GOLD BAR'S RESPONSE TO GRAVEL EIS 

 

  

January 14, 2002

Mr. Tom Niemann, Principal Planner
Snohomish County Department of Planning and Development Services
300 Rockefeller Avenue, M/S 604
Everett, WA. 98201-4046


RE: Snohomish County Mineral Lands Designation Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Niemann:

The City of Gold Bar was incorporated in 1910 and is located 28 miles east of Everett, WA. Gold Bar is nestled within the scenic foothills of the Cascade Mountain Range and has a population of 2,028.

State Route-2 is the major highway linking the City with outside communities. This highway is designated a State Scenic Route and borders the southerly boundary of the Incorporated City Limits. May Creek Road is a designated City Arterial and is located within the northerly portion of the City. First Avenue is located within the westerly portion of the City Limits and is the only connection road between SR-2 and May Creek Road. The additional City roadway system is on a grid system.

Three major waterways are located within Incorporated Gold Bar. These waterways are the Skykomish River, Wallace River and May Creek. The Department of Ecology approved the City of Gold Bar Shoreline Master Program on November 7, 2001. The Shoreline Management Act of 1971 covers all shorelines of the state, including "shorelines" and "shorelines of state-wide significance" (SSWS). Provisions of the Act apply to the shorelines, streambeds and water of streams and rivers with a mean annual flow equal to or greater than 20 cubic feet per second or more. All three of the above-indicated waterways meet this criterion. Wetlands within hydraulic continuity and the floodplains of these three water bodies also fall under the Act.

Year around recreation located within a close proximity to the City includes snow skiing, hiking, fishing, hunting, river rafting, sightseeing and bird watching. Wallace Falls State Park has thousands of visitors each year and is located approximately 4 trail miles from the Incorporated City Limits.

The City of Gold Bar would like to submit the following comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) for the Mineral Lands designation:

GROUNDWATER

Supplemental EIS Statement:

    1. (pg. 51) "The quality of groundwater in an area is related to a number of factors, including the amount of unsaturated zone infiltration and direct saturated recharge to groundwater, the storage capacity of each geologic soil unit or bedrock unit, and the volume of individual aquifer units beneath the surface. Groundwater in an aquifer may receive recharge from or discharge into other adjacent aquifers. Consistent information is not available in all areas, so this discussion is qualitative."

2. (pg. 51) "Few data are available on a countywide basis regarding

groundwater quality sufficient to support comparisons of conditions between

basins or different impacts from alternatives."

3. (pg. 51) "Human factors that can influence groundwater quality conditions

include releases of substances such as petroleum products of fertilizers that

can be carried to the aquifer by infiltrating waters."

    1. (pg. 53) "In general none of the alternatives fully recognize potential impacts to groundwater."
    2. (pg. 53) "It should be noted that mining activity (under any designation
    3. category) has a significant potential for affection natural groundwater conditions (discharges to surface water, storage, movement, quality, and changing watershed boundaries), and existing groundwater availability (use by nearby residential, industrial, or municipal users and groundwater permit holders)."

    4. (pg. 55) "The three alternatives do not address potential groundwater impacts. Future mining activity could significantly impact groundwater movement, quantity, and quality unless environmental review of the project level addresses these issues."

7. (pg. 55) "Under any of the alternatives, future mineral extraction could

impact groundwater movement, quality and quantity."

 

 

 

 

 

City of Gold Bar Response:

The City is located within Mineral Resource Analysis Region 6. A total of 4,670

acres of land is designated for sand, gravel or bedrock extraction. A large portion

of the subject land is within close proximity to the City Limits or the Boundary

Reserve Area. These lands are located within the Skykomish Watershed and

the Wallace River Watershed.

The City of Gold Bar utilizes 4 well sites to provide potable drinking water to

persons residing or visiting within its water system boundary area. These wells

vary in depth between 28 feet and 680 feet. The City does hold Department of

Ecology issued "Water Rights" for the 4 well sites. The well sites rely upon

groundwater for recharge, quantity and quality.

The DSEIS makes numerous references to the potential negative impacts mineral extraction can have to groundwater recharge, quantity and quality. The document does not indicate how these impacts will be addressed, except that they are to be handled on a project level. Because of the enormous area to be impacted by the potential mineral extraction these impacts need to be addressed on a regional basis, in the DSEIS, in addition to site specific impacts at the project level. Permitting review at a project level is site specific and does not consider the total accumulative impacts to groundwater and its watersheds.

