being reviewed. This application was made in the middle of
February. The Johnson's will be applying for S&G site coverage for the crushing of recycled materials in the next few
days. As you know these operating permits are separate and are being evaluated independently.
Thanks,
James
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Setti ngs\Temp\XPgrpwise\5134D6DCM ason mail 100 1 626A681 1 DB... 3/4/2013
Page 2 of 3
James Essig
Project Manager
Vancouver/Olympia/Everett
18208 A SE 1 st ST
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-410-8117
GRAMITE
From: Allan Borden [mailto:Ahb@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:47 PM
To: Essig, James; Mike Wnek
Cc: Allan Borden
Subject: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
James Essig and Mike Wnek:
To keep you current on inquiries or comments, I have attached the comment letters from WA Dept. of Ecology in response
to the review of SEP2013-00009.
The Water Quality comments refer to the NPDES permit review needed; no engineering report regarding the use of the
existing on-site stormwater system has been submitted.
Chris Johnson (the S & G general permit coordinator) states the need for a sand &gravel permit due to the crushing of
materials to be used in the Granite Constr. project; a separate permit must be submitted by Granite Construction or
Peninsula Topsoil/S&G. Johnson for his program review.
Due to these comments, I would conclude the application materials to Mason County for the Granite Construction asphalt
plant are incomplete: the engineering report for stormwater should be submitted and the separate sand &gravel permit is
submitted and reviewed by the S &G general permit coordinator.
fiile://C:0ocuments and SettingslAhb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5134D6DCMasonmai11001626A6811 DB... 3/4/2013
Page 3 of 3
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
file://C:1Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local SettingslTempVPgrpwise15134D6DCMasonmail1001626A6811 DB... 3/4/2013
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in
Belfair
f:<ZD,.` :,
From: Mike Wnek<mike@wnekeng.com>
To: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 2/28/2013 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
CC: "Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com>, Jack Johnson <jjc@hctc.com>
Allan...
This is submitted in response to Deborah Cornett, DOE, comments for the SEPA process.
The Corbit Site has an approved Drainage Analysis from the original permitting in the mid 1990's. The system was
designed to the DOE criteria in-place at the time (100-year/24-hour event, etc.).
Furthermore, the site is exempt from an NPDES permit, since there is no surface discharge to 'waters of the State'. All
storm runoff control & mitigation is through infiltration.
I have all the applicable documents on file in my office. Let me know if you need copies of the documents.
...Mike Wnek
Project Engineer
On 2/27/2013 4:47 PM, Allan Borden wrote:
James Essig and Mike Wnek:
To keep you current on inquiries or comments, I have attached the comment letters from WA Dept. of Ecology
in response to the review of SEP2013-00009.
The Water Quality comments refer to the NPDES permit review needed; no engineering report regarding the
use of the existing on-site stormwater system has been submitted.
Chris Johnson (the S & G general permit coordinator) states the need for a sand &gravel permit due to the
crushing of materials to be used in the Granite Constr. project; a separate permit must be submitted by
Granite Construction or Peninsula Topsoil/S &G. Johnson for his program review.
Due to these comments, I would conclude the application materials to Mason County for the Granite
Construction asphalt plant are incomplete: the engineering report for stormwater should be submitted and the
separate sand &gravel permit is submitted and reviewed by the S &G general permit coordinator.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhb\Local Settings\TemplXPgrpwise1512F2900Masonmai11001626A6811 DB... 2/28/2013
Page 2of2
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
WNEK ENGINEERING
Consulting Civil Engineer
3388 NW Byron St., Ste. 200
Silverdale, WA 98383
Office:(360)692-3802
Cell:(360)509-5890
fileJ/CADocuments and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\512F2900Masonmai11001626A6811 DB... 2/28/2013
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Re: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in
Belfair
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Ken and Peggy" <dukeof@hctc.com>, "John Gunter"
<john@belfair.name>
Date: 3/5/2013 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
Allan, Thanks but I think you are not understanding the question that I have been asking. I am looking for the drawings for
the storm water system that are refered too in the SEPA application that was incomplete, this would be for the existing
ponds that are on site now.
Not the ones that they are coming up with after the fact of people asking qurestions about hese ponds. If you are still not
clear what I am looking for please give me a call 360-275-4783 Thanks Pat Loudin
----- Original Message----- �q
From: Allan Borden
To: Patrick Loudin
Cc: Allan Borden
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
I am forwarding this message that I received today from the civil engineer who has prepared the stormwater plan for the
Corbit site owned by Steve and Jack Johnson and where the Granite Construction site is located. The Construction
Stormwater Plan that is to address site-specific stormwater controls at the Granite site will be submitted at the end of this
week by an engineer working with Granite Construction.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTempVPgrpwise1513649EDMasonmai11001626A6811 DC... 3/6/2013
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Fw: Asphalt Odors from Peninsula Topsoil
From: "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/5/2013 8:08 PM
Subject: Fw: Asphalt Odors from Peninsula Topsoil
Attachments: Granite Construction 02 2213 notice.pdf; SEP2013-00009 comments DOE sand&gravel comments.pdf;
SEP2013-00009 Granite general DOE comments.pdf; Approximate Odor Location copy.jpg
Hi Allan,
I did not have your e-mail address. Here is what I wrote to Mr. Johnson.
John
From: John Gunter
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 6:25 PM
To: Jack Johnson
Cc: Pat Loudin ; Chris Johnson (Ecology: Sand and Gravel) ; Bob Hager; Stacy Vvnne ; Stacy Vvnne ; Ken and Peggy ;
Barbara Adkins ; Terri Jeffreys ; Randy Neatherlin ; Tim Sheldon ; Tim Sheldon ; Debbie Riley ;
amber.echols(c)doh.wa.gov ; and res.cervantes(c�doh.wa.gov ; aleceia.tilley a().doh.wa.gov ;
alexandra.chess(a)doh.wa.gov ; Kelly.Cooper(a)doh.wa.gov ; Reviewteam(�.)commerce.wa.gov ;
marsha.engel(a)psp.wa.gov ; sepaunit()ecy.wa.gov ; karinls(a.masoncd.org ; jentw(cbmasoncd.org ;
robert.moody(cDorcaa.org ; debbie.mood y(a.orcaa.org ; fran.mcnair c( orcaa.org ; Brian Matthews ; Tim (COM) Gates
Subject: Asphalt Odors from Peninsula Topsoil
Hi Mr. Johnson,
If you wouldn't mind, could you please explain through e-mail to all parties here, why your property, Peninsula Topsoil,
seems to be generating odors that smell what seems exactly to be like fresh Asphalt? We know you have a permit
application in the works, however, you are in the public comment section of that permit, so you have not been granted a
permit to make asphalt as far as we know.
This horrible odor is very strong by your property. It burned everyone's nose who was in my car with our windows rolled
up. I drove into your property just briefly and noticed you have asphalt making equipment there and people were
working beside it. You also have a storage of old cement in piles as high as probably 20 feet in my estimation at the
length of 50 yards long perhaps that looks similar to what one sees at an Asphalt making plant.
Are you, or any company you are allowing on your property, manufacturing Asphalt with or without a permit? If not,
could you please explain the odor many have smelled all the way into the valley to at least the corner where Seabeck
Pizza (with the window rolled up) is. The smell is horrible.
Please answer via this e-mail if you wouldn't mind. We all want open and honest government and business operations
in this area. I've been in the data collecting mode recently and have voiced some e-mail concerns to others, however,
now that the odor is very clear and it seems to be coming directly from your property and is a present fact, not a futuristic
possibility, could you please explain to everyone? It would be very appreciated if you would. At this stage, I would
prefer to not discuss over the phone, but in open, transparent a-mails so all could see Mr. Johnson.
file:HC:IDocuments and Settings\Ahb\Local SettingslTempVPgrpwise1513650A7Masonmail1001626A6811 DC2... 3/6/2013
Page 2 of 2
Also, Mr. Johnson, if this is an indication of the types of odors we may experience in the future, then this is a complete
disruption of my personal peace on my property, and I cannot imagine how it would not be a disruption of the peace of
anyone living in the general vicinity of Belfair in the future, should you get your permit to manufacture Asphalt on your
property. I've included a copy of your application for those who don't have it. I've also included a map indicating the
seeming center of the odor generation and the approximate area it seemed to be affecting.
You have stated to me personally, that you are not the type of business man who would ever seek to make money over
the peace of mind of local citizens and that you would like to work in harmony with those citizens. I assume that you are
still the same man you indicated to me you were via a phone conversation several months ago. So, you must not be
aware of how the odors of an asphalt plant will affect the many who live in the entire Belfair area. So could you please
confirm, via this e-mail also, that what you told me on the phone is the type of business man you are? My hope is that
you will be open and willing to be transparent and as we all have open dialogue about this, you will increase your
appearance of being a good neighbor to all of us and also avoid having the appearance of a profiteer at the expense
of citizens of the Belfair area.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
file://C:1Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\Vgrpwise1513650ANason mail 100 1 626A681 1 DC2... 3/6/2013
�u7�N h�_ ' Pam _ 7 ^ice
Page 1 of 4
Allan Borden - RE: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in
Belfair
Zl
From: "Essig, James" <James.Essig@gcinc.com>
To: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/6/20131:44 PM
Subject: RE: Regarding SEP2013-00009 and public comments on Granite Construction asphalt plant in Belfair
CC: "mike@" <wnekeng.com mike@wnekeng.com>
Allan,
As we discussed yesterday I will be providing a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the proposed Belfair
Asphalt. These documents will be submitted the morning of March 7. As you know this project has many moving parts to it
and the issuance of the building permit is a critical path to even begin the assembly process. The foundation constructed
for the silos requires concrete curing time. It is critical that this foundation is poured sooner than later. Given that there are
several steps that need to be scheduled to complete the foundation work. I am wondering if a building permit can be
issued to Granite on Friday morning March 8 so that we can move forward with the pouring of the concrete foundation.
As a condition of the Sand and Gravel General Permit Granite is obligated to maintain and implement a SWPPP with
discharge monitoring plans and maintenance of prescribed Best Management Practices along with quarterly reproting. I
am hoping that by providing you a copy of this plan that it will alleviate your concerns with regards to managing stormwater
discharged from Asphalt Plant Operations.
Can the building permit be issued Friday March 8 to so that Granite can move forward with the construction of the
foundation?
Thanks
James
James Essig
Project Manager
Vancouver/Olympia/Everett
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51374852Masonmai11001626A6811 DC3... 3/6/2013
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Granite Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan submittal checklist
From: Allan Borden
To: James Essig
Date: 3/7/2013 4:56 PM
Subject: Granite Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan submittal checklist
CC: Allan Borden
James:
The materials for the permit COM2013-00013 are submitted and have been reviewed. One set of submittal coversheets
for the SWPPP was not included on Thursday 3/7/2013. You were given that submittal form earlier this week. They need
to be completed to include with the stormwater plan review, to clearly show that your plans include all of the submittal
elements. Please submit as soon as you can to completed this review. The building permit for the silo foundations can
proceed, but you need to provide the submittal checklist to the Permit Assistance Center. Use this link to download
the checklist.
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/forms/Community Dev/stormwater checklist doe 2005 manual.pdf
If you have additional questions, direct them to me.
Allan Borden
The building permit for the silo foundations (COM2013-00013) has been reviewed and signed off by Larry W. (commercial
plans reviewer). I have reviewed the permit application and SEPA checklist. You have provided the site plan and
elevation drawing for the silos, and on Thursday March 7th, you will submit the site specific Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan as part of the final information needed to review this permit, which I will review on Thursday March 7th.
The Permit Techs can then pull the permit file to prepare to issue the permit COM2013-00013 on Friday March 8th.
