THURSTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATEPLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2017

Land

Use

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

Hou

sing

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Util

ities

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Envi

ronm

ent

Cap

ital F

acili

ties

Hea

lth

Mineral Resource Lands:Designation Criteria

OVERVIEW

Mineral Lands Recap

Designation Criteria – Options for Discussion

Review of Draft Maps Showing Potential Criteria

Next Steps

Staff are requesting a recommendation from the Planning Commission on the scope of the Mineral Lands Designation Criteria.

MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS

Project Steps for Mineral Resource Lands1. Identify and classify Develop a countywide inventory based on geologic data on the location and

extent of mineral deposits, existing land uses, and other factors. These areas are categorized based on their quality, using available data from DNR, USGS, and others

2. Designate

Identify priority areas where high quality mineral resources are available and compatible with existing land use patterns and other criteria.

3. Conserve Establish policies that ensure future land uses will be compatible with mineral extraction in designated areas.

4. Permit New mining operations planned in areas designated as mineral resource lands will still need to be reviewed before they are permitted to operate. Mining activities must abide by all relevant state and local regulations, including environmental rules.

Com

p Plan Update

MINERAL LANDS RECAP

Memo #2 – Response to PC Questions from June 21st Meeting

Current process for Mineral Resource Land Designation (Legislative BoCC) vs past process (Hearing Examiner)

Existing mining operations

32 active mines

Only 1 since criteria was changed

Overlay vs Zoning District

Most counties use an overlay district, similar to Thurston County

Recommendations of Mineral Lands Task Force

PC also requested to see draft maps of existing and potential criteria

RECOMMENDATIONS OF MRL TASK FORCE (JULY 2004)

Recommendation Votes Did County incorporate?

A-1 Mine locations should not be confined to a certain area of the county, and may be located throughout the county given certain criteria.

Unanimous Yes

A-2 New special use permits for mineral extraction are prohibited outside designated lands.

Majority in favor, 1 vote to allow small mines of limited duration outside designation.

Yes

A-3 Sand and gravel mines currently designated shall remain designated.

Unanimous Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS OF MRL TASK FORCE (JULY 2004)

Recommendation Votes Did County incorporate?

B-1 The county must map the location of high quality gravel in Thurston County.

Unanimous Not until now.

B-2 Based on mapped gravel and application of designation criteria, the County should eventually map all mineral lands of LTCS.

Unanimous Not until now.

B-3 The BoCC, not the Hearing Examiner, should designation MRL of LTCS through an annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process.

Majority in favor, 1 member wanted to restrict updates to periodic update cycle (7 years).

Yes

B-4 Designation should be two-pronged: (1) County designated areas and (2) owner-applicant.

Majority in favor Yes (County has not really done prong #1 until now)

RECOMMENDATIONS OF MRL TASK FORCE (JULY 2004)

Recommendation Votes Did County incorporate?

B-5 Should not be a “cap” on the amount of designated mineral lands.

6 in favor; 4 with reservations

Yes

B-6 Forest lands may be co-designated, provided there is no net loss of forest lands.

Unanimous Forest lands currently are co-designed. Net loss of forest lands is not a consideration.

B-7 Agricultural lands may not be co-designated. Unanimous Yes

B-8 Mineral lands may contain Class 3 and 4 wetlands, but not Class 1 and 2 and their buffers.

7 in favor; 4 alternatives Yes, development code

B-9 Mineral lands may not be located within 100-year floodplains

Unanimous Yes, development code

B-10 Exclude parks, etc, with 1,000 ft buffer 9 votes; 3 thought buffer should be site specific

Yes

RECOMMENDATIONS OF MRL TASK FORCE (JULY 2004)

Recommendation Votes Did County incorporate?

B-11 The 1990 $-value criteria should be eliminated Unanimous Yes

B-12 Exclude historic sites. Unanimous Yes

B-13 Mineral lands only allowed in zoning districts with max density of 1/5 acres

Unanimous No

At least 60% of area within 1,000 ft should be minimum 5 acres in size

10 in favor; 1 alternative Yes

500-ft separation from any zoning district that has a higher density of 1/5

9 in favor; 2 against No

B-14 Minimum size is 5 acres and minimum width of 500 sq ft

Unanimous Yes, acreage, but not min width

RECOMMENDATIONS OF MRL TASK FORCE (JULY 2004)

Recommendation Votes Did County incorporate?

B-15 Mineral Lands may include important habitats and species. Impacts to be evaluated at the permitting stage.

Divided Development code excludes primary habitats for endangered and threatened species

B-16 Mineral lands may include wellhead protection areas, critical aquifers and other critical areas. Impacts to be evaluated at the permitting stage.

10 in favor; 2 opposed Development code excludes Zone 1 and Zone 1 time of travel boundaries and geologic hazard areas.

CLASSIFICATION & DESIGNATION FACTORS: MINIMUM GUIDELINES

Geology: depth and quality of resource and characteristics of resource site

Projected life of the resource

Resource availability and needs in the region

Accessibility and proximity to point of use or market

Energy costs of transporting materials

Proximity to population areas

General land use patterns

Availability of utilities, including water supply

Surrounding parcel sizes and uses

Availability of public roads and public services

Subdivision and zoning of small lots

“Counties and cities must designate known mineral deposits so that access to mineral resources of long-term commercial significance is not knowingly precluded. Priority land use for mineral extraction should be retained for all designated mineral resource lands.”