Will the removal of timber and overburden, to get down to bedrock, effect

groundwater recharge? Will the fracturing of rock in blasting zones

effect groundwater and aquifers? Impacts to groundwater, created by the

mining of minerals, will have a direct impact to future water rights that possibly could be issued to the City. The DSEIS needs to address those potential impacts.

The overall rating of the Skykomish River Watershed is identified as <1 percent

low Sensitivity, 13 percent intermediate sensitivity, and 86 percent is high

sensitivity (pg. D-11). The DSEIS does not identify the Wallace River Watershed. The Wallace River Watershed needs to be addressed in the DSEIS.

 

 

SURFACEWATER

Supplemental ESI Statement:

    1. (pg. 54) "On the designated mineral lands, vegetation and soil disturbances
    2. during mining operations could cause erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity to downstream water bodies, including wetlands."

    3. (pg. 54) "Increased sediment loads in downstream water bodies could also
    4. lead to an increase in nutrients and other contaminants associated with the eroded sediment. In addition, mining could result in runoff with elevated levels of contaminants, including suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals and toxic organics from mining machinery."

    5. (pg. 55) "Erosion, sedimentation and pollution could negatively affect water

resources within or downstream of mineral lands."

City of Gold Bar Response:

Olney Creek and its related watershed are located within Mineral Resource

Analysis Region 6. The City has Department of Ecology issued water rights

to utilize the Olney Creek resource. Impacts to surfacewater, created by the

mining of minerals, will have a direct impact to future water rights that possibly could be issued to the City. The DSEIS needs to address those potential impacts.

Will the removal of minerals from such a vast area change the watercourse of

existing streams and rivers? Because of the large area to be mined, are existing regulations sufficient to prevent erosion and silt from entering waterways? What impacts will the removal of groundcover, during extraction procedures, have on downstream flooding?

Because of the large amount of land designated for mineral extraction,

surfacewater impacts must be addressed on a regional basis, in the DSEIS, in addition to site specific impacts at the project level. Permitting review at a project level is site specific and does not consider the total accumulative impacts to surfacewater and its watersheds.

PLANTS & ANIMALS

Supplemental EIS Statement:

    1. (pg. 58) "All of Western Washington is part of the Pacific Coast conifer forest which extends from the Gulf of Alaska to the Mendocino County coast of California. On a regional scale, the natural landscape has been described in terms of broad vegetation patterns called vegetation zones by Franklin and Dryness (1988). In Western Washington and Oregon, these zones tend to be related to altitude. Snohomish County is located in the western hemlock zone, which includes the majority of the Puget Lowlands and is the most extensive zone west of the Cascades."
    2. (pg. 58) "Wildlife habitat in Snohomish County has been reduced in and
    3. adjacent to urban and suburban areas. Increasing rates of development in the past two decades have accelerated habitat decline. However, important wildlife habitat exists where relatively undisturbed tracts of land remain in native vegetation. High quality habitat usually is generally associated with steep slopes (where trees and vegetation are usually retained), rivers, streams and accompanying riparian corridors, wetlands, and open space set aside for recreational use."

    4. (pg. 58) "Snohomish County supports diverse and abundant wildlife."
    5. (pg. 58) "Rivers and streams in the county provide spawning habitat for populations of anadromous fish. Approximately 50 percent of the fish populations are reported to be healthy, but 30 percent are considered to be depressed. Chinook salmon and bull trout/Dolly Varden are currently listed as federally threatened species. The status and occurrence of bull trout/Dolly Varden populations in Puget Sound are subject to some scientific debate. However, Bull trout/Dolly Varden are known to occur in waters of Snohomish County (Pentec, 2000). Other anadromous and resident fish populations have been affected by reduced shading, increased siltation and pollutants, and fragmentation of stream and river habitat caused by increased urbanization of the county."

5. (pg. 59) "Threatened, endangered, sensitive, or priority species that are

expected to live and/or breed within the study area include the Colombian

black-tailed deer, Townsend’s big-eared bat, peregrine falcons, marble

murrelets, band-tailed pigeons, blue grouse, the Western pond turtle and

Columbia spotted frog. Other listed animal species observed and documented

within the study area include bald eagles, golden eagles, wood ducks,

great blue herons, harlequin ducks, and pileated woodpeckers."