Allan Borden
Planner-Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
Planner- Long Range &Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
>>> "Essig, James" <James.Essig @gcinc.com> 3/6/20131:44 PM >>>
Allan,
As we discussed yesterday I will be providing a site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the proposed Belfair
Asphalt. These documents will be submitted the morning of March 7. As you know this project has many moving parts to it
and the issuance of the building permit is a critical path to even begin the assembly process. The foundation constructed
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5138C6D3Mason mail 1001626A6811 DC... 3/7/2013
Page 2 of 2
for the silos requires concrete curing time. It is critical that this foundation is poured sooner than later. Given that there are
several steps that need to be scheduled to complete the foundation work. I am wondering if a building permit can be
issued to Granite on Friday morning March 8 so that we can move forward with the pouring of the concrete foundation.
As a condition of the Sand and Gravel General Permit Granite is obligated to maintain and implement a SWPPP with
discharge monitoring plans and maintenance of prescribed Best Management Practices along with quarterly reproting. I
am hoping that by providing you a copy of this plan that it will alleviate your concerns with regards to managing stormwater
discharged from Asphalt Plant Operations.
Can the building permit be issued Friday March 8 to so that Granite can move forward with the construction of the
foundation?
Thanks
James Essig
Project Manager
Vancouver/Olympia/Everett
18208 A SE 1 It ST
Vancouver, WA 98684
360-410-8117
GMMITE'
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTempVPgrpwise15138C6D3Mason mail 1001626A6811 DC... 3/7/2013
4 4.
y
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775 •Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 •(360)407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service •Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
February 21, 2013
Mr.Allan Borden Your address
Mason County he
t in t
Department of Community Development is is in
Planning Division watershed
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Mr. Borden:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the
Belfair Asphalt Plant project(SEP2013-00009) located at 100 Northeast Peninsula Boulevard in
Belfair as proposed by Granite Construction Company. The Department of Ecology(Ecology)
reviewed the environmental checklist and has the following comment(s):
TOXICS CLEANUP: Joyce Mercuri (360)407-6260
If contamination is suspected,discovered,or occurs during construction,testing of the
potentially contaminated media must be conducted. If contamination of soil or groundwater
is readily apparent, or is revealed by testing,Ecology must be notified. Contact the
Environmental Report Tracking System Coordinator at the Southwest Regional Office at
(360)407-6300. For assistance and information about subsequent cleanup and to identify the
type of testing that will be required,contact Joyce Mercuri with Ecology's Toxic Cleanup
program at the phone number given above.
SEPA REVIEWER: Sonia Mendoza
WATER QUALITY CONTACT: Deborah Cornett(360) 407-7269
Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in
violation of Chapter 90.48 RCW,Water Pollution Control, and WAC 173-201A, Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, and is subject to
enforcement action.
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing, grading,or construction.
These control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil
and other pollutants into surface water or stormdrains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,
silt, clay particles, and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.
Soil in stockpiles should be stabilized or protected with sediment-trapping measures to
prevent soil loss. All exposed areas of final grade or areas that are not scheduled for work,
whether at final grade or otherwise, shall not remain exposed and un-worked for more than
February 21, 2013
Page 2
two days,between October 1 and April 30. Between May 1 and September 30, no soils shall
remain exposed and un-worked for more than seven days.
This project may require a construction stormwater permit(also known as National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) and State Waste Discharge General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction). This permit is required for projects
which meet both of the following conditions:
1. One or more acres of soil surface area will be disturbed by construction activities.
2. The site already has offsite discharge to waters of the state or storm drains or will
have offsite discharge during construction.
An application with instructions can be downloaded from Ecology's website at:
hqp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wg/stormwater/construction/-Application. Construction
site operators must apply for a permit at least 60 days prior to discharging stormwater.
Ecology's comments are based upon information provided by the lead agency. As such,they
may not constitute an exhaustive list of the various authorizations that must be obtained or legal
requirements that must be fulfilled in order to carry out the proposed action.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments,please contact the
appropriate reviewing staff listed above.
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(SM:13-0615)
cc: Deborah Cornett,WQ
Joyce Mercuri, TCP
Joyce Smith,HQ/WQ
Granite Construction Company(Proponent)
Y%AV
Y
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775-Olympia, Washington 98504-7775 •(360)407-6300
711 for Washington Relay Service •Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341
MEMORANDUM
February 25, 2013
Mr.Allan Borden
Mason County Department of Community Development
Planning Division
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: SEP2013-00009 Comment—Sand&Gravel General Permit Required.
Dear Mr. Borden:
Chris Johnson(Sand& Gravel General Permit Manager)at the Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office provides the following comments concerning the determination of
non-significance (Ecology SEPA#13-0615) for the Belfair Asphalt Plant project(SEP2013-
00009) located at 100 Northeast Peninsula Boulevard in Belfair,proposed by Granite
construction Company. The Department of Ecology reviewed the environmental checklist and
submitted comments on February 21, 2013. Since then,our Sand& Gravel General Permit
Manager received additional information on the project. Comments below are based on that
addition information:
• All asphalt batch plants require Sand&Gravel General Permit Coverage, and must be in
compliance with the conditions this General Permit prior to operating.
• Furthermore"All sites"having crushin ,classifying, or stockpiling activities associated
with mining or processing operations must obtain Sand&Gravel General Permit
Coverage. This would include any crushing of rock,recycled concrete, and/or recycled
asphalt on or in the vicinity of the proposed batch plant facility.
Refer to Special Condition S1.PERMIT COVERAGE,S1.A. on Pages 5-7; and APPENDIX B
—DEFINITIONS on page 44 of the Sand and Gravel General Permit.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Chris Johnson
Sand& Gravel General Permit Manager
Department of Ecology/Southwest Region
(360) 407-7194
MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352
�oUNTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352
BUILDING•PLANNING• FIRE MARSHAL (360) 482-5269 Elma ext. 352
Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street
rRsr PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us
March 7, 2013
i. L I oudin
:ju,, 1191
Belfair WA 98584
Mr. Loudin,
We have received your request for public records regarding the property located at 100 NE Peninsula
Blvd, Belfair WA for Granite Construction. We will require some time to process and copy.
This letter serves as notification that the time frame to complete this is uncertain. We are facilitating the
1: J'S quickly as possible.
Thank You,
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
360.427.9670 ext. 281
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - SEPA 2013-00009
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/8/2013 4:03 PM
Subject: SEPA 2013-00009
Attachments: DSC 0301.JPG
Allan and Barb, I would like to protest the issuing of the permit SEPA 2013-00009
The developer refers to a storm water system on page 6 C1 and again on pg. 7 letter D, in the SEPA application
" THIS SITE HAS A STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM IN PLACE".
After asking for drawings or engineering from Allan Borden in a records request, none have been provided, and there is
nothing that says there is actually is a system in place. All questions have been asked of Dept. of Health (Debbie Riley) then
to storm waters Loretta Swanson and they refer back to planning.
I would like to protest this permit, due to the fact that the county has no record or can not produce a copy of the storm water
systems that the developer refers to as a " STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM" on site.
If I need to file an appeal please forward me the information I need to do so. And if you issue this permit I would ask your
department to look into the storm water ponds on the whole 47 acre Peninsula topsoil property. It sure dont look like they
have any type of system on the property.
Please enter this as public comment on this permit.
Thanks Pat Loudin
file:HC:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal Settings�TemplXPgrpwise1513AOBE6Masonmail1001626A6811 DC... 3/8/2013
Page 1 of 5
Allan Borden -Added public comment- Re: LETTER OF PROTEST - COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009
From: "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>
To: "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>, "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Allan
Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Trish Woolett" <Tw@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/8/2013 3:13 PM
Subject: Added public comment- Re: LETTER OF PROTEST-COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009
CC: "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Attachments: SEP2013-00009 comments DOE sand&gravel comments.pdf
Hi Barbara and Allan,
Please add this e-mail to the public comments section and add acknowledgment of my reference to the attached PDF
public comments from the Department of Ecology:
I spoke with Pat Loudin just now who state he got off the phone with both of you in a conference setting, and what Pat
told me was that you will issue them a permit regardless of any protest or anything done to try and stop the permitting
process. That is hearsay I understand. However, I would like it noted for the record that at least one concerned citizen in
the county who is protesting this Asphalt Plant feels he is running up against direct roadblocks from the department of
Community Development regarding this issue.
Ecology has made it clear that they must comply with a General Sand and Gravel Permit before they can even stockpile,
let alone crush. Do the owners of Granite Construction or the owners of said property in application presently have such
a permit in accordance with the Department of Ecology? If they do not have a permit, then presently they are stockpiling
which is a direct violation of the State Department of Ecology regulations. It seems they should NOT be issued a permit
by your department based upon these violations alone.
If you have not personally inspected the property to determine present violations, then the permit should be delayed until
you do have the opportunity to look at the alleged violations we are insinuating.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
50 NE Hillside Acres Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
From: John Gunter
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:46 PM
To: Barbara Adkins ; Allan Borden ; Trish Woolett
Cc: Pat Loudin
Subject: LETTER OF PROTEST-COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009
Hi Barbara and Allan,
I have attached a letter of protest to the e-mail below. Please add all this to public comments, and file the letter of protest
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\513A0010Masonmai11001626A6811 DC9... 3/8/2013
Page 1 of 6
Allan Borden - Fw: Asphalt Odors from Peninsula Topsoil
From: "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com>
To: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/8/2013 4:59 PM
Subject: Fw: Asphalt Odors from Peninsula Topsoil
CC: "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Attachments: Letter of Protest-COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009.pdf; SEP2013-00009 comments DOE
sand&gravel comments.pdf
Hi Barbara and Allan,
Please add the following to public comments for the same issue as the attachments.
John Gunter
From: John Gunter
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 4:57 PM
To: John Gunter
Cc: Pat Loudin ; Chris Johnson (Ecology: Sand and Gravel) ; Bob Hager ; Stacy Vynne ; Barbara Adkins ; Terri
Jeffreys ; Randy Neatherlin ; Tim Sheldon ; Tim Sheldon ; Debbie Riley ; amber.echols(a)doh.wa.gov ;
andres.cervantes(a-)doh.wa.gov ; aleceia.tilley(a doh.wa.gov ; alexandra.chess(a)doh.wa.gov ;
Kelly.Cooper(abdoh.wa.gov ; Reviewteamacommerce.wa.gov ; marsha.engel .psp.wa.go_v ; sepaunit ecy.wa.gov ;
karinls(c�masoncd.org ; ientw@masoncd.org ; robert.moody(q,orcaa.org ; debbie.mood y(@orcaa.orq ;
fran.mcnair(a)orcaa.org ; Brian Matthews ; Tim (COM) Gates ; Loretta Swanson
Subject: Re: Asphalt Odors from Peninsula Topsoil
To Whom it may concern:
I have a serious concern based upon conversations I've had with a neighbor of mine, Pat Loudin. Please see the top e-
mail attached.
I am NOT understanding at all how they can issue a permit to this company and property owner if the company is
violating regulations presently, and presently creating odors indicative of future disruption of peace for residential
property owners that are clear violations of state laws.
I do not want to make any insinuations. However, if it appears the Department of Community Development is about to
"Rubber Stamp" this approval when there are clear violations and clear nuisances to local residents, what are us
average individual citizens supposed to do in order to try and stop this? I wrote a-mails this week and haven't heard
responses from anyone. Is this a total waste of time and are both state and local government operations so
dysfunctional that they cannot stop an obvious nuisance?
Are we individual citizens to expect"Rubber Stamping" as a part of local operation?Again, I'm not insinuating, however,
what about the possibility of local corruption? Here is what I know as fact:
1. At least one of the property owners (Jack Johnson) contributed money and possibly time and effort toward
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\513A18D4Masonmai11001626A6811 DC... 3/8/2013
Page 2 of 6
Commissioner Randy Neatherlin's campaign and is known to be close friends with at Commissioner Neatherlin as
he, before being elected Commissioner, publicly spoke in favor of said property owner.