- 365-190-070 WAC

EXISTING DESIGNATION CRITERIA: TC COMPREHENSIVE PLANMinimum Designation Criteria: Chapter 3

1. Mineral Deposits Should contain deposits based on USGS maps, DNR permits, or site specific geologic information

This information is being provided/updated in the inventory

2. Location Not adversely impact nearby land uses, public health or safety

1,000 ft from • public preserves, • urban growth areas (UGAs)• residential areas with existing densities > 1/5

60% of area within 1,000 ft of a proposed site must have parcels of 5 acres or larger (excludes applicant)

3. Minimum Site Size 5 acres

4. Marketability Mineable, recoverable, marketable

5. LTA and Historic Long-term agriculture lands and historic/cultural sites are excluded

6. LTF Long-term forestry lands may be co-designated

EXISTING DESIGNATION CRITERIA: TC CODE (20.30B)Minimum Designation Criteria: 20.30B TCC

Most Criteria are the same as in the Comprehensive Plan

EXCEPTIONCritical Areas

• Site does not contain the following critical areas: Zone 1 or Zone 2 areas for Group A public water systems, Class 1 or 2 wetlands or their buffers, FEMA 100-year floodplains, habitat areas for threatened or endangered species or their buffers

• Site is located away from geologically hazardous areas (steep slopes)

A full critical area review is done at the time of application.

DESIGNATION: ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

Jurisdiction

Land Use Factors

Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses

Sensitive Land Uses

Aesthetics

Transportation

Environmental Factors

Critical Areas

Shorelines

Habitat

Designation Stage

Permitting Stage

DESIGNATION: KEEP IN MIND

WAC 365-190-040: Overlapping designations. The designation process may result in critical area designations that overlay other critical area or natural resource land classifications. Overlapping designations should not necessarily be considered inconsistent. If two or more critical area designations apply to a given parcel, or portion of a given parcel, both or all designations apply.

If a critical area designation overlies a natural resource land designation, both designations apply. For counties and cities required or opting to plan under the act, reconciling these multiple designations will be the subject of local development regulations.

If two or more natural resource land designations apply, counties and cities must determine if these designations are incompatible. If they are incompatible, counties and cities should examine the criteria to determine which use has the greatest long-term commercial significance, and that resource use should be assigned to the lands being designated.

WAC 365-190-070 (4)(d): In designating mineral resource lands, counties and cities must also consider that mining may be a temporary use at any given mine, depending on the amount of minerals available and the consumption rate, and that other land uses can occur on the mine site after mining is completed, subject to approval.

DESIGNATION CRITERIA: JURISDICTION

Not included in current, site-by-site designation process

Propose to exclude:

Cities

Tribal Lands

MOST Federal Lands JBLM

NOT National Forest

SOME State Lands Parks and Preserves

NOT Capitol Forest

DESIGNATION CRITERIA: SURROUNDING USES

Generally excludes areas where land use pattern is < 5 acres

Mason County = 25 acres

Whatcom County = 20 acres

Skagit, Snohomish County = 10 acres

Exclude historic sites by parcel? Currently, no buffer

DESIGNATION CRITERIA: RESOURCE LANDS

GMA rules indicate that when resource lands overlap, both can apply If there is a conflict, GMA rules direct to conserve the one with the greatest economic

value.

Existing criteria permits co-designation with Long Term Forestry

Existing criteria excludes Long Term Agriculture See Map 1 and Map 2

Excluding Agricultural Lands may require an economic analysis

Include in record evidence that Mineral Uses incompatible with preservation of Agricultural soils

DESIGNATION CRITERIA: CRITICAL AREAS

Existing Code (NOT Comprehensive Plan) excludes some critical areas, for use at the site scale

See Maps 3, 4, 5a & 5b for overlap with floodplains, CARA, landslide hazard areas, ESA habitat

Options:

Include Best Available Science in record to exclude from designation

Allow dual designation, and rely on CAO protections at the site-specific permitting stage

DESIGNATION CRITERIA: OTHER

Transportation Congested areas

Distance/travel time to urban areas (ex.: 2-hour drive to point of use)

Transportation criteria not extensively used, hard to implement

Aesthetics

Define specific viewsheds or scenic areas to exclude from mineral use

Not used in other counties

NEXT STEPS

Planning Commission November 1 – Continue Criteria Discussion

November 15 – Recommendation Requested

MRL Designation Scope Options

1. Broad approach

2. Narrow approach

3. Blended – which criteria to include at which stage?

Designation Stage

Permitting Stage

Land

Use

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es

Hou

sing

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Util

ities

Econ

omic

Dev

elop

men

t

Envi

ronm

ent

Cap

ital F

acili

ties

Hea

lth

Questions?

Staff Contact:

Allison Osterberg, Senior Plannerosterba@co.thurston.wa.us360-754-3355 x7011