SLIDE 1 THURSTON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 18, 2017
Land Use Natural Resources Housing Transportation Utilities Economic Development Environment Capital Facilities Health
Mineral Resource Lands: Designation Criteria
SLIDE 2 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.
SLIDE 3 MINERAL RESOURCE LANDS
Project Steps for Mineral Resource Lands
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
Identify priority areas where high quality mineral resources are available and compatible with existing land use patterns and other criteria.
Establish policies that ensure future land uses will be compatible with mineral extraction in designated areas.
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.
Comp Plan Update
SLIDE 4 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
SLIDE 5
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
SLIDE 6
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)
SLIDE 7
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
SLIDE 8
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
SLIDE 9 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.
SLIDE 10 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.”
SLIDE 11 EXISTING DESIGNATION CRITERIA: TC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Minimum Designation Criteria: Chapter 3
Should contain deposits based on USGS maps, DNR permits, or site specific geologic information This information is being provided/updated in the inventory
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)
5 acres
Mineable, recoverable, marketable
Long-term agriculture lands and historic/cultural sites are excluded
Long-term forestry lands may be co-designated
SLIDE 12 EXISTING DESIGNATION CRITERIA: TC CODE (20.30B)
Minimum Designation Criteria: 20.30B TCC Most Criteria are the same as in the Comprehensive Plan EXCEPTION Critical 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.
SLIDE 13 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
SLIDE 14 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
- f 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.
SLIDE 15 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
SLIDE 16
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
SLIDE 17
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
SLIDE 18
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
SLIDE 19
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
SLIDE 20 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
SLIDE 21 Land Use Natural Resources Housing Transportation Utilities Economic Development Environment Capital Facilities Health
Questions?
Staff Contact: Allison Osterberg, Senior Planner
360-754-3355 x7011