2. Belfair Bypass is back on the agenda(Personally, I have no problem with that and that alone doesn't insinuate
anything).
3. On Tuesday, 3/5, the following was approved by the County Commission: "Approval to authorize Public Works
to call for bids to furnish Mason County with Emulsified Asphalt for 2013, award the bid and allow the Chair
to sign all pertinent documents. Bid opening will be April 12, 2013 at 9 a.m. Contract awards will be announced
during a regular meeting of the Board."
4. Jack Johnson's properties are the ones asking for Asphalt Permits.
5. It would appear that immense future profits will be made by either Jack Johnson or his business associates and it
is a strange coincidence that all this is occurring within two Months of Commissioner Randy Neatherlin's stepping
into office, especially since this permit should NOT be issued.
6. Commissioner Neatherlin is working very closely (as they campaigned together) with Commissioner Terri
Jeffreys. I'm NOT insinuating. It is a fact they shared radio time together and stated they would be working
together for the "betterment"of the county.
Are people missing what seems to be the obvious? Again, I'm not directly insinuating anything, but I'm certainly asking
the questions and looking at dots that do seem to interconnect here.
Can someone help? Or is this going on deaf ears?
Sincerely,
John Gunter
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Barbara and Allan,
Please add this e-mail to the public comments section and add acknowledgment of my reference to the attached PDF
public comments from the Department of Ecology:
I spoke with Pat Loudin just now who state he got off the phone with both of you in a conference setting, and what Pat
told me was that you will issue them a permit regardless of any protest or anything done to try and stop the permitting
process. That is hearsay I understand. However, I would like it noted for the record that at least one concerned citizen in
the county who is protesting this Asphalt Plant feels he is running up against direct roadblocks from the department of
Community Development regarding this issue.
Ecology has made it clear that they must comply with a General Sand and Gravel Permit before they can even stockpile,
let alone crush. Do the owners of Granite Construction or the owners of said property in application presently have such
a permit in accordance with the Department of Ecology? If they do not have a permit, then presently they are stockpiling
which is a direct violation of the State Department of Ecology regulations. It seems they should NOT be issued a permit
by your department based upon these violations alone.
If you have not personally inspected the property to determine present violations, then the permit should be delayed until
you do have the opportunity to look at the alleged violations we are insinuating.
Sincerely,
file:HC:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTempVPgrpwise1513A18D4Masonmaill001626A6811 DC... 3/8/2013
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Fw: Records Request
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/12/2013 11:03 AM
Subject: Fw: Records Request
Allan,Just a follow up on this records request sent on 2/25. Any idea when these records will be open to view?
----- Original Message-----
From: loudin7
To: Allan Borden
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Notice of application
Allan, thanks for the copy of the SEP2013-00009, you must not have heard my question about the storm water ponds that
are refered to on pg.6 C 1, also pg 7 letter D.Were the applicant states that there is a storm water system in place, I would
like to make a formal records request to view the drawings of said system.( I am surte you have them out for review for this
permit) If you have any questions give me a call or shoot me an email when I can come review these documents. Thanks
Pat Loudin
From: Allan Borden
To: Patrick Loudin
Cc: Allan Borden
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Notice of application
Pat Loudin:
I will be posting this notice on the property and at the post office on Friday Feb 22, 2013. 1 will email you a copy of the
notice on 2/22 before 10 AM. I have noted your concerns and you may comment in writing within the next 14 days.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range&Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\TemplXPgrpwise\513FOB7BMasonmai11001626A6811 DD... 3/12/2013
From: "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
To: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/11/2013 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: SEPA 2013-00009
Thanks Barb, that is good info, but I had already seen that the permit was
issued on 3/8 and by the looks of it they already had thier first inspection
and were pouring concrete before I got your email and Saturday as well. I
would still like to see thew storm water plan they have for the new permit
and for the whole Peninsula Topsoil Property.
Thanks Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>; "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: SEPA 2013-00009
Pat-as we discussed earlier, the appeal would need to be filed with us by
the end of today. The appeal process is outlined in Title 15 of the Mason
County Code. It requires a fee, a date stamp by the Clerk of the Board, and
then filed with our office. As for the stormwater ponds, I'll defer that to
Allan to continue to work with you on.
Barbara A. Adkins, AICP, Director
Department of Community Development
Post Office Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
360/427-9670 ext. 286
Email: BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us
>>> "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com> 3/8/2013 3:58 PM >>>
Allan and Barb, I would like to protest the issuing of the permit SEPA
2013-00009
The developer refers to a storm water system on page 6 C1 and again on pg.
7 letter D, in the SEPA application
"THIS SITE HAS A STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM IN PLACE".
After asking for drawings or engineering from Allan Borden in a records
request, none have been provided, and there is nothing that says there is
actually is a system in place. All questions have been asked of Dept. of
Health (Debbie Riley) then to storm waters Loretta Swanson and they refer
back to planning.
I would like to protest this permit, due to the fact that the county has no
record or can not produce a copy of the storm water systems that the
developer refers to as a " STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM" on site.
If I need to file an appeal please forward me the information I need to do
so. And if you issue this permit I would ask your department to look into
the storm water ponds on the whole 47 acre Peninsula topsoil property. It
sure dont look like they have any type of system on the property.
Please enter this as public comment on this permit.
Thanks Pat Loudin
4 �
Page 1 of 1
Trish Woolett - Public Records Request for PDF of Granite Construction Application
From: "John Gunter" <john4,belfair.name>
To: "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason....
D:ile: 3/12/2013 2:10 PM
Subject: Public Records Request for PDF of Granite Construction Application
CC: "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Hi Barbara and/or Allan,
I would like to request a pdf version of the application Granite Construction gave you for a permit
for an Asphalt plant. If you can put it on the ftp site, I'll retrieve it. If there are oversized elements,
then don't provide them unless you have them in PDF, but please let me know the name of what is
missing.
0 A also like to request all applications for Asphalt plants for any property or part of property
located at the contiguous land owned and operated by the Johnsons or Peninsula Topsoil, or any
other trade name used where Granite Construction has applied to build an asphalt plant.
If you could give me an estimate as to how long it would take to get each of these documents, that
would be appreciated. If there is a charge for this, I'd like to request coming in to personally look at
them and/or personally scan them myself if you wouldn't mind.
If one or more of the documents is not available to look at, I'd like to get whatever is available as
soon as possible in the order they are available. I'm expecting personally, that at least some of these
documents should be available within a day or two. It should not take long to get them available
since at least one of them is a fresh application. Please don't stall or delay.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
PO Box 3178
50 NE Hillside Acres Lane
Belfair Washington 98528
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/513F374EMasonmail 1001626B... 3/14/2013
MASON COUNTY (360) 427-9670 Shelton ext.352
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352
BUILDING• PLANNING• FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352
Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street
PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us
March 14, 2013
John Gunter
Belfair WA 98584
Mr. Gunter,
We have received your request for public records dated March 12, 2012. Regarding the property located
at 100 NE Peninsula Blvd, Belfair WA for Granite Construction. We will require some time to process
and copy.
This letter serves as notification that the time frame to complete this is uncertain. We are facilitating the
N ork as quickly as possible.
"I'll"Ink You.
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
360.427.9670 ext. 281
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Re: Public Comment Request: Asphalt Health Impact Study Request
From: Shannon Goudy
To: Adkins, Barbara; Borden, Allan; Gunter, John; Jeffreys, Terri; Sheldon, Tim; Sheldon, Tim; Whitehead,
Tim; Zoren, Diane
Date: 3/13/2013 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Public Comment Request: Asphalt Health Impact Study Request
CC: Gates, Tim (COM); Gravel), Chris Johnson (Ecology: Sand and; Hager, Bob; Kelly.Cooper@doh.wa.gov;
Loudin, Pat; Matthews, Brian; Reviewteam@commerce.wa.gov; Riley, Debbie; Swanson, Loretta; Vynne,
Stacy; alexandra.chess@doh.wa.gov; amber.echols@doh.wa.gov; debbie.mood y@orcaa.org;
fran.mcnair@orcaa.org; jentw@masoncd.org; karinls@masoncd.org; marsha.engel@psp.wa.gov;
robert.moody@orcaa.org; sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov
John,
I will include this in our correspondence for the March 19th meeting. We summarize the correspondence received
under item 4 on our agenda and the complete copy is saved in our permanent record.
Shannon Goudy
Clerk of the Board
Mason County Commissioners
(360) 427-9670 ext. 589
This email and your response may be subject to public disclosure.
>>> "John Gunter" <john@seattleluxury.com> 3/12/2013 8:49 PM >>>
Hi Diane or Shannon,
What do I need to do for this to be read into the next Commissioner's meeting. I will be unable to attend. Is this e-mail
sufficient?
As a citizen of Mason County, and as someone who lives very close to the proposed Asphalt plant at Peninsula Topsoil
property in Belfair, I would like to request the following to be read into public record in the next Commissioner's
meeting:
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
Begin of Reading
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
To the Mason County Commissioners, Barbara Adkins, Director of Community Development, and Allan Borden,
My name is John Gunter and I live at 50 NE Hillside Acres Lane in Belfair, WA 98528.
I, John Gunter, live in very near proximity (several hundred feet) from a proposed asphalt plant in the Belfair UGA
applied for by Granite Construction with ID numbers: COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009. There are severe health
file:HC:1Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Setti ngs\Tem p\XPg rpwise\51403F3 DM ason mail 100 1 626A681 1DD... 3/13/2013
Page 2 of 2
hazards that are known to be tied to breathing in toxins emitted from asphalt plants, issues such as cancer, respiratory
disease, and central nervous system damage to name just a few. I am requesting you to not allow this plant to be
constructed at the location so close to residents. I am asking for a full environmental impact study be held and more
citizen awareness be made public, before you allow this Asphalt plant at the location they have applied for. You have
not adequately notified the public about this proposed plant. You may have fulfilled the minimum requirement of posting
a 2 week notice on the property and at the post office, however, you have not fulfilled your moral and ethical obligation
as Commissioners of the people, to properly inform the residents close by and to allow for citizen feedback and
interaction between the Applicant and the residents.
Please fulfill your obligations to your residents, Mason County. If you have already given an approval for this plant to be
constructed, I am asking you to stop and reverse the approval immediately. It makes sense that you are the decision
makers for the county and that if you make a decision that directly hurts the health of any of the 184 residents that
will have to breath emissions from this asphalt plant that you choose to approve, as Commissioners and Director of the
department giving permission for this, that both Mason County and you as Commissioners and Director should be held
personally and financially liable for any health problems and costs incurred related to the effects of living near
an Asphalt plant. Please take wise action and not allow this to occur. Please don't put the health of your citizens at
risk.
It is well documented also, that residential property values decrease significantly when near an asphalt plant. One
recent study claimed up to 56%decrease in value. I don't know if you can be held personally responsible for property
values you cause to diminish by your decisions, however, I would like to make you aware of the financial impact it will
have on residential citizens. If possible, I would like to request you to not allow this asphalt plant based upon the known
decreased value of our properties that will occur in addition to the health problems that, scientifically, have been proven
to be an effect on residents in close proximity to asphalt plants.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
End of Reading
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\51403F3DMasonmai11001626A6811 DD... 3/13/2013
Page 2 of 2
From: loudin7
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:40 PM
To: John Gunter; Allan Borden
Subject: Re: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
John, it was approved on the 8th, the permit was incomplete until they dropped off paperwork on the 7th and permit was
issued on 8th, so when we were protesting and asking questions they already picked up inspection card and seems to
have had inspection on the same day because they were pouring concrete on sat the 9th (see attached pic) that shows
how fast the process works.
