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:
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."
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)."
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:
during mining operations could cause erosion, sedimentation and increased turbidity to downstream water bodies, including wetlands."
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."
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:
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."
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:
surrounding area, in addition to proximity to the Gold Bar UGA, could be
incompatible with mining activities."
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."
natural/scenic amenities and resource based industries."
considerations in designation."
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."
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."
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:
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."
precondition for development. This could include improvements that would
be required to fix an existing problem or those associated with a project deficiency."
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:
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