MAYTOWN — Laurie Batten has four days to tell Thurston County officials how she feels about a 300-acre gravel quarry proposed in her backyard.
She doesn't feel good about it.
The Maytown mother of two said she was surprised by a letter from the Thurston County Development Services Department a week ago, telling her she had until April 9 to comment on the plan for a quarry where 2 million tons of sand and gravel a year would be excavated during peak production.
"It has come up so fast," said Batten, a payroll technician at the Tenino School District. "When you give someone 10 days — I don't have time to try to organize the community, when people don't know anything about it."
Most of what residents on Tilley and Maytown roads near Millersylvania State Park do know, they learned from the same notice Batten received, a "mitigated determination of nonsignificance" for the project, signed by Thurston County Associate Planner Tony Kantas on March 26.
Kantas sent the notice to 98 property owners that day — everyone who owns land within 2,600 feet of the proposed gravel mine, he said.
The notice tells residents the county planners found the project "does not have a probable significant adverse impact upon the environment" if certain conditions are met. Most significantly, the mining must be kept several hundred feet away from wetlands on the property.
The project, proposed by the North Bend-based corporation Allen and Co., calls for the removal of 22 million cubic yards of gravel over 20 years, and would leave behind eight lakes, ranging from five to 49 acres wide, in the excavation pits.
Up to 100,000 tons of asphalt and concrete would be recycled each year at the site: the grinder would be about 1,000 feet from Batten's house, she said.
At 300 acres, the mine would be the same size as what is now the second-biggest of Thurston County's 41 mines.
Batten, who has lived in her Maytown-area home for the past 12 years, said she fears it could destroy the quiet, rural life she chose for her family.
The mine is expected to generate a noise level of 58 decibels at her house, she said.
"Sixty decibels is a normal conversation, so to have a conversation standing outside, I'm going to have to raise my voice," Batten said.
Batten and her husband, Todd Batten, a maintenance worker at the Tenino School District, built their home themselves. On the 8 acres surrounding it, their two teenage children raise pigs, goats, sheep and cattle.
"I love my home and our location. We raised our children out there, we have farm animals, we love to see the wildlife around, and these people are threatening to take all that away," she said. "I don't even know that it's going to be healthy for them to be outside because of that fine silty dust from the gravel pit."
According to Kantas, the project would also mean more than 300 trucks would come and go from the mine each day during peak months, and more trains would use the rail line through Maytown, stopping at the quarry.
The truck traffic was a concern for the Battens, as was a potential drain on the water supply, because the mining will be done below the water table. The Battens, like their neighbors, rely on well water: There is no city water available in the area.
Kantas said the company and the county had reviewed potential effects, and had addressed such concerns.
The mining company will have to monitor water levels continuously, Kantas said.
"They've anticipated there's not going to be any impact (on nearby wells)," the planner said. "If it's found that there is, they would have to stop and somehow figure out what's wrong."
The mine operators would also have to use dust-control measures, which would mean "watering everything down," Kantas said, and "they have to maintain existing vegetation along property lines to mitigate for any noise impacts."
The head of Allen and Co., J.M. Allen, has asked his employees and attorney to refer all calls about the proposal to him, his attorney said Monday.
When reached by cellular telephone, Allen said he was traveling and could not comment on the mining project until next week. The public comment period will have elapsed by then.
Anyone who wants to appeal the "determination of nonsignificance" may only do so if he or she has submitted a comment during the two-week period ending Friday.
Batten is not the only one working on comments for the county. Other government agencies and environmental groups are also preparing to submit their responses to the county's announcement, which they agreed came suddenly, although the application was first submitted in September 2002.
The project was put on hold then because of hazardous materials on part of the property, byproducts from a World War II-era munitions manufacturing plant, Pacific Powder.
Now that the toxic waste is partially cleaned up, the project has been given the green light, Kantas said.
The mine will be on the part of the property where officials are sure there is no more hazardous waste, said Gary Duvall, senior environmental health specialist with the county health department.
"There's an ongoing hazardous material investigation at that site. The county's position in the beginning was we wanted to see a 'no further action' (determination, meaning the site was completely clean) from (the state Department of) Ecology before we'd move forward," Duvall said.
"Now we've decided to have a phased approach and allow them to mine a portion of the property while there's still an investigation on another portion of the property," Duvall went on.
It is the pristine parts of the property about which other groups are concerned. The site includes prairie grasslands, oak woodlands, and wetlands judged "Class 1" or critical — three habitats Nature Conservancy representative Patrick Dunn called "some of the rarest in Western Washington."
"We have a variety of species that depend on them," Dunn said. "This property contains significant quality and quantity of those habitats."
Bald eagles, bull trout and coho salmon are some of the species that live on the land managed by Allen and Co.
Biologists are particularly concerned about another inhabitant, the Oregon spotted frog, listed as a state endangered species, that could be affected by projected changes in water levels.
"We're looking at that because they're so susceptible to habitat change," said Debbie Carnevali, area habitat biologist for the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. "If there's a drop in the water level, their eggs can dry out and it can have an adverse effect on an already endangered species."
The Allen and Co. proposal puts forth several different scenarios for how the mining could affect water levels in the adjacent wetlands, Carnevali said.
"According to one, there would be about a 1-foot drop in the wetlands. I'm looking at that to see if there will be sufficient monitoring," said the habitat biologist.
The proposed mine site, which includes areas of Mima mounds, is also home to some rare butterflies, which feed on the prairie vegetation that grows in well-drained soil — soil full of gravel, Carnevali said.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has the same time schedule as the general public to submit a review of the proposal, Carnevali said.
"This is pretty typical that when you get a determination, you have 14 days to respond," she said.
Although Carnevali was familiar with the proposal, she said, "I didn't know the mitigated DNS was going to come out this soon."
"I've already alerted the county that I will have some comments," she added.
A representative for the Black Hills Audubon Society, Sue Danver, said Monday that the group is also preparing comments.
"There are water concerns in the wetlands," Danver said.
Kantas said he has heard from three neighbors of the project site so far, but none had submitted formal comments as of Monday.
A public hearing on the special use permit that would allow mining on the property will be held April 27; the county will accept public comments on the permit up to that date, and people may submit written or verbal comments formally at the hearing, Kantas said.
No public hearings were held on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance, and an environmental impact statement was not required because the county found the project would have no significant environmental impact, Kantas said.
If the nonsignificance finding is appealed, the April 27 permit hearing will be rescheduled, Kantas said. If it is not appealed, the hearings examiner will make a final decision on the project by May 11.
Jennifer Latson covers rural Lewis County, South Thurston County and East Grays Harbor County for The Chronicle. She may be reached at 807-8245, or by e-mail at jlatson@chronline.com.