I am still waiting for the storm water plan that I asked for on 2/25, its seems to be hard to find.
Allan can you give me a time frame on when I can come view this paperwork?Also can you fill me in on what the
investigation turned up on the relocation of the Roadside Nursery?
Thanks Pat Loudin
-----Original Message-----
From: John Gunter
To: Barbara Adkins ; Allan Borden ; Trish Woolett ; Diane Zoren ; Shannon Goudy
Cc: Pat Loudin
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:25 PM
Subject: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
Hello,
I'm requesting the current status of the Asphalt plant application identified by: COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009.
Has it been approved by the Department of Community Development yet?
If anyone has answers, I'd like to know the status. My last understanding from previous correspondence is that
approval was eminent. Could anyone please confirm that?
Sincerely,
John Gunter
360-620-0083,
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\5140C01 FMasonmai11001626A6811 DD... 3/13/2013
From: Barbara Adkins
To: Allan Borden; Diane Zoren; John Gunter; Shannon Goudy; Trish Woolett
CC: Pat Loudin
Date: 3/13/2013 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
John-permit information can be viewed from our website. In the gray center portion of the left hand side bar there is
a link to Permit Information. With the case number or name you can access permits and see the status. But to
answer your question,yes. The permit was issued on the 8th.
Barbara
Barbara A.Adkins,AICP, Director
Department of Community Development
Post Office Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
360/427-9670 ext. 286
Email: BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us
>>>"John Gunter'<lohn()belfair.name>3/13/2013 2:25 PM>>>
Hello,
I'm requesting the current status of the Asphalt plant application identified by: COM2013-00013 and
SEP2013-00009.
Has it been approved by the Department of Community Development yet?
If anyone has answers, I'd like to know the status. My last understanding from previous correspondence is that
approval was eminent. Could anyone please confirm that?
Sincerely,
John Gunter
360-620-0083.
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Fw: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
From: "John Gunter" <john@belfair.name>
To: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Barbara Adkins" <BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Trish
Woolett" <Tw@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/13/2013 6:06 PM
Subject: Fw: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
CC: "Chris Johnson (Ecology: Sand and Gravel)" <Chris.Johnson@ecy.wa.gov>, "Randy Neatherlin"
<RandyN@co.mason.wa.us>, "Terri Jeffreys" <TerriJ@co.mason.wa.us>, "Tim Sheldon"
<TimS@co.mason.wa.us>, "Tim Sheldon" <sheldon_ti@leg.wa.gov>, "Tim Whitehead"
<TimW@co.mason.wa.us>, "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Attachments: P1030915.JPG
Hi Allan and Barbara,
Is this true? That before you issued a Determination of NonSignificance, they did not have their completed application
in yet? How could you determine a SEPA non-significance if it wasn't a completed application?
Pat, how do you know about this? Please answer in this e-mail thread if you would.
Allan and Barbara, it is taking me awhile, like always, to get to know the lay of the land and understand authorities and
jurisdictions. I spoke with people at EPA, the Attorney General, and Ecology, and I'm starting to understand. It appears
like the buck stops with you.You are the driving force of SEPA, and you and the county will be the ones
ultimately responsible for whether you did what SEPA requires or not. EPA said based from what I told them that it
sounded like you guys were short-circuiting the SEPA process and fast tracking things. It also requires an adequate
response to any public comments and concerns. They should be addressed by the applicant.
My understanding is that before they can construct anything, they have to get their permits in order first. Has that been
done? If not, are they constructing presently toward the asphalt plant? Are they storing recycling material presently
without a permit? That is on your shoulders to my understanding.
Has that been done? Since I was one of those who issued public comments, I have not heard a response back. I might
still not fully understand the process. If not, I'll be fully informed shortly. Do we really want to go through a process of
short-circuiting SEPA and eventually get the teeth of NEPA involved? It doesn't seem to be a good move on your guys'
parts.
Shortly, I will be bringing to your attention the environmental impact of Asphalt plants on health. I will also bring forth
records from Orcaa to show that Peninsula Topsoil has caused odor problems where the 184 residents live in the past,
so it would be a very strong indication that hazardous odors would cause, not only nuisance, but potential health
problems as well.
I'd like responses to the questions. It would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise15140C01 FM ason mail 100 1 626A681 1 DD... 3/13/2013
Page 1 of 2
Trish Woolett - Re: records
From: Trish Woolett
To: loudin7
Date: 3/14/2013 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: records
Attachments: Trish Woolett.vcf
Mr. Loudin,
No appointment is necessary.We open a 8:00 am. At 426 W Cedar St. Bld III, corner of 5th and Cedar Street.
Have a good day !
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
Mason County Community rev.
360.427.9670 ext. 281
fax. 360.427.7798
tw@co.mason.wo.us
County Web Site: www.co.mason.wa.us
>>> "loudin7" <loudin7@wavecable.com> 3/14/2013 9:37 AM >>>
Thanks Trish, I will be in Shelton on Tuesday morning before the BOCC meeting, do I need to make an
appointment for this viewing? and is this at the planning counter?
Thanks Pat Loudin
Original Message-----
rrurn. Trish Woolett
To: loudin7@wavecable.com
Cc: Allan Borden ; Barbara Adkins
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:18 AM
Subject: records
Mr. Loudin,
Allan Borden has given my a file of records for your review.They are available at our front counter.
At time of review, if copies are requested we may require additional time to make copies and copy fees with
apply. (copy fees: .15 per page, blue print pages $4.50 per page).
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/51419ECAMasonmail 1001626B... 3/14/2013
� Page 2 of 2
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
Mason County Community Dev.
360.427.9670 ext. 281
fax 360.427.7798
tw@co.mason,wa.us
County Web Site: www.co.mason.wa.us
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/51419ECAMasonmai11001626B... 3/14/2013
- . Page 1 of 2
Trish Woolett - Re: records
From: Trish Woolett
To: John Gunter
Date: 3/14/2013 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: records
CC: Allan Borden; Barbara Adkins
Attachments: Trish Woolett.vcf
John,
This is only the original info that you originally requested as part of Mr. Loudin's request.We are still working
on the other information you have requested.
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
Mason County Community rev.
360.427.9670 ext. 281
fax 360.427.7798
tw@co.mason.wa.us
County Web Site: www.co.mason.wa.us
>>> "John Gunter" <john@belfair.name> 3/14/2013 9:33 AM >>>
Hi Trish,
Thank you. Does this copy include the records that Pat Loudin is requesting about the stormwater
pond? If you could let me know, it would be appreciated.
John Gunter
From: Trish Woolett
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:26 AM
To: iohnCcbbelfair.name
Subject: records
Mr.Gunter
Allan Borden has given my a file of records for your review.They are available at our front counter.
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5141 A074Masonmail 1001626B... 3/14/2013
Page 2 of 2
t f ime of review, if copies are requested we may require additional time to make copies and copy fees with
apply. (copy fees: .15 per page, blue print pages $4.50 per page).
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
Mason County Community rev.
360.427.9670 ext. 281
fax 360.427.7798
tw@co.mason.wa.us
County Web Site: www.co.mason.wo.us
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/5141 A074Masomnail 1001626B... 3/14/2013
Page 1 of 4
Allan Borden - Re: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
From: "John Gunter" <john@belfair.name>
To: "John Gunter" <john@belfair.name>, "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Barbara Adkins"
<BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us>, "Trish Woolett" <Tw@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 3/14/2013 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
CC: "Chris Johnson (Ecology: Sand and Gravel)" <Chris.Johnson@ecy.wa.gov>, "Randy Neatherlin"
<RandyN@co.mason.wa.us>, "Terri Jeffreys" <TerriJ@co.mason.wa.us>, "Tim Sheldon"
<TimS@co.mason.wa.us>, "Tim Sheldon" <sheldon_ti@leg.wa.gov>, "Tim Whitehead"
<TimW@co.mason.wa.us>, "Pat Loudin" <loudin7@wavecable.com>
Hello Barbara, Allan and Trish,
Since I'm trying sincerely to improve my tone, I'm going to try my best to re-ask similar questions as the first e-mail in a
less confronting tone. I do, again, want to apologize about my brazenness. Many of these a-mails I'm in a hurry to write
(because, honestly, I really don't want to do this stuff)... that is NO excuse! It is simply a thing that I need to seriously
work on.
For Allan and Barbara, if you could answer these questions, it would be very much appreciated:
I'm trying to find out' d
and I or SEP2013-00009 COM2013-00013? If that is true, then was there some previous basis in the past for
you doing so, e? If not, could you do your best to explain why a choice was made to go that particular
direction? It" s rom our citizen side of things, like this application is getting fast-tracked. Could you help educate me
on what is happening so that perhaps I could understand it better?
Pat had indicated (see e-mail below), that some of the records he was seeking after that would have been a part of the
application, especially a previously mentione F(I believe),
According to him, they were the last day of public comments for the determination, so I'm trying
to verify factual information. ou d you please help m6out
It seems to me like a storm water pond (if mentioned in the application), might be very important in determining if an
environmental impact study would need to be made or an Issuance ofMitigated non-significance rather than a non-
significant finding.Am I missing something in my reasoning? if me know where my thinking is
l% wrong? �06cef I
v I did speak with EPA and a couple of other agencies, and based upon information I verbally provided, they felt there is a
chance that the SEPA process is not being followed in its entirety. For example, it was indicated to me that when public
comments were being made, that those public comments normally need to be addressed by either the applicant or the
�vcounty. That . Is there any kind of plan to directly address
the concerns made in the public comments? I not, is there any reason for not addressing the issues made in public
comments? Am I wrong about the issue of the permit being issued prior to all factors being considered?
Also, it was stated that normally on the other side of the 14 day period of comments, if anyone comes up with significant
information regarding the permit, that could alter the decision, as long as it comes from credible sources or is a well
founded argument, that normally, that type of information is listened to and considered, that it isn't pushed away because
fife://C:IDocuments and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise1514122A5Mason mail 1001626A6811 DD... 3/14/2013
Page 2 of 4
it missed the 14 day window of comment. If thk Ig
y?i tinn and pidakLy rpspond to any issues or concerns addressed?
I would like, specifically, to bring forth records regarding scientific and government studies concerning the emissions
from Asphalt plants and how the odors are not only a nuisance, but also hazardous to the health of homes up to 3000
feet. I would also like to bring forth previous records from years past, how the property applying for the permit has had
odor issues that came down into the area of the 184 residential homes, so much so, that a few years back, HazMat
came out and blocked off our neighborhood because they thought there was a meth problem. The fireman's eyes were
watering, he went home nauseated. This was all caused by odors coming directly at that time from the applicant
property. That particular odor was not caused by North Mason Fiber, but from applicant property. If I deliver this
information to you with the reasonable proposal that, unless asphalt odors are not completely mitigated, it is almost
assured that people in the residents will have toxic odors delivered into their homes at some point, would you receive
such information and take it under consideration and publicly respond to such information?
I hope this is a better e-mail. I will continue to try and proceed in a more non-confronting way. It is very difficult for me. It
takes longer to write and many times I don't have the time, but I'll do my best to be more sensitive in the future!
Sincerely,
John Gunter
From: John Gunter
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:01 PM
To: Allan Borden ; Barbara Adkins ; Trish Woolett
Cc: Chris Johnson (Ecology: Sand and Gravel) ; Randy Neatherlin ; Terri Jeffreys ; Tim Sheldon ; Tim Sheldon ; Tim
Whitehead ' Pat Loudin
Subject: Fw: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
Hi Allan and Barbara,
Is this true? That before you issued a Determination of NonSignificance, they did not have their completed application
in yet? How could you determine a SEPA non-significance if it wasn't a completed application?
Pat, how do you know about this? Please answer in this e-mail thread if you would.