City of Gold Bar Response:

The Supplemental DSEIS states "Increasing rates of development in the past

two decades have accelerated habitat decline." Would not the removal of such a

large quantity of trees and soil reduce natural habitat for animals and increase water temperature in fish bearing rivers and streams? The removal of such a quantity of soil has the potential of causing enormous runoff and waterway contamination.

Because of the large amount of land designated for mineral extraction,

Impacts to plants & animals must be addressed on a regional basis, in the DSEIS, in addition to site specific impacts at the project level. Permitting review at a project level is site specific and does not consider the total accumulative impacts to plants & animals.

LAND USE:

Supplemental EIS Statement:

    1. (pg. F-22) "The presence of residential development within the site and
    2. surrounding area, in addition to proximity to the Gold Bar UGA, could be

      incompatible with mining activities."

    3. (pg. F-23) "The Gold Bar and Sultan areas could be susceptible to cumulative impact resulting from a concentration of mineral extraction operations in the deposit areas closest to the UGA’s."

City of Gold Bar Response:

A portion of the land proposed to be designated Mineral Lands is within close

proximity to the existing City boundaries or the City designated UGA. Mineral

Lands are best compatible when surrounded by low density zoning (pg. 16). A

large portion of the City incorporated area and the City UGA is zoned R-9600.

Identifying land for mineral extraction adjacent to high density zoning is poor

planning. A larger distance needs to be incorporated between mining activities

and the City of Gold Bar. This would allow for a gradual decrease in density

through zoning, providing compatible land use between housing and mineral

extraction.

Snohomish County Council signed the 1997 Snohomish County Growth Management Act Comprehensive Plan: "Gold Bar Urban Growth Area Subarea Plan" on June 2, 1997. This document is the product of a collaborative

planning process between the City of Gold Bar and Snohomish County. It

establishes revised Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries for the City of Gold

Bar and refines the land uses in the unincorporated area, inside and outside the

UGA. It appears that some of the proposed mineral lands encroach within areas

identified in the Urban Growth Subarea Plan. Believing the plan to be of a joint

venture the City needs a voice to any changes to the Plan.

Because of the large amount of land designated for mineral extraction,

Land Use Impacts must be addressed on a regional basis, in the DSEIS, in addition to site specific impacts at the project level. Permitting review at a project level is site specific and does not consider the total accumulative impacts to Land Use.

AESTHETICS

Supplemental EIS Statement:

1. (pg. 86) "Several factors contribute to the County’s existing visual character -

major natural features such as Puget Sound and the Cascade Mountains,

topography, vegetation and manmade features."

    1. (pg. 86) "The visual character of these communities is strongly influenced by
    2. natural/scenic amenities and resource based industries."

    3. (pg. 88) "None of the alternatives specifically or directly include aesthetic
    4. considerations in designation."

    5. (pg. 89) "On a cumulative basis, designation and conservation of mineral
    6. lands would not have any adverse impacts on the visual quality of the surrounding area. Mining activity, however, could have negative impacts on the visual quality of the area."

    7. (pg. 89) "Under any of the alternatives, mining could result in a changed in
    8. views resulting from vegetation clearing, exposed rock, gravel and soils and alteration of the local topography. These impacts would be present for the duration of mining activity."

    9. (pg. 89) "The designation alternatives do not directly consider aesthetic factors, such as views. In general, such impacts are site specific and will depend on topography, vegetation, orientation, along with individual perceptions and other subjective considerations."

7. (pg. G-3) "Under any of the alternatives, active mineral extraction activities

in a majority of the prospect areas could negatively impact the existing rural

and/or small town character of the particular area. However, it should be

noted that mining is a typical rural use and could be considered part of the

rural aesthetic. The potential for greatest impact may, therefore, occur near

urban and/or public recreation areas. Three of the cities, Granite Falls, Gold

Bar, and Monroe, have relatively large prospect areas designated in close

proximity or within their UGA, leading to the greatest potential for significant

impacts."

