Jefferson County commissioners Wednesday expressed serious reservations, if not outright opposition, to the controversial pit-to-pier gravel-mining project proposed on Hood Canal.

Despite those reservations, the commissioners went ahead and approved a measure designating 690 acres of land where Fred Hill Materials hopes to extract gravel for the project as "mineral resource lands."

Opponents of the pit-to-pier project, including John Fabian of Hood Canal Coalition, said the land-use designation is a foot in the door for the project, which includes a 4-mile conveyor belt and a 1,000-foot pier on Hood Canal for mooring gravel barges.

But the county commissioners said they were compelled to approve the mineral resource designation, which protects the land for mineral extraction, by the state's Growth Management Act and the county's comprehensive plan.

The commissioners insisted that the land-use designation will not determine whether gravel continues to be transported by truck or is ultimately moved by barge on Hood Canal, as Fred Hill Materials has proposed.

"In my mind, the mineral overlay is a line on the map," said Commissioner Glen Huntingford, adding that the pit-to-pier project must undergo extensive environmental review.

"How do we let the public know that we see them as two separate projects and that the other will live or die by its own merits? How do we get that message out?"

In the end, the county commissioners wrote their concerns into the land-use ordinance, essentially questioning whether the pit-to-pier project could ever meet county standards for protecting private property; avoiding dust, noise and visual impacts; ensuring the safety of the Hood Canal floating of the Hood Canal floating bridge; and protecting the environment.

Language originally presented by Huntingford stated, "The Board of County Commissioners has the initial impression that the pier facility ... does not meet all of the 12 approval criteria." Deputy prosecutor David Alvarez suggested changing "does not meet" to "may not meet" to allow Fred Hill Materials room to prove its case.

Huntingford said he wanted to send a message to the county hearing examiner, who will review the pit-to-pier proposal.

"What this does for me, at least, it raises issues on behalf of the citizens," he said. "I think they are legitimate concerns."

Under Jefferson County land-use rules, the county commissioners have no direct decision-making authority for specific projects. The hearing examiner bases his rulings on development regulations and other rules. Appeals go directly to state courts.

Wednesday's decision to designate 690 acres as "mineral resource lands" followed a similar decision by the commissioners last year. An appeal of that decision resulted in a finding by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board that the county commissioners had not adequately reviewed the environmental impacts.

Following further environmental review, more than 250 people turned out for a recent hearing, where many argued against the pit-to-pier project and urged the commissioners to reject the land-use change.

But the commissioners said state law requires them to "protect" high-quality natural resources, including gravel.

"It's clear to me that this is what we are supposed to do," Commissioner Dan Titterness said.

The commissioners' written findings say, "The state Legislature fully understood that resource extraction industries, particularly mining or excavating, would never be a popular 'neighbor,' and thus the Legislature made it clear that resource industries are to be protected from incompatible development such as homes, and not vice-versa."

On the ground, the new land-use designation allows for 40 acres to be actively mined at one time instead of 10 acres. Because of side slopes, that extra area also allows deeper extraction.

Fabian said he was pleased that the commissioners offered their reservations about the pit-to-pier project, but he liked the original wording, that the project "does not meet" county standards.

He complained that the county still failed to address the pit-to-pier project, as called for by the growth hearings board. And he said the county seemed to miss the hearing board's finding that mineral resources are already protected under the existing "commercial forest" designation.

Dan Baskins, representing Fred Hill Materials, said the commissioners had no choice under the law but to do what they did, yet it was satisfying to see that they did the right thing, considering how "politicized" the issue has become.

As for the commissioners' reservations about the pit-to-pier project, Baskins said it was good to get the issues out on the table so everyone understands that the project must meet the highest environmental and safety standards.

"Sometimes, stating the obvious helps the public and the process," he said.

Reach Christopher Dunagan at (360) 792-9207 or at cdunagan@thesunlink.com.

THIS STEP

The "mineral resource lands" designation:

• "Protects" the land for gravel mining, according to the county commissioners.

• Puts neighboring property owners on notice of ongoing mining activities.

• Allows for 40 acres to be mined at one time instead of 10 acres.

• May be considered a moral victory for the pit-to-pier project, although the county commissioners say it's a separate issue.

NEXT STEPS

• New environmental review for "mineral resource lands" must be approved by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board.

• Pit-to-pier planning process is expected to begin this fall when environmental review begins.

• County, state and federal agencies must review a raft of permit applications, all with public comment.