Allan and Barbara, it is taking me awhile, like always, to get to know the lay of the land and understand authorities and
jurisdictions. I spoke with people at EPA, the Attorney General, and Ecology, and I'm starting to understand. It appears
like the buck stops with you. You are the driving force of SEPA, and you and the county will be the ones
ultimately responsible for whether you did what SEPA requires or not. EPA said based from what I told them that it
sounded like you guys were short-circuiting the SEPA process and fast tracking things. It also requires an adequate
response to any public comments and concerns. They should be addressed by the applicant.
My understanding is that before they can construct anything, they have to get their permits in order first. Has that been
done? If not, are they constructing presently toward the asphalt plant? Are they storing recycling material presently
without a permit? That is on your shoulders to my understanding.
Has that been done? Since I was one of those who issued public comments, I have not heard a response back. I might
file://C:IDocuments and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTemp\XPgrpwise1514122A5Masonmail1001626A6811 DD... 3/14/2013
Page 3 of 4
still not fully understand the process. If not, I'll be fully informed shortly. Do we really want to go through a process of
short-circuiting SEPA and eventually get the teeth of NEPA involved? It doesn't seem to be a good move on your guys'
parts.
Shortly, I will be bringing to your attention the environmental impact of Asphalt plants on health. I will also bring forth
records from Orcaa to show that Peninsula Topsoil has caused odor problems where the 184 residents live in the past,
so it would be a very strong indication that hazardous odors would cause, not only nuisance, but potential health
problems as well.
I'd like responses to the questions. It would be much appreciated.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
From: loudin7
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:40 PM
To: John Gunter; Allan Borden
Subject: Re: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
John, it was approved on the 8th, the permit was incomplete until they dropped off paperwork on the 7th and permit was
issued on 8th, so when we were protesting and asking questions they already picked up inspection card and seems to
have had inspection on the same day because they were pouring concrete on sat the 9th (see attached pic) that shows
how fast the process works.
I am still waiting for the storm water plan that I asked for on 2/25, its seems to be hard to find.
Allan can you give me a time frame on when I can come view this paperwork?Also can you fill me in on what the
investigation turned up on the relocation of the Roadside Nursery?
Thanks Pat Loudin
----- Original Message-----
From: John Gunter
To: Barbara Adkins ; Allan Borden ; Trish Woolett ; Diane Zoren ; Shannon Goudy
Cc: Pat Loudin
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:25 PM
Subject: Status of Granite Construction Asphalt Plant Application
Hello,
I'm requesting the current status of the Asphalt plant application identified by: COM2013-00013 and SEP2013-00009.
Has it been approved by the Department of Community Development yet?
If anyone has answers, I'd like to know the status. My last understanding from previous correspondence is that
approval was eminent. Could anyone please confirm that?
file://C:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise1514122A5Mason mail 1001626A6811 DD... 3/14/2013
Page 4 of 4
Sincerely,
John Gunter
360-620-0083.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise1514122A5Mason mail 1001626A6811 DD... 3/14/2013
Page 1 of 3
Allan Borden - Questions brought up on March 14, 2013 regarding SEP2013-00009 and COM2013-00013.
From: Allan Borden
To: "John Gunter" <john@belfair.name>; Barbara Adkins; Patrick Loudin; Trish Woolett
Date: 3/14/20131:18 PM
Subject: Questions brought up on March 14, 2013 regarding SEP2013-00009 and COM2013-00013.
CC: Allan Borden; Randy Neatherlin; Terri Jeffreys; Tim Sheldon; Tim Whitehead
Attachments: Granite Constr COM2013-00013 conditions.pdf
John Gunter:
In response to your comments submitted in the attached message, I have focused on the several issues that you have
brought up:
A) have you issued a Determination of Non-Significance before you had received all the completed application for
SEP2013-00009 and COM2013-00013?
The SEPA checklist was accepted as complete to start the environmental review and a letter of completeness that was
issued on February 7, 2013 was included with the SEPA environmental checklist during public review. Additional
comments and issues to address were expected as comments from reviewing agencies. The Olympic Region Clear Air
Agency (ORCAA) was awaiting the SEPA checklist review (they were included in the agency review) as part of their public
review process. The WA. Dept .of Ecology was expected to make comments regarding their program permitting (sand &
gravel permit review, construction stormwater permit, and erosion & sediment control). The public review was begun with
the expectation that comments would call for other needed permits or conditions, in addition to the actual construction and
operation of the portable asphalt plant.
B) when was storm pond information turned in for the application review?
After several in-office discussions with Planning Dept. staff, the applicant submitted on March 7,2013, the construction
stormwater plan prepared to meet WA. Dept.of Ecology 2005 stormwater manual standards. The stormwater plan
included a site plan specific to the plant location, erosion &sediment controls, spill prevention and controls, and discharge
monitoring measures. Once this plan was submitted, it was determined that the specific construction stormwater plan
would connect to the general site stomwater system and address water quality and quantities regarding the portable
asphalt plant.
C) process to issue threshold determination of non-significance.
The Granite Construction project manager had a couple of in-office discussions in Dec. 2012 and Jan. 2013 with Planning
Dept. staff to describe a proposed portable asphalt plant that they would be using to supply materials for road projects in
Mason and Kitsap Counties in the next year. The proposal site was on General Commercial & Business Industrial zoned
property in the Belfair Urban Growth Area; resource land uses such as sand and gravel, concrete, and amended soils
preparation have been allowed in the zone, and portable asphalt plants are viewed as a similar land use to these uses.
The determination of non-significance was made and the public review was begun with the expectation that comments
would call for other needed permits and reviews, in addition to the actual construction and operation of the portable asphalt
plant. As a result, Granite Construction submitted the construction stormwater plan that was prepared to meet WA.
Dept .of Ecology 2005 stormwater manual standards.
D) Is the permit not issued until all factors brought up as public comments are considered in the review of the proposal ?
During the review of proposed development,the Dept. of Community Development does take comments of the public and
review agencies and considers those comments seriously. For the most part, the public comments made are the same
issues that the Department considers when a proposal is evaluated and is decided. In most situations, individual
file://C:1Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise151410E2AMasonmaill001626A6811D... 3/14/2013
Page 2 of 3
comments are not addressed in specific response letters, but the concern appears as a condition of review or permit
issuance. Comments made are also addressed by the review agency(other than the county) that is responsible for
additional permitting for the project proposal (example is the ORCAA review and permitting).
" John Gunter message of Mar. 14, 2013 sent at 1:06 AM
Hello Barbara, Allan and Trish,
Since I'm trying sincerely to improve my tone, I'm going to try my best to re-ask similar questions as the first e-mail in a
less confronting tone. I do, again, want to apologize about my brazenness. Many of these a-mails I'm in a hurry to write
(because, honestly, I really don't want to do this stuff)... that is NO excuse! It is simply a thing that I need to seriously work
on.
For Allan and Barbara, if you could answer these questions, it would be very much appreciated:
I'm trying to find out if you issued a Determination of NonSignificance before you had received all the completed
application for SEP2013-00009 and COM2013-00013? If that is true, then was there some previous basis in the past for
you doing so, some precedence? If not, could you do your best to explain why a choice was made to go that particular
direction? It"feels" from our citizen side of things, like this application is getting fast-tracked. Could you help educate me
on what is happening so that perhaps I could understand it better?
Pat had indicated (see e-mail below), that some of the records he was seeking after that would have been a part of the
application, especially a previously mentioned storm pond (I believe), were not turned in yet for the application. According
to him, they were turned in last Friday on the last day of public comments for the determination, so I'm trying to verify
factual information. Could you please help me out?
It seems to me like a storm water pond (if mentioned in the application), might be very important in determining if an
environmental impact study would need to be made or an Issuance of Mitigated non-significance rather than a non-
significant finding. Am I missing something in my reasoning? If so, could you please let me know where my thinking is
wrong?
I did speak with EPA and a couple of other agencies, and based upon information I verbally provided, they felt there is a
chance that the SEPA process is not being followed in its entirety. For example, it was indicated to me that when public
comments were being made, that those public comments normally need to be addressed by either the applicant or the
county. That usually the permit is not issued until all factors are considered. Is there any kind of plan to directly address the
concerns made in the public comments? If not, is there any reason for not addressing the issues made in public
comments? Am I wrong about the issue of the permit being issued prior to all factors being considered?
Also, it was stated that normally on the other side of the 14 day period of comments, if anyone comes up with significant
information regarding the permit, that could alter the decision, as long as it comes from credible sources or is a well
founded argument, that normally, that type of information is listened to and considered, that it isn't pushed away because it
missed the 14 day window of comment. If this type of further information is brought to you on this application, would you
consider the information and publicly respond to any issues or concerns addressed?
I would like, specifically, to bring forth records regarding scientific and government studies concerning the emissions from
Asphalt plants and how the odors are not only a nuisance, but also hazardous to the health of homes up to 3000 feet. I
would also like to bring forth previous records from years past, how the property applying for the permit has had odor
issues that came down into the area of the 184 residential homes, so much so, that a few years back, HazMat came out
file:HC:1Documents and SettingslAhblLocal SettingslTempVPgrpwise15141 CE2AMasonmaill 001 626A681 1 D... 3/14/2013
Page 3 of 3
and blocked off our neighborhood because they thought there was a meth problem. The fireman's eyes were watering, he
went home nauseated. This was all caused by odors coming directly at that time from the applicant property. That
particular odor was not caused by North Mason Fiber, but from applicant property. If I deliver this information to you with
the reasonable proposal that, unless asphalt odors are not completely mitigated, it is almost assured that people in the
residents will have toxic odors delivered into their homes at some point, would you receive such information and take it
under consideration and publicly respond to such information?
I hope this is a better e-mail. I will continue to try and proceed in a more non-confronting way. It is very difficult for me. It
takes longer to write and many times I don't have the time, but I'll do my best to be more sensitive in the future!
Sincerely,
John Gunter" [end of message]
PLEASE NOTE
You have not mentioned any questions on the conditions connected with the permit COM2013-00013 issued to Granite
Construction. I have printed the conditions from the Mason County website link"Permit Information" on the home page,
and attached as a PDF. Many of your stated concerns are addressed in the plans and conditions of the COM2013-00013
permit.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
file://C:1Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise15141 CE2AMasonmai11001626A6811 D... 3/14/2013
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Notification
From: Trish Woolett
To: john.@belfair.name
Date: 3114/201310:13 AM
Subject: Notification
CC: Allan Borden; Barbara Adkins
Attachments: 100 Peninsula Blvd3.doc;Trish Woolett.vcf
Please see attached notification.
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
Mason County Community Dev.
360.427.9670 ext. 281
fax 360.427.7798
tw(cilco.mason.wa.us
County Web Site: www.co.mason.wa.us
fde:f/C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise1514lA2BCMasonmail1001626A6811D... 3/14/2013
Co MASON MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352
�A00N �.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352
i BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352
J
Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street
PO Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us
March 14, 2013
John Gunter
Belfair WA 98584
j ohn@belfair.name
Mr. Gunter,
We have received your request for public records dated March 12, 2012. Regarding the property located
at 100 NE Peninsula Blvd, Belfair WA for Granite Construction. We will require some time to process
and copy.
This letter serves as notification that the time frame to complete this is uncertain. We are facilitating the
work as quickly as possible.
Thank You,
Tricia Woolett
Permit Specialist II
360.427.9670 ext. 281
Information for permit: COM2013-00013 Page 1 of 3
Conditions
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS REMOVAL
All construction and demolition debris must be removed from the work area after project completion.
Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter or
cause water quality degradation of State waters. X
Erosion Protection
Prior to final approval, all upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be
seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or straw matting).