City of Gold Bar Response:

The City of Gold Bar is surrounded by timberland, scenic waterways, and the

Cascade Mountain range. Highway SR-2, the only major highway located in the

City is designated as a Scenic Highway.

When the timber industry cuts trees, reforestation measure provide for future

harvesting of this resource. Although tree harvesting is unsightly to begin with, trees are planted and once again you have a natural looking landscape. Mineral extraction is completely different than tree removal. Once the rock is excavated you end up with a big unsightly hole in the ground. Because of the large area designated for mineral extraction both the residence of the City and people traveling SR-2 would be greatly impacted by this unsightly mining activity.

The city requests that mining activity take place in areas that do not visually impact its citizens or the travelers utilizing SR-2. Is it possible that this can be accomplished by mining only the backside, away from sight, this resource?

Could a phased restoration requirement be included in the DSEIS to provide covering of exposed rock during mining activity?

Wallace Falls is a State Park. The DSEIS and accompanying maps indicate that

mining activities will take place within a close proximity to Wallace Fall. This

State Park should not be designated for mineral extraction.

Because of the large amount of land designated for mineral extraction,

aesthetics impacts must be addressed on a regional basis, in the DSEIS, in addition to site specific impacts at the project level. Permitting review at a project level is site specific and does not consider the total accumulative impacts to aesthetics.

TRANSPORTATION

Supplemental EIS Statement:

    1. (pg. 22) "Based on the evaluation of impacts in this EIS, safety and traffic
    2. congestion impacts, which have a broad community-wide effect, could be

      relevant designation criteria. Trucks are often considered to have a higher impact on safety because of their size, weight and operational limitations. Congestion has an impact on all vehicular traffic and operations are desired because the transportation network is regarded as the basis for the mobility of goods and services. Rail transport, instead of trucks, could also be considered."

    3. (pg. 22) "Specific mitigation or improvements could be required as a
    4. precondition for development. This could include improvements that would

      be required to fix an existing problem or those associated with a project deficiency."

    5. (pg. 90) "Access to/from the potential mineral resource lands would primarily involve travel on the existing state highway and Snohomish County arterial system. (See Figure 9) Collector and local access roads would be used between mineral resource sites and the arterial/highway system and between the arterial/highway system and the ultimate destination for mineral products."

City of Gold Bar Response:

The DSEIS indicates that Region 6 (Sultan, Gold Bar, and SR-2) have moderate levels of congestion, and are falling into the LOS D and LOS E range. This results in a high impact rating for these regions. (pg. 98) Figure 10 indicates that the LOS within Gold Bar is an A. Figure 10 needs to indicate the proper LOS within this region.

The City of Gold Bar streets are not designed nor constructed for heavy truck traffic. To utilize these streets for heavy truck traffic would be counter productive

in providing safe vehicle passage throughout the City.

The City of Gold Bar is participating in and supports the coalition of Skykomish Valley Cities that seek further dialogue with Snohomish County on this process. At this time, the cities include Sultan, Gold Bar, Index, Granite Falls, and Monroe. It is the City of Gold Bar position that the DSEIS should be withdrawn and a phased analysis of the safety and traffic congestion impacts associated with mining activity and transport should be prepared prior to re-issuance of the SDEIS.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW:

The chart on page 43 of the DSEIS suggests category 1 mining proposal could require administrative review only. Administrative review is not sufficient for projects of this magnitude. As a minimum a conditional use review should be required for all mining proposals to ensure environmental issues are properly addressed and to provide adequate notice and opportunity to comment for citizens and affected agencies.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS:

  1. The City of Gold Bar requests that the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement be withdrawn pending preparation of a phased analysis of transportation and land use impacts associated with mineral activities. In the alternative, an addendum should be prepared and issued for public and agency comment prior to issuance of a Final EIS.
  2. Due to potentially critical impacts on water resources, flood hazards and conflict with future urban development, the City requests that land located within the watershed areas of May Creek, Olney Creek and Wallace River not be included in land designated for future mining activity.

3. Consider requiring mining activity to occur in areas that will minimize the visual impact from SR-2, a state designated scenic rout, and the City of Gold Bar.

Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Public Works Director John Light at (360) 793-1101 or myself.

Sincerely,

Kenneth O. Foster

Mayor

City of Gold Bar

Cc: City Council

Planning Commission

Phil Olbrechts / City Attorney