X
Temporary Erosion Control
Temporary erosion control measures must be implemented to prevent water quality degradation of
adjacent waters or properties. Silt fencing or straw matting must be installed and maintained until
upland vegetation has become established.X
SITE PLAN
Approved per dimensions and setbacks on submitted site plan. Setbacks are measured from the
furthest projection of the structure. X
Fire Protection Requirements
PER TITLE 14 MASON COUNTY BUILDING CODE-CHAPTER 14.17, STANDARDS FOR FIRE
APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS- 14.17.110: A fire apparatus access road in excess of 14%grade
and more than 150'to new residential or commercial structures will require an automatic fire sprinkler
system installed. Contact the Mason County Fire Marshal at(360)427-9670, extension 352,for further
information. x
Fire Marshal Comments
A knox box is required per section 506 of the 2009 IFC, please contact the local fire district for more
information and inspections. X . Install 3A40BC
fire extinguishers with a maximum travel distance in any direction of 75 feet and mounted no more
than 42 inches above the grade. X A fire hydrant is
required to be located within 400 feet of the furthest point of the plant. X
RCW 18.27
Contractor registration laws are governed under RCW 18.27 and enforced by the WA State Dept of
Labor and Industries, Contractor Compliance Division. There are potential risks and monetary
liabilities to the homeowner for using an unregistered contractor. Further information can be obtained
at 1-800-647-0982. The person signing this condition is either the homeowner, agent for the owner or
a registered contractor according to WA state law.X
PLANS REQUIRED ON SITE
All approved plans are required to be on-site for inspection purposes. If inspection is called for and
plans are not on site,Approval WILL NOT be granted. In addition, a reinspection fee, based on the
current fee schedule, minimum one-hour will be charged and collected by the Mason County Building
Department prior to any further inspections being performed or approvals granted.
X
ADDRESS/ROAD SIGNING
Owner/Agent is responsible to post the assigned address and/or purchase and post private road
signs in accordance with Mason County Title 14.28. X
SITE PLAN REQUIRED ON SITE
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/permits/main.php?caseno=COM2013-00013&case_type=COM 3/14/2013
Information for permit: COM2013-00013 Page 2 of 3
The approved site plan is required to be on-site for inspection purposes. If inspection is called for and
the site plan is not on site,Approval WILL NOT be granted. In addition, a reinspection fee, based on
the current fee schedule, minimum one-hour will be charged and collected by the Mason County
Building Department prior to any further inspections being performed or approvals granted.
X
Spec. Insp. Req. Stormwater Eng.
The Applicant shall be responsible for the following elements: 1) Compliance with the Construction
Storm Water Plan (SWPPP No. WAG-50-0064)submitted on March 7, 2013, shall be subject to an on
site inspection, or inspections, by the engineer of record or an authorized representative. Said
inspection(s) shall be performed in accordance with the approved stormwater plan, and prior to any
modification that would make a determination of compliance impossible. 2)The SWPPP shall be
implemented as detailed in the WAG-50-0064 document;operations shall comply with the March 7,
2013 site plan,the stormwater monitoring plan,the erosion &sediment control best management
practices, and the oil and fuels spill plan procedures for prevention, response and reporting. 3)
Inspection reports shall be submitted to verify all engineering requirements have been completed in
accordance with the approved storm water plan. Reports shall be submitted to the Mason County
Department of Community Development prior to each corresponding inspection and final permit
approval. Copies of all special inspection reports shall be made available at time of inspection.
X
3000 PSI CONCRETE
3000 PSI CONCRETE WILL REQUIRE SPECIAL INSPECTION IF THE QUANTITY EXCEEDS 50
CUBIC YARDS< LESSER AMOUNTS WILL REQUIRE AN APPROVED CONCRETE SUPPLIER TO
PROVIDE YOU WITH A BATCH TICKET THAT WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE
SITE INSPECTOR FOR THE VERIFICATION OF MATERIAL USED.
X
SPECIAL INSPECTION
In addition to the inspections required in IBC, Section 109, the owner,the engineer or architect of
record acting as the owner's agent shall employ one or more special inspectors who shall provide
inspections during construction on the types of work listed under Chapter 17 and as specified by the
design professional. The special inspectors duties&responsibilities shall be as specified in Chapter
17. Special inspection reports shall be submitted to the Mason County Building Department, PO Box
186, Shelton WA 98584 and available for inspection. Inspection reports shall be completed and
submitted to the dept. in a timely manner and shall be submitted prior to the framing and final
occupancy inspections. X
ENGINEERING
Any changes in construction shall be reviewed by engineer of record and submitted in writing to the
Mason County Building Department prior to construction.All engineering documents are a part of the
approved set of plans and must remain attached thereto. If engineering documents are removed,
approval will not be granted. In addition,a reinspection fee, based on the current fee schedule,
minimum one-hour will be charged and collected by the Mason County Building Department prior to
any further inspections being performed or approvals granted. X
ALL CONSTRUCTION
ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST MEET OR EXCEED ALL LOCAL CODES AND THE INTERNATIONAL
CODE REQUIREMENTS AND OCCUPANCY IS LIMITED TO THE PERMITTED AND APPROVED
CLASSIFICATION. ANY CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY WOULD RESULT IN PERMIT
REVOCATION. CHANGE OF USE MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO CHANGE.
x
Changes to Approved Plans
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/permits/main.php?caseno=COM2013-00013&case_type=COM 3/14/2013
Information for permit: COM2013-00013 Page 3 of 3
Changes to approved building plans that affect compliance to the current Washington State Energy
Code(WSEC), ventilation req ui rements), Building/Plumbing/Mechanical Codes and/or Mason County
Regulations shall be approved prior to construction. X
FIELD CORRECT
CONSTRUCTION PROCESS TO BE FIELD CORRECTED AS REQUIRED PER MASON COUNTY
BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE ADOPTED BUILDING CODE. The construction of the permitted
project is subject to inspections by the Mason County Building Department.All construction must be in
conformance with the international codes as amended and adopted by Mason County.Any
corrections, changes or alterations required by a Mason County Building Inspector shall be made prior
to requesting additional inspections. X
Property Lines
All property lines shall be clearly identified at the time of foundation inspection.
X
FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED
All building permits shall have a final inspection performed and approved by the Mason County
Building Department prior to permit expiration.The failure to request a final inspection or to obtain
approval will be documented in the legal property records on file with Mason County as being non-
compliant with Mason County ordinances and building regulations.
X
PERMIT EXPIRATION
All permits expire 180 days after permit issuance, or 180 days after the last inspection activity is
performed. The Building Official may extend the time for action for a period not exceeding 180 days,
upon the receipt of a written extension request indicating that circumstances beyond the control of the
permit holder have prevented action from being taken. No more than one extension may be granted.
X
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/permits/main.php?caseno=COM2013-00013&case type=COM 3/14/2013
Page 1 of 2
Trish Woolett - Re: Public Records Request for PDF of Granite Construction
Application
From: Trish Woolett
To: John Gunter
Date: 3/20/2013 10:16 AM
>ubject: Re: Public Records Request for PDF of Granite Construction Application
CC: Allan Borden; Barbara Adkins
Attachments: Trish Woolett.vcf
John,
I have the information for Granite Construction pulled together.It is quite a large file. You may wish to come
in and view the file to identify what exactly you want copies of.If you wish for it to be electronically sent to
there is a charge of 15 cents per scanned page. Please let me know what you wish.
Also Mr. Loudin was in and review/copies of the original storm water information.I am still holding this file at
the counter for your viewing per you request.
Best regards,
7-° cia Woolett
r'ermit Specialist II
Mason County Community Dev.
360.427.9670 ext. 281
fax 360.427.7798
tw@co.mason.wa.us
County Web Site: www.co.mason.wa.us
>>> "John Gunter" <john@belfair.name> 3/12/2013 2:09 PM >>>
1 ii Barbara and/or Allan,
I would like to request a pdf version of the application Granite Construction gave you for a permit for an Asphalt plant.
If you can put it on the ftp site, I'll retrieve it. If there are oversized elements,then don't provide them unless you
have them in PDF, but please let me know the name of what is missing.
I would also like to request all applications for Asphalt plants for any property or part of property located at the
contiguous land owned and operated by the Johnsons or Peninsula Topsoil,or any other trade name used where
Granite Construction has applied to build an asphalt plant.
Ii you could give me an estimate as to how long it would take to get each of these documents,that would be
appreciated. If there is a charge for this, I'd like to request coming in to personally look at them and/or personally scan
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/51498C9AMasonmai11001626B... 3/20/2013
Page 2 of 2
them myself if you wouldn't mind.
If one or more of the documents is not available to look at, I'd like to get whatever is available as soon as possible in
I
he order they are available. I'm expecting personally,that at least some of these documents should be available
\%I-.hw a day or two. It should not take long to get them available since at least one of them is a fresh application.
Please don't stall or delay.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Gunter
PO Box 3178
50 NE Hillside Acres Lane
Belfair Washington 98528
file:///C:/Users/TrishW/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/51498C9AMasonmai11001626B... 3/20/2013
s�
PUGE N
9. q
sy �
WPM
jl
Rom,
\ 9c�JOB�9
A
IL
J
Ck
ra
ON
r
• q
oa
0 0�
O
SCALE: 1' = 250'
GRAr11TE*� Prepared BY SCALE:1' _ 250' Revlslaac Prepared for:
MICHAEL F.VYNEK,P.E.,Ps DATE: 05-09-02 JACK & STEVE JOHNSON s'
CHECKED By. MFW P.O. BOX 1119
Granite Construction Company CONstum ava ENcov aR DESIGN BY.. MFW BELFAIR. WA 98528 i
1665 NW SHERWOOD DRIVE DRAWN By, MFW -
STATE HIGHWAY J BREMERTON,WA. '5311
MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON (360)622-3802 (360)-z75-5400 (Imirz7S-e.
SECTION 21, T 23 N, R 1 W,- W.M.
i K
Z
I Z
s
JX,,\ O �w
1 u 1 O sG� /aE` `��✓i�Y9i ^rn
I W U ✓s J\� /J��� C \` �� \ Ld
>
r / TYPE 8 SERVICE i 1p�fyF LL.I o 3.
1 �s 383+65, 53'R l �qyr m
Lu
V �} m•oyi�� G/ Y
r
cp
49
o \ j//
1 1 w 1• \ P j �i �� %'' ti�/�� Ear CONTINUE 12' WATER MAIN I DESIGN & RECORD REFER EN
V 5°' / '.� r% °/ a�� EXTENSION TO DOSTING
O SR-3 3 3 3
BELFAIR WATER DISTRICT MAIN 77DEWA7ER CREEK TO UNION RIVER o
KITSAP & MASON COUNTES
— ———— — —
1 O \. SHEET 70F8ol mi i
— — ,n // 4` / ROAD WA Y INFORA/A 770N.- - u
v I r/ r `��e/ SPEED LIMI T= c c=i o 0
A / / `��: ��, / I 55 MPH (POSTED)
�P Pz/ QO � AVERAGE EX. LANE WDTH = 11—
1 EXIS77NC NOR77.000AID LANES = 1 d
1 w/PASSING LANE(POR770N OF PRO✓.
5 / EXISTING SOU77•IBOUND LANES = 1 W
' n
1 RAFF/C DESIGN DATA a
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) = 15,000
DESIGN HOURLY o s��•/ ,^S�bx '- } / \� 7RUCK PERCENTAGE VOLU- 6 7X(DHV = 1,B85 m J
j DESIGN SPEED = 60 mph
/ ACCESS CONTROL = CLASS 2 C010R c = + =W m
�e 'Z HIGHWAY CLASS = RURAL PRINCIPAL AR 2' V�^
a
o^
DESIGN CLASS = P-3 a m m
/ - - - - - - - - - - - IERRA/N =RGYL/NG
END PROJECT 2 � TYPE= NHS Z
0
CHANNEL/ZA TION DESIGN Q►`�
SR 27.40 <
/ -3 M P TAPER RA = 55.1 � 3
F ' / DECELERA77ON TAPER LENGTH = 165'
/ r / STA 389+90.76 CHANNEL LANE WIDTH = 12.0' z N
CHANNEL TAPER APPLIED TO NB LANE = Q
j CHANNEL TAPER APPLIED TO SB LANE= V CL 3
/i10,
/ , APPROACH DE S/GN D p
7lP£ = COMMERCIAL E— m Z
P.� VEHICLE = KE-50 �O O
Oh
DRAINAGE DATA (THIS SHEF'T> (V
NO. I TEM ELEVATION ` ti I CL oz
GRATE 85.76 GRAPHIC SCALE ti o
18' IE 74.76
i j Q9 18' IE 74.00 1 ExpiRES 07 73 03
( W FEET) .x
I i..h- 50 na HWY-1 c
i\ \ SECTION 21, T 23 N, R 1 W, W.M. \
4S9
\ ( / `< \ �,C1 /fir S✓" \\ /,'-< / 2 co
00
BEGIN PROJECT x\ �/� s w LLJo3
s'x
SR-3 MP 27.93 °<
e� W
STA 361 +79.99 0° �,x / ° Y
E6'7 Q
cl
•yam � ,UC'
\\ \\:S. ,.� •Gp�ES�`5.51 �FP.cP.�����•{oPyr'� ���9Y J� '�P /,�i'/ r' /�� ���� � o
/".' / GRAPHIC SCALE
\Gn
S
o� '
*co �4 tOGO�
\ C•yy _--_____`4 Fott• O= 02 N o m m
\ c+ _ / 50 / / L\ a vp tlr H e NOTE. h e - w
`, A -'{.1�" •/ �i. t• a O O r•c O O x z
,o y� � x �• .• / 'r .�� g � SR-3 VOLUMES BY WSDOT g
L (v G 7 / /� / 0 U
% 4
Jj HORIZON YEAR 2005 < S W K
,r"�Y 6By, ,r -: . ,' y INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS, o
�rG3'yr�+sr / ', _ / _ I a a
\
72 vph t 40 mh IL
\ \ 24' 7B�h t f34J Th 27 h 917 vph
S O 'a / ' I 679 Y h4 "o
ej0 \\�. �s 7•( 7 /',�' �,�\,���' SR-J W C23 o m
PREDICTED PEAK HOUR (A.M. PREDICTED PEAK HOUR (P.M.
��.ll
c ?•;;-' /'� I NORTH APPROACH m J
Ich
3
DRAINAGE DATA (THIS SHEET) V 3
NO. ITEM ELEVATION U)_
O �_�
GRATE 114. 10 ~ _
24' I E 106.55 (n p
F+ 03 24' IE 102.27 F 0 Ln
U N
023 `L'\
Sq
oxAL
EXPIRES 07 13 0
5'± 11.50' 11.50' 11.50' 5'± 5'± 11.50' 11.50' 12.00' 12.00' 1200' 8.D0' 9.00' 3.00, O
FAVED CLIMB1NG TRAVEL TRAVEL FAZED EX. FAVEC EX CL/ME/NG EX. TRAVEL W-WAY 7RAVEL RIGHT TURN PAS MAX. 12.00' 12.00' 1200 o MOULDER SHOULDER LEFT-7URN LANE LANE w �.p
LANE L.4.NE LANE SMLDR. LANE LANE
(NB) (NB) ; (SB) (NB) (NE) LANE (se) SHLOR PA 14:D RIGHT 7URN LEFT 7URN 7RAVCL
O E E SHOULDER LANE LANE 3 LANE
J 2 2 DESIGNA7ED (>yp•) (ES) (Ea) 2'
W >- WHERE v c
% 3 ; DESIGNA MV W TYPE 1
t i a i 2 w W w "W 2 14 w o w �j W ASPHALT CONC. PAVEMENT CL B ? wo? m 2
W £XIRUOEO C7/RB,
>i 2 W J 2 2 2 ¢ SING. PLN.f-16 '• Z
`W snw cur 2Q CRUSHED SURFACING TOPCOURSE a z• O
JOINT FOR I'
GUARD- ?A' WDEN SHOULDER FANNG Z .
RAIL FOR CURB I -MAINTAIN 00
N
�- D --' SEE DETAILDETAIL LJ EX. DITCH = 0
GUARDRAIL 389+0276 7-0 3e9+72.04 co
SCALE: 1" = 5' X Q
REMOVE SHOULDER fJ ____ _-_ _
MA 7ERIALS IF NOT - „� 1" O.1T' ACP 1 DI7CH E"
£OUIVALENT TO S£C770N EXIS77NG NEW 6" 0.50' 0 Q
F-F, NEW MA 7ER/ALS � 2 0.0.
CROSS-SECTION, EX. SR-3 CROSS-SECTION, PROPOSED SR-3 r 0.42' AGP , CROSS-SECTION 4.00' CONC. BARRIERLi
TYPICAL STA 379+00 TYPICAL STA 379+00 �- o.sB' 1.s' DP. PROPOSED APPROACHES W W TYPE 2 v
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" ' 10' HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1' = 10' 2 DITCH HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 2 v Q o
VE`SAL SCALE: 1" = 1' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 1' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 1' w J W a
c u'
� Y - N
$ GRAVEL SACKF7LL v
s QUANTITY TABULATION - SR3 FOR DRAINS SECT: o
SITE PREP & UTILITY RELOCATION SCHEDU 9-03.12(4) d
STAND. U.S. d
!tjw NO.ITEM ITEM/ QUAN UNITS NIL LOCATION TO LOCATION REMARK DETAIL
12<1�.+ 6'UNDERDRAIN
8 o I 1 REMOVING ASPHALT CONC. CURB 0140 443 L.F. CONCRETE BARRIER IE.- -1'EDGE OF v;
A r I 2 REMOVING BEAM GUARDRAIL 017D 435 L.F. A 361+94 R 389+90 R REMOVE EX FOG LINE STRIPE - PAVEMENT
B 361+94 R 383+15 R REMOVE EX. CENTER LINE STRIPE SCALE: 1" = 5'
3 REMOVING PAINT STRIPE 0187 5 424 L,F. N07ES' 362+25 TO 364+25
4 REMOVING RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS 0209 1 .S. C 361+94 R 383+15 R REMOVE EX. RAISED PAVEMENT MARKERS A. THE ENDS OF THE CA1ICR£TE BARRIER SHALL
FINISHED CRADE 5 ROADWAY EXCAVATION INCLUDING HAUL 0310 5 144 C.Y. D 361+80 R 389+90 R SAWCU7 & REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT BE BURIED IN 7HE CUT SLOPES
6 EMBANKMENT COMPACTION 0470 8,975 C.Y. E 385+57 R 3B9+72 R REMOVE EX. ASPHALT CONCRETE CURB
7 LIGHT LOOSE RIP RAP 1074 25 C.Y. F 385+57 R 389+72 R REMOVE EX. BEAM GUARDRAIL
6 UNDERDRAIN PIPE 6 IN. DIAM 1160 250 L.F. G 366+95 R REMOVE 24' CONC. CULV. END SECTION
\ 9 PLAIN CONC. CULV. PIPE 24 IN. DIAN. 1217 13 L.F. H 362+50.R -REMOVE 1 LANDSCAPE TREE
30 ADJUST CATCHBASIN 3100 4 EACH
100 EA7S77NC TER A/N 11 CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 48 IN. DIAM. 3105 2 EACH I 363+20 R REMOVE LANDSCAPE PLANTER WITHIN R/W
12 CUR. POLYETHYLENE ST. SEW. PIPE 18 IN. DIAM. 3607 48 L.F.
UPI. 361+80 R 3B4+00 R RELOCATE BURIED POWER BEHIND NEV E/P
13 COR. POLYETHYLENE ST. SEW. PIPE 24 IN. DIAM. 3608 71 L.F.
\ 14 CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE 5100 2,484 TON UP2 365+70 R REMOVE POWER POLE, OR RELOCATE TO 3' BEHIND R/W
15 ASPHALT CONC, PAVEMENT CL.B 5765 1,682 TON UP3 380+00 R RELOCATE PDWER POLE TO 3' BEHIND R/W LINE B
16 SEEDING FERTILIZING AND MULCHING 6414 2 ACRE
17 EXTRUDED CURB 6727 107 L F, dUlT3
361+80 R 389+90 R RELOCATE BURIED PHONE BEHIND NEW E/P
18 BEAM GUARDRAILTYPE 1 6751 70 L.F. 366+00 R RELOCATE TELEPHONE RISER o s
PROFILE' 19 B AM GUARDRA L FLARR T RM NA 67 EACH 369+95 R RELOCATE TELEPHONE RISER
SOUTH SR-3 A • O C N RET BARRIER R TYPE 677 0 L.F. 375+40 R RELOCATE TELEPHONE RISER
HORIZON AL SCALE: 1" 50' 21 PAINT LINE6806 8 722 L.F. 380+00 R RELOCATE TELEPHONE RISER
VERTICAL SCALE: 1' 10' 22 PAINTED WIDE INE 6817 1 144 L.F. _
DATL7/ELEV 23 PLASTIC STOP LINE 6859 24 L F.
80.00 24 PLASTIC TRAFFIC ARROW 6833 211EACH
5 RAISED PAVEMENT MARKER TYPE 2 6884
"a, a^, 6 PERMANENT SIGNING 689 I L.S,
�O1 g z y" t ti a 3 3 3
a$ a g o�+ o 7 ILLUMINATION SYSTEM 6904 L.S. SIGN SCHEDULE RELOCATES 3 NEW- S' 4
SEQUENTIAL ARROW SIGN 6 6 144 R U UTC ,� o
29 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 6964 1 L.S.
TRAFFIC CONTROL LABOR - 6 79 10 HOUR n i S.:O+OO 1+00 1+00 3 ONSTR TON SIGNS CLASS A 698 21 S.F. EXISTING PROPOSED •V' H.
32 GRAVELACKF L FOR DRAIN 7014 6 C.Y. NO. SHEET LOCATION LOCATION REMARK DIST. DIST. z
33 BORING UNDER SR-3 FOR WATER MAIN 1 L.S. o
PM STA-1+00 Sl HWY-3 363+85 R REMOVE EX. 'UNMUFFLED.,.' SIGN cai a = w z
N p U O p
•`�, PM ELEV=114.10 S2 HWY-3 364+00 R NEW BEGIN CENTER TURN SIGN, 24'x36' 13.5' 13'
0 o A.D._-5.50 S3a HWY-3 367+55 R NEW STOP SIGN, 36'x36' 8.O' 13, d
K=18.18 S3b HWY-3 367+95 R NEW STOP SIGN, 36'x36' 17.0' 13'
I00.00'VC I S4 HWY-3 367+50 R REMOVE EX. TRUCK SIGN W
S5 HWY-2 381+00 R 379+50 R REMOVE EX. HILL SIGN, REPLACE W/ NEW 36'x36' 17.0' 15' IL
o o S6n HWY-2 380*75 R NEW STOP SIGN, 36'x36' 8.0' IT
S6b HWY-2 381+15 R NEN STOP SIGN, 36'x36' 17.0' 13' W 2
+ o = S7 HWY-2 382+00 R 362+60 R REMOVE EX. BUS STOP SIGN, 30'x30' 23.0' 13, v c
ui �••,7 0 w o „�� S8 HWY-L 383+15 L NEW BEGIN CENTER TURN SIGN, 24'x36' 15.2 13' 'W o
m m 1 + c_ S9 HVY-I 388+25 R 388+00 REMOVE EX. 'TURNING TRAFFIC...' SIGN,
NOTES REPLACE W/ NEW 36'x36' 23.0' 13, y, J 3$
m co = n
ITO - ALL NEW 6 RELOCATED SIGNS SHALL BE MOUNTED ON NEW 4'x4' WOOD POST, m R 3 m
- 'H' L 'W' DISTANCE.PER STANDARD PLANS. j yi z W,o
O
FMI ED GRADE a '�cpi '�m a
Jpo
f00 CL^ ;
STRUCTURE SCHEDULE ® Z N
CB CDR. POLY. COR. POLY PLAIN CONC. PLAIN CONIC. 0 W
Ea7STWG A� \ TYPE 2 DRAIN PIPE DRAIN PIPE CULV. PIPE CULV. PIPE 3
CODE SHEET LOCATION 48' DIAM 18' DIAM. 24' DIAM 18' DIAM U 0- F-24' DIAMf GRATE N
1 HWY-3 66+96 37.5R 14.66 LF Z)
\ 2 HWY- 366+95 52.1R EA yq
O]Z
3 HWY-3 367+00 113.OR 68. LF O O L'
NED
4 HVY-3 69+00 51.9R 10 V.F. I\
80
5 HVY-2 71+25 51.8R 6 V.F.
6 HWY-2 373+69 51.SR V.F, Z U Q
PROFILE 7 HWY- 374+83 51.8R 2 V.F. F 0 V)
8 HWY- 387+06 55,6R 1 15.00 LF a ■ 1, 0
9 HWY-i 387+08 70.6R 1 A. SO ID RND. �c N
HORIZONTAL SCALE: 50' a
DATUM ELEV VERIICA SCALE: 1' 10' HWY-1 387+36 102.9R 42.39 L.F. n M i
ti
70.00 NOTES- ,q I o
V.F. = (VERTICAL FEET) RAISE CB RIM BY ADDING BARREL SECTIONS 023 tit ,' c)
._o 00 oa mn b� nm
e m $ o a m g 6; 1Sj0N6L a
-- 07 13 03
0+00 1+00 1+00 EXPIRES
.mo
WY-4c
0
a
jLLUMINATION SCHEDULE
LUMINARE STATION OFFSET POLE MAST ARM CIRCUIT TYPE/' FOUNDATION :.
NO. LN.EDGE HT. LENGTH/TYPE WATTS STND, PLAN J-lb o
1 378+00 13.00 RT 40' 161/1 A ■ 3'Ox4'-6' DEEP
L k 2 381+90 13.00 RT 40' 16'/1 A ■ 3'#x4'-6' DEEP Z
,��t.•/ // - ■ ALL LUMINAIRES ARE, MEDIUM / CUT-OFF / TYPE III / 40OW HPS Z
co
JUNCTION BOX SCHFDH F CONDUIT S WIRE SCHEDULE O co
CONDUIT CIRCUIT CIRCUIT W NUMBER TYPE STATION OFFSET
SIZE WIRES NIL > 03
LLJ
JB-1 1 378+01 49.00 RT R 0]
2.0 2-#ITPX,OF SERVICE, INSTALL PER ~
JB-2 1 379+91 49.DO RT (n
JB-3 1 381+90 49.00 RT a
1-1/4'0 2-#8 W/ GRND. LOCAL UTILITY REQUIREMENT CL J
3 1-1/4'# 2-#8 W/ GRND. A
2 m
Ld
rj�P t
� P\a j i 1 BREAKER SCHEDULE1 4 110 2-#6 W/GRNA A U
CIRCUIT BREAKER CONTACTOR � o
MAIN 100 AMP
A 20 AMP 30 AMP n
PHOTOCELL 15 AMP
r° w/ RECEPTICLE 20 AMP GFIR m w
a.
ILLUMINATION N❑TESL
1. INSTALL ROUND GALVANIZED STEEL STREET LIGHT STANDARD WITH SLIP BASE] WITH <
LUMINARE AND MAST ARM AS PER LUMINARE SCHEDULE. E3
2. INSTALL MODIFIED TYPE B SERVICE AT APPROX. 383+65, 53' RT. 120/240 VOLT SINGLEW.
EXISTING APPROACH PHASE SERVICE PER STANDARD PLAN J-3b. INSTALL 100 AMP RING TYPE METER BASE PER
'OLYMPIC KENNELS' MASON COUNTY P.U.A #3 COMMERCIAL METER BASE STANDARDS. SERVICE SHALL BE INSTALLED
TYPE B SERVICE ' �/ / ,,, /
/ WITHIN STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY.
383+65, 53'R
�`�`.���•, j f /!.' / 3. JUNCTION BOXES TO BE INSTALLED AT LOCATIONS SHOWN IN JUNCTION BOX SCHEDULE.
\��•,,, � / / �',' / GRAPHIC SCALE ADJUST FINAL LOCATIONS LOCALLY TO AVOID EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. CONDUIT, o
A WIRES, AND CIRCUITS ARE LISTED IN THE CONDUIT AND WIRE SCHEDULE. o �
4. THE SERVICE POINT SHALL BE THE OVERHEAD POWER (EXISTING BY MASON CONTY P.U.D. a o y
#3) ON THE EXISTING POLE AT 383+65, 45' RT. .2
IN FEET
inch- 50 R 5. JUNCTION BOX SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 2DO'. 0� z 3
6. ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE AS PER CURRENT WSDOT STANDARD PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
x ' Y
e` X 7. THE SERVICE CABINET SHALL BE SKYLINE CABINET PER WSDOT STANDARDS.
8. LIGHT FIXTURES SHALL BE G.E. COBRA HEAD HIGHWAY LUMINARIES WITH A 4-BOLT SLIP 0 o
/ x DETAIL FITTER (M-400A-MDLA).
ELECTRICAL PLAN _ _ o m
SCALE: 1" = 50' < W V < S W K
N O U O O
d
Wiz
O O�
d Z3
m 'Ja W3�
Z W
n` rE m w A
Z
at
(L c)) 3
Z N
O
p CL Lj
U2 ~
V)3
�~O ~
m
u)p o�
O r� U�
`
N >
z
I C- Z8
/
027 Gl�'Q• ^M O
TONAL L' N
<
EXPIRES 07 13 03
:� o HWY-8c
SOU
4uGt N
q R
� 1
` 9 rO�0
\ /�vG 9
ll� 9iDp
,.yin ' .O
` 3
/y"' ti
-V 00
y Fs Q
j
-bb
q
1 oa
moo.
0
s
r�
SCALE: 1s = 250'
. i .
� '��• Prepared By. SCALE:1' - 25W Revisions: Prepared for.
I P.R.,Pa DA�O Os-o9_02 JACK & STEVE JOHNSON
NICHAEL F.VYNEK ,•'
oNL ENEK7P a1EcKrD BY: MFW P.O. BOX 1119
I Granite Construction Company DESIGN BY: MFW BELFAIR, WA 98528 I'
1665 NW SHERWOOD DRIVE DRAWN By, MFW
STA IE HIGHWAY 3 BREMERTON, WA. 98311
MASON CMNTY WASMNrTON (360)682-3602 (360)-275-54b0 (fox)-275-84di
SECTION 21, T 23 N, R 1 W, W.M.
C,
epC`R.�ee�00 0, O
op\�A \�/ � 5
n 4 J� // ` 0 O co
I sG fi��` b nCpLJ
4 i > x¢
TYPE 8 SERVICE` FT�Y \ LLJ o i
F`� \ m 383+65, 5YR
ci
w
Le I
61
16
- - -- -- - - - -T' -- -- -- --- - - -
ol
o
STA TE HIGH WAY .>
CONTINUE 12" WATER MAIN I DESIGN & R F RECORD R R NCf
3 3 3
rA � y�CpJ G� EXTENSION TO EXISTING SR-J
TIDEWATER CREEK TO UNION RIVER o o i BELFAIR WATER DISTRICT MAIN
SHEET 7 OF SON COUN77ES
— — r � /.� II ROAD WA Y INFORMA 770N.
vn SPEED LIMIT= 55 MPH (POSTED) w < Wc�
o o scz
W a�
/
O AVERAGE EX. LANE W1D7H = 11.50'` Ek7S77NG NOR77-BOUND LANES - 1 d
w/PASSING LANE(PORTION OF PROD.
1Y`^ p / /� EXISTING SOUTHBOUND LANESIL
= 1
e`� F TAIC DESIGN DATA C � 20
AVERAGE DAILY 7RAFF7C (ADT) = 15,000.
W
DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME(DHV) = 1,885 LL 9!
�► / S�bX ; ET � DE5/pV E TA 60 mph s a;g
ID S
elACCESS CONTROL = CLASS 2 C010R = i
2HIGHWAY CLASS = RURAL PRINCIPAL AR
— — — — — — — — — — — DESIGN
N Ci ROLUN CLASS — 3 a r o m
I/ \ ROUTE TYPE— NHS Z
/ ;/ ; END PROJECT 28 CHANNELIZA 77ON DESIGN:/ —
Q�
MP 27.40 TAPER RATE-= 55:1 NCO 3
DECELERA77ON TAPER LENGTH = 165'
\ i +
STA 38990.76
1 CHANNEL LANE W1D7N = 120' Z N
/ \ CHANNEL TAPER APPLIED TO NB LANE = O
CHANNEL TAPER APPLIED TO SB LANE= W 5.
/ " '" ���{{{..J��� i APPROACH D SIGN.• p
% / ` TYPE= COMMERCIAL f-- m
/ Z
1 VEHICLE = W8-50 O
% Z� UQ
10, ��� DRAINAGE DATA (THIS DATA (THIS SHE T N
a
N0. TTEN ELEVATION a
o
' .
/ GRAPHIC SCALE 023
`��; ' '� GRATE 85.76 N
/ 18' IE 74.76 m o S m ,m foo ONAL ' N a
EXPIRES O�p13 013
09 16' IE 74,00
(IN�' a ry H WY-1 c
. 50 n .o m., ,:tea
r �
r
Iz w r 24 wh
° PROPOSED .I
�j APPROACH
I
"u
IN
/ N Z
\ V 4 IfFRT�iJI
/, IN a F q� o>m. :I
N NO
•o 2 107 h I
< m
r\ -3� ! 56 Kph
V
\?\ C PROPO
as \f � a,� •.
•' N ,� 9 /� ...............................
Q95 p9y !� !/yF low op7,\s.
/•n w I�'�(^cal• �G
IN
y/ I\ IN
\\
IN IN
IN
N ox IN
IN In
, �
S !\ r•}0 tia �Z \ oc® :\ \\ 4 �s3 \r N
IN IN' —I
8 P s )2�l yc^T F+
IN
IN
\ (fyF tQ r xqV
45,A�
I IN IN
IN
IN
A IN
IN
IN
s
IN,
<Q
B
/ \\ ram`.\\ p\ tiok
OP
�
\ ```\ D\ A9
I`\
` \
o \ IN
` \ �.
\�9 ````� \�\
/ r
/ IN,
�„s o
eta
.i W
= SR-3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN Prepared By: SCALE; 1" = 50' Revisions: Prepared for:
E
MP 27.40 TO MP 27.93 I.(a2-10-9a1 REN
DATE: 12-,9-02
MICHAEL F.NINEK,P.E.,PS CHECKED BY: MFW SED PER ws6ot REVIEW couwtNta JACK & STEVE JOHNSON
coHsucnRc am HC/REER I P.O. BOX 1119 CORBIT SITE DESIGN BY: MFW
N STATE HIGHWAY 3 1665 NW SHERWOOD DRIVE DRAWN BY: MFW BELFAIR, WA 98528
BREMERTON, WA. 98311
MASON COUNTY WASHINGTON 1 (360)692-3802
(360)-275-5400 (fox)-275-